Qantas considering ultra-long range Airbus A350-900ULR

"..but having both is like having the a320 and 737, it doesn't work in Australia."

I agree it'll be financially tough for QF to operate both 77X and 350.  Even in the most grand scheme conjured up by AJ, QF won't hv many ultra-long routes(i.e. well beyond 16hrs) to justify a large fleet of flying gas tanks like EK & QR can.  Splitting such small fleet(I'm guessing no more than 8-10 frames to sustain 3 daily frequencies/routes) into 2 types will deliver very poor econ of scale.

I disagree the challenge of having both a320 and 737 is a good analogy for the challenge of having both 77x and 350.  1st of all, dual narrowbody type fleet actually worked in Australia especially for QF Group....QF has 737 while JQ has 320.  2ndly, once the fleet size of a narrowbody type hit certain minimum level(About 50-60 frames by my estimate), bargaining power toward multiple manufacturers start to neutralize any additional commonality advantage fm a single type/manufacturer.

QF's 737 fleet and JQ's 320 fleet are beyond that minimum size.

When AA needed to order 450 new narrow bodies a few years ago, they split the order across 737s and A320s because niether Boeing or Airbus could meet the needed order size in the time they needed.

If Boeing was able to pump out 450 new 737s in 3-4 years, AA would have gone with all 737.

Or convert them to more a320neos for Qantas?

They already have plenty of 'Qantas Group' A320 orders

Around 120-130 a320s would be needed. 

55-60 for jet star

65-70 for Qantas

Make that A321s (and some LRs). Qantas could use them for Transcon, Trans-Tasman, Bali/Jakarta and South Pacific Islands services with a full international grade configuration.

Re JQ, does this figure include capacity requirements fm JetStar Asia, JetStar Pcf, JetStar Japan, etc.?

You're spot on, Grannular. Qantas will negotiate the product change from the 8 remaining A380's into a fleet of A350's. on spec, on time and without any penalties for dumping the A380's. If they go Boeing, they have to leverage to dump the A380's without penalty. It's a smart move, commercially. I also prefer the A350 to the B787/B777X. A much better product in my humble opinion.

I think Joyce was misusing "IP" - "human capital" or "intellectual capital" or simply "personnel expertise" would've been more accurate terms.

In the wider context, IP in terms of airline op mgmt can also include proprietary /in-house developed items such as;

a) Very long range enroute weather /wind/ jetstream forecast models(Yes, @ high/cruise altitude so info/data not provided by our local weather station/channel...).  This has fuel savings and ride smoothness(even safety) implications for flight ops.....NW used to be well known for having the best dept in this area among industry peers.

b) Logarithms for determing optimal speed, altitude, climb rate/profile, etc. under diff load scenerios for long range op planning(No, I'm not talking about the onboard softwares doing these calculations precisely on the day of departure but during the forward budget/profitability estimation phase prior to mission).  Mostly fuel consumption & engine wear implications.

c) Experience+historic data for determining/predicting where to find those highly unpredictable jetstreams to ride on or avoid given a range of commercial airways/tracks to select for a mission.  Not only about fuel consumption but also about avoiding unscheduled refueling stops.

d) Procedure to relay radio comm when signals thru std channels are jammed/under interference and your airplane is 2,000km away fm any control tower/ground antenna array in the middle of the Pacific.

e) Crew training/qualification regime specific to very long range ops and unique to the carrier.  E.g. What if a pax has a heart-attack or died enroute?  Divert(Suitable medical facility @ diversion?) or continue to destination(How to determine if the pax can sustain despite a qualified captain is typically not a qualified doctor?)?  The knowledge bandwidth required fm crew are astonishingly high over such long distances. 

etc., etc.

So how many 787-9s do you think Qantas will order after the 8 if you think the B777-9 is the true replacement.

Plenty. For one, the 787-9 can replace all of Qantas A330s if its configured a bit more densely, to have around 280 seats or so (28 Business Suites, 21 Premium Economy, 233 Economy was the LOPA I came up with, giving a capacity of 282... which is in between the A332 and A333 capacity whilst also having higher-yield pax and extra cargo capacity).

In addition, I think QF will add more long-range/low-density 787-9s to the fleet anyway for expansion and also frequency upgauging.

So, I'd say a minimum of 30 787-9s will be ordered by QF in total. Probably more.

