Qantas Fleet Order Speculation

[Keg]

G'day RAD ALT. I really should know better than to post in a hurry I guess. I'm going to commit the same error now though as I've only a couple of minutes.

You're right. It was very quick and dirty. Qantas tends to run across to HNL with a seat factor in the 90s. We make good money on that. JQ it appears seems to run across to HNL about 60-70% on the days we fly. I don't expect they're making good money on that.

[CurtainTwitcher]

Perhaps because they don't want to be crammed in the same airframe with 20% more people for 10+ hours to save a few $$.

[blueloo]

When QF had the 767s doing the SYD/HNL sector, it was one of their highest revenue earning sectors (in part due to the 767s being paid off).

(This was straight from a person in the revenue department who came to visit the pointy end.)

[swh]

Originally Posted by Keg

The A350 doesn't seem to fit the metrics that Qantas is after. The 777X (particularly the 8X) does though.

The payload range numbers you were working on are out by a along way, and today Boeing have actually admitted as much in public. Its been covered in Flight International.

Boeing revises "obsolete" performance assumptions - 8/3/2015 - Flight Global

Essentially it has always been smoke and mirrors, you get the fan boys who quote the most optimistic range on Wiki. People in industry working with the long range aircraft knew you could never actually buy an aircraft at the assumed empty weight in your airline configuration, load that many people on the aircraft and fly them the distances claimed. They also know what the general trend is for performance decrease with age, and are more likely to plan a purchase on degraded performance numbers.

This is what Boeing is saying now

787-8, 242 pax 7,355nm
787-9 , 280 pax 7,635nm
787-10 323 pax 6,430nm
777-8X 350 pax 8,700nm
777-300ER 386 pax 7,370nm
777-9X 406 pax 7,600nm
747-8 467 pax 7,730nm

When they are quoting those numbers, the payload the aircraft is carrying is normally only the number of pax by 210lb, SFA allowance for catering, bare minimum crew, no IFE, no magazines, no duty free, no cans/pallets for luggage, no cargo. In terms of flight planning, they assume the best profiles, 200 nm alternate, and FAA reserves.

The seat pitch Boeing works on is 60" for F, 38" for J, and 32" for Y. For long haul QF uses something like 79" for F, 78" for J, 38-42" for W, and 31-32" for Y. The real airline seats are also significantly heavier, sometimes 100+kg per seat in the premium cabins. Bottom line is that QF will never get that many pax on a long haul flight, and if they want to carry cargo, baggage, and catering, will need to drop that max range back even further.

Originally Posted by The Green Goblin

The 350 is the right aeroplane for Jetstar. The 787/777. Is the right aeroplane for qantas.

If you look at what other airlines are doing, eg SQ, the 787 is going the LCC, and the A350 full service.

Does anyone know the true cruising speed of the A350 (not the manufacturer's stated figure)? With QF planning a lot of ULR flights, the cruise speed becomes critical because of crew duty limitations.

Yes it is known, and it is not constant in any airline environment. No airline I know of these days flies around constant Mach, its all econ speed. The cost index in the econ speed takes into account the crew costs. A 787/A350 in one airline will run around at different speeds to another, it all depends on what the accountants desire, not the pilots. The A350 will happily go between 0.76 and 0.96 and burn about the same fuel as an A330.

Originally Posted by Troo believer

You forgot that the Boeing CCQ includes the NG/787/777.

CCQ and MFF are Airbus terms, they not available on Boeing types. You are talking about recognized prior learning, which is not the same. In the US, the 787 and 777 are still different type ratings, not so in Australia.

[Bumpfoh]

If you look at what other airlines are doing, eg SQ, the 787 is going the LCC, and the A350 full service.

So with that in mind QF would no doubt do the complete opposite and have the completely wrong aircraft type for the intended operation.

[Going Boeing]

Yes it is known, and it is not constant in any airline environment. No airline I know of these days flies around constant Mach, its all econ speed. The cost index in the econ speed takes into account the crew costs. A 787/A350 in one airline will run around at different speeds to another, it all depends on what the accountants desire, not the pilots. The A350 will happily go between 0.76 and 0.96 and burn about the same fuel as an A330.

Thanks for all the info, SWH. I'm aware of all the variables with Cost Index but as fuel is the most significant cost, we find that an aircraft type is operated at similar speeds by different airlines. What I was asking was what speed the A350 was designed to realistically cruise at when it is at optimum altitude for its weight and I believe Veruka Salt's answered the question. Wing sweep is probably the most significant of the many variables that affect the efficient cruise speed and, in the past, Airbus widebody's have had less wing sweep than their Boeing counterparts. It appears that with the A350 they realised the need to cruise faster than M0.81.

[swh]

Originally Posted by Going Boeing

Wing sweep is probably the most significant of the many variables that affect the efficient cruise speed

The 787 has less sweep than the 747, A380, and A350.

[Going Boeing]

The 787 has less sweep than the 747, A380, and A350.

It has significantly greater wing sweep than the A330/A340 which is the M0.81 types that I was referring to.

Without going into all the technical aspects, it is essential that aircraft used for ULR services must cruise at higher speeds for passenger comfort reasons as well as crew duty reasons. On some of the sectors that have been discussed, it wouldn't take much of a technical delay before the crew duty limits come into play.

[swh]

Originally Posted by Going Boeing

It has significantly greater wing sweep than the A330/A340 which is the M0.81 types that I was referring to.

You were originally trying to suggest the 787 was faster than the A350 for crew duty limits. It does not have significtly greater wing sweep, about 1 degree, 31.1 vs 32.2, 777 is 31.6. The A350 has around 3 degrees more sweep at 35 degrees.

[Keg]

No. Going Boeing was asking about the cruise speed of the A350 because the A330/ A340 doesn't cruise at the speeds it was originally marketed at.

Airbus widebody's have had less wing sweep than their Boeing counterparts. It appears that with the A350 they realised the need to cruise faster than M0.81.

My added emphasis.

The figures I used were from someone else earlier in the thread who indicated they'd come off the manufacturers respective websites. I'd expect there to be a bit of poetic license in there on both of them. Either way, the comparisons between the various types remain valid.

[swh]

Keg,

What speed were they marketed at ? What cost index ?

What speed does the A330/A340 cruise ? (