A mix of 10 and 9s

I'm not sure QF will need the 787-10. If they order it, we can expect it would have a capacity around 320 people and clearly it would be targeted to higher-density Asian routes. But corporate travellers prefer frequency over "OMG HUGE PLANE" and most of the high-demand Asian routes QF flies would probably be better suited to a 777-9 being used as the "upgauge" jet for premium frequencies.

For instance, Hong Kong and Haneda. Both are slot-restricted Oneworld hubs where partner airlines have dedicated first class ground facilities. I can see those airports as being priority targets when the first 777-9s get introduced to the QF fleet (this would also allow First Class service to Asian ports to resume).

Other Asian destinations can be served better through frequency upgauges, or aren't very high-yielding ones.

Wouldn't 78-10s be suited as the domestic wide body replacement?

787-10s would be too large. In addition, Qantas could easily get A321neos (or perhaps wait for Boeing's NSA?), stock them with widebody-grade product and fly them transcontinentally at higher frequencies.

Do remember the A330s have only just been refurbished so we can expect to see them for at least 5 and perhaps 10 more years. Dreamliners can replace the A330s internationally, and the A330s can be returned to domestic duty.

Which is what AA has done with their SFO and LAX-JFK transcons and their "A321T".

Exactly. Its a good idea, although AA's configuration is obviously far too premium-skewed for Transcons or flights to Auckland, Jakarta, Bali and the South Pacific Islands (which is what I'd target the jet for... a "miniature widebody" for transcon and short international runs).

I'd probably stock it with 8 Business Suites, 10 Premium Economy (a dedicated PE toilet would replace one duo of PE seats), and the rest given over to Economy. But that's just me playing Armchair CEO.

The AA A321T config is 10F, 20J, 36 "Main Cabin Extra" and 36 normal Y.

The F seats are much like the CX long haul J seats and the J seats are simliar to the QF Skybed.

Domesitc wide body is currently the A330-200 (with the odd -300 thrown in).

The domestic replacement is the 788, which is what Qantas ordered the 787 for in the first place. Remember the grand plan was 788 to Jetstar, to be replaced by 789's with the 788's to come back in the Jetstar seating config for domestic.

Lots of water under the bridge since that was first annouced, in particular the bulk of domestic wide body now days is to Perth, whereas before it was golden triangle.

"...not sure QF will need the 787-10.."

In contrast, I'm pretty sure QF will eventually need something new near that size bracket AND specifically optimized for the payload/range required for Asian ops.  In other words, a nex gen machine to replace all 333 currently deployed on almost all QF Asian routes.  789 is NOT the real answer as it has surplus payload/range for such missions.

Only 2 realistic choices: 78J(i.e. 787-10) or 339Neo.

"...Hong Kong and Haneda...those airports as being priority targets when the first 777-9s get introduced to the QF fleet..."

And I bet U if QF order 779 and when the 1st unit arrive, it'll be deployed straightway on a route fm SYD/MEL to somewhere in N.America....long before we see any of them show up @ HND or HKG.

Doesn't matter which config /class combo is selected, usable cabin floor areas of 333 and 789 are nearly identical.  As a result, in equivalent cabin product std, config and premium vs Y ratio, total seat count of a QF 789 will be the same as a QF 333. 

Not sure how many 789 but I strongly believe QF will convert all their 787 options(holding 15 now) into firm order within the nex 2 FYs(Fiscal Yrs) if QF Int'l remain profitable throughout.  In addition, it'll also convert all their 787 purchase rights(holding 30 now) into options afterwards(Or simultaneously) which in turn will eventually become firm also.  Ultimate QF 787 fleet size will be 53.

A bit like a player @ the blackjack table in Crown casino, AJ has recently turned his losing streak into a handsome win so he betted $80 on the nex round(e.g. 787 x8 deliveries for 2017-19).   If AJ win again, he'll double-down and bet $150 on the following round(e.g. turn 787 x15 options into firm order).  If AJ win again, he'll again double-down and bet $300 in the final round.  And then AJ walk across to the nex game table labeled  350 or 77X and keep on playing....

So place another order August next year and 2018. I wonder if they would increase the delivery schedule per year after the first 8 are delivered?

Studio,

Perth/LHR non-stop makes sense for Perth, Adelaid and Canberra and as it cuts out a stop which is a big deal for business types, I for one would use it from Canberra.  Sydney/Melb stop then a Dubai stop is a drag.  SQ with its new flights will have the jump on QF from Canberra until they come up with a plan to drop a stop, and via Perth maybe it.

Patrickk,

Thanks. You are right; Canberra does get a stop cut out by taking PER - LHR (and it means PER residents have no stops to deal with), but isn't ADL serviced by Emirates flights with QF codeshares anyway? So the only real benefits would accrue to Perth and Canberra residents.

Not that these are insignificant benefits; they're clearly meaningful. But frankly I'm skeptical about even a lightly loaded Dreamliner being able to make LHR... PER-LHR is 14 500km, and its a westbound flight. I admit I don't know the payload/range charts but still, it seems dicey.

Given the winds, range, suitable diversion airports, route requirements/airspace limits, and needed payload, I don't think a 787 can reach west of Germany/Italy from PER.

Himeno Perth London is less kms than Melb Dallas which will be an early destination and Learmouth can be set up as a diversion, so not as dire as you suggest. That is why AJ is talking it up. QF passengers prefer QF metal so Adelaide will feed in passengers as well.

Have Qantas ordered the 777? I might have missed that announcement. If they haven't then whether they add the 777 or A350, either way that is a new type in the fleet so why not the A350?

The 787 and 777X will have a lot in common. 

Common cock-pit rating is about all that is common.

Which already exists with the A330 and the A350. And is an easy conversion from A320 and A380, but not a common rating.

So a bit over rated actually and something that is not commonly used when there are sizeable enough fleets anyway.

Aside fm many cockpit procedures and crew qualification /some training credits, commonality between 787 and 77X is only a mkting myth/dream conjured up by Boeing PR team.

E.g., U'll hv an extremely hard time trying to hv a common part code/number for a component shared between the 2 types.  And if there're 2 part codes/numbers, U are legally required to keep+use 2 sets of spares and more importantly, your crew must know they're diff even if they visually appear similar....it's really that simple.

I don't follow the logic. Qantas doesn't have 777's either. So how would adding A350's add more types but be bad but ordering the 777 wouldn't? 

And all all the arguments you make for the 777-9 and -8 apply equally to the various A350 models too. 

Because Qantas is ordering the 787 it makes more sense for commonality to buy the 777X. The A380s will be phased out from mid to late 2020s and most likely will be replaced by 777-9s. 

Qantas Group currently has 8 orders and 4 options for A380s, 100 odd orders for A320s, 8 orders, 15 options and 30 rights for 787s.

Qantas (and 7 other airlines) helped Boeing design the 777 and was heading towards ordering them, when the board at the time chose to go with the A380. They were the only airline working with Boeing on the design not to then order the aircraft.

Qantas needs an aircraft to replace the 747ERs by the early-mid 2020s and also something to replace the A380s by the mid-late 2020s. The current options are 787-10s, A350-900s or 777Xs.

The 787s are better suited to replace the A330s and for the "lighter" thiner 747 routes.

The A380 and A320 orders/options QF currently has could be converted to A350s (and not lose the deposits paid already). Yet the 777X might be the better aircraft for the needed job.

I think your timings are a bit out. Qantas was working with Boeing in the early 90's re the 777 design.

What Qantas decided was the 777 was too big for their short haul routes, which at the time were the domain of the 767 and it didn't have the range (at that time) for the long haul flights. So leased in the BA 767's for domestic and placed top up orders for both the 767 and the 747 plus of course purchased the ugly sisters. They looked at the 777 again a few years later and decided to buy the 6 747-400ER's for genuine fleet cominality.

The A330 and A380's came a bit later.

"...QF want fleet rationalization, and the A350 will only add more types..."

Just pause, replace "A350" with "77X", and then re-read /rethink your statement again.  The same argument against 350 also works against 77X.

Along with a handful of other bluechip airlines(i.e. JL, NH, CX, BA, UA, AA and DL), QF was indeed heavily involved in the development phase of the 777 platform and directly helped to design it over 2decades ago.  However, it's also famous for being the only 1 of those airlines which has never ordered any 777 at all.

"..probably just trying to make Boeing give them a better deal.."

Or again, can also be just trying to make Airbus give them a better deal.

In a nutshell, AJ's comments re both 359ULR and 778 are nothing more than playing that classic price negotiation game of A vs B any half decent airline CEO should do anyway(May be even explicitly stated on AJ's Job Description....).  Less than a yr ago, he played the same game re 359 vs 789.

"PER - LHR make little sense because ....travelling from SYD/MEL/BNE to LHR requires one stop."

Good luck trying to sell the above idea to our fellow readers residing/based in Perth/W.A. where starvation of QF Int'l services is real and see if they care....

A popular theme among readers/posters here(And many other public forums):  QF(In fact, any large longhaul carrier) should develop more longhaul destinations...as long as all those routes are nonstop fm my own town.

Funny thing is that longhaul carriers like QF has actually been listening.  So no more mystery why very longhaul airplanes are getting smaller & smaller every decade and the orderbook for superjumbos like 380 remains so stubbornly small.

"..QF should stick 787s and 777Xs....777-9 is the perfect replacement for the 747s..777-8 allows more ULH services..."

Agree 779 is technically the exact 1-for-1 replacement for 744.  But why QF should stick with 787s and 777Xs?  How exactly will QF be worse off with a combo of 787+359ULR(for ULH)+35K(to replace 744)?  Why QF must replace 744 1-for-1(QF already voted partially not to when the 789 x8 are planned to replace 744 x5)?  By virtue of being smaller than 744/779, 35K can further help QF to decentralize its longhaul ops fm the current SYD/MEL-centric model(Of course, if U live in SYD/MEL, U couldn't care the less and may even dislike QF longhaul decentralization).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying 787+350 is a better future for QF longhaul than 787+77X.  I simply believe there's no obvious overall advantage for QF longhaul fm choosing 1 combo over the other.  I firmly believe the choice will be down to contract pricing Airbus vs Boeing.

Very true your last point. And a number of carriers are doing just that, having mixed 787 and A350 fleets. BA, SQ, VN, QR, TG, probably others too. Just putting the right a/c on the right routes.

I've said it here before but reckon the A350-1000 or -900ULR would be a better aircraft for some of the ultra long haul routes being mentioned, with the 787 used on routes from secondary Australian ports or to secondary Asian ports.

I think the argument is that after the 787, QF needs two more plane types - an ultra-long haul for PER-LON and the like, and something to run fatter routes to eventually replace the a380s and some 744s.

While the 350ULR could do the former, the "regular" 359 is a little small for the latter, whereas a 778/779 combo could do both, and with the additional advantage of a common type rating with the 787.

Completely agree with you on the Perth issue though, I think there'd be a ready market of people in PER, ADL and Canberra who would gladly avoid a Dubai stopover and go oz-U.K direct

Except of course the 8 789's on order are being touted as replacements for 747's. 8-6 ratio if I am not mistaken.

So no reason you couldn't have more of a smaller aircraft. So one for one size doesn't really matter. 

Replacements for 747s, on long thing routes. Routes like YVR, SFO and (pending ETOPS approval) JNB and SCL where they currently need the range of the 747 or A380, but not the capaity. 787s will cover that issue.

Other 747 routes like HND, HKG and LAX need the 747 sized cabin.

Going with more aircraft and higher frequency runs into problems on the 12+ hour routes when you look at needed flight times and curfews. They can replace some of their 747 routes with 787s, they can't replace all of them.

Current press releases are claiming the first 8 787s will replace 5 747s. Given the timing, QF current fleet, their current network and their stated plan network expansion, the stated 8-5 replacement is unlikely to happen as they have claimed to date. It is likely that the current confirmed orders will replace the 2 747s with the old seats, while allowing new routes and an A380 cabin refresh.

"..HND, HKG and LAX need the 747 sized cabin."

Ok, but again, why?

"..more aircraft and higher frequency runs into problems on the 12+ hour routes..."

Since when did SYD-HKG/HND sector duration increased drastically to 12+ hrs?  Plate tectonics causing AU drifting further apart fm Asia or QF started using much lower cruise speed?  SYD-HKG/HND never exceed 10hrs block time.  Only LAX-SYD/MEL exceed 12hrs+.

"..when you look at needed flight times.."

Huh?  Are U suggesting a larger aircraft needs less flight time than smaller ones?  That's an interesting theory and I've never heard of...

"...and curfews."

What curfews?  Each of HND, HKG and LAX has @ least 1 rwy and terminal area operational 24hrs a day yr-round.  HND and HKG even provide special incentives to attract operators to use them during 00:00-06:00 when almost all slots are vacant.  They  make curfew @ SYD less relevant and completely irrelevant @ MEL.

"..can replace some of their 747 routes with 787, they can't replace all of them."

I believe QF has never intended its 787 to replace all 744.  1st of all, 380 has already done some replacement for QF's highest traffic 744 routes.  2ndly, low-yield/fare capacity on many classic QF 744 Asian routes hv been(And may be more in the future) partially replaced by JQ 787 capacity.  When QF ordered+planned 744 Asian routes in the late 80s, there was no JQ...let alone vision of fuel-zipping 788s shuttling low fare pax between AU and Thailand+Singapore+Japan even @ offpeak/zombie departure/arrival hrs of the day.  Also, there was far fewer airport/rwy capacity @ key QF Asian cities back in the 80s.  Today e.g., Bangkok and Tokyo hv 2 int'l airports each and rwy capacity @ HKG will more than tripled by early nex decade.

"...the stated 8-5 replacement is unlikely to happen as they have claimed to date."

So despite the plan being stated on an official QF press release, U still believe QF chose to lie on purpose to the public or @ least mislead QF investors about their CapEx plan(i.e. fleet investment/divestment depositions)?  What is the advantage/purpose for a listed company like QF to announce such plan in such details and then drop it 2yrs later?  Invite discontent or even lawsuits fm investors?

Most importantly, I hv absolutely no clue how U concluded "the timing, QF current fleet/network and their stated plan network expansion" are at odds with their stated 8-5 replacement plan.

"8-6 ration if I am not mistaken."

789 x8 for 744 x5 per QF plan as reported numerous times on ausbt.com.au and other media. 

"..QF needs two more plane types...an ultra-long haul...and something to run fatter routes...350ULR could do the former, the regular 359 is a little small for the latter.."

Except U've forgotten that there's a larger variant within the 350 family known as 35K.  35K and 77W(i.e. the current darling for most operators re "fatter" longhaul routes worldwide) hv almost identical total usable cabin floor area.

"..there'd be a ready market of people in PER, ADL and Canberra who would gladly...go oz-U.K. direct."

Oh I never doubt that and I'm sure same is true even e.g. ASP-LHR.

The million $ question is how many willing to pay @ fare level sufficient to cover the inevitable extra op cost for such ultra-long  nonstop.  Latest gen very longhaul familes such as 787 and 350 hv extremely low fuel burn but they'll never change the fact that they won't be much more than a flying gas tank upon takeoff on PER-LHR.  My gut feeling is that there may be enough pax willing to pay for PER-LHR but few pax for ADL/CBR-PER-LHR(e.g. no time-savings vs routing via DXB so why pay extra?....for intangible patriotic love of QF?).

Boeing 777X

B777-8

2 class
Range:16,112km (8690nm
Capacity:365

3 class
Range:17,177km (9275nm)
Capacity:303

B777-9
3 class
Range:14927km (8060nm)
Capacity:349

2 class
Range:13,936km (7525nm)
Capacity:414

Christopher,

I really like this data but do you have a source/citation?

Hi found the stats here. 

 https://leadership.ng/columns/490089/shaping-up-the-b777x

publish 9th January 2016. 

Christopher,

Thank you very much. Those are excellent, current stats too. Good job.

They do indeed! Thanks

"...I can't stand the thought of regularly having to do 16 hours..."

Apparently, many others can....or @ least enough takers to sustain such long ops on each route daily yr-round.  5 great examples worldwide by 5 diff operators still continuing today with no end in sight(i.e. solid forward bookings yr-round):

JFK->HKG by CX =16h10m block time

DXB->LAX by EK =16h15m block time

DFW->HKG by AA =16h50m block time

DFW->SYD by QF =16h55m block time

SFO->SIN by UA =17h15m block time

Even more amazing is that all these flights include significant seatcount in Y.

Try it as a LONGHAUL "regular business traveller".  Who knows?...U may survive it after all.

"Am yet to meet a long haul 77W driver who relishes having to do 14-16 hour sectors..."

If U understand longhaul cockpit crew ops, U'll immediately know the simple reason U hv never met 1:  Because no single crew is legally allowed to be in command of the cockpit for 14-16hrs per current rules of any jurisdiction worldwide.

Once block time pass about 8-9hrs(depending on jurisdiction or specific airline internal rules), a flight will require @ least 2 sets of crew.  If block time exceeds 18hrs, it'll require 3 sets of crew.

Ever wonder why JQ network seems to be stuck in sectors below 9hrs and why is it such a big deal for SQ to fly 19hrs+ on NYC->SIN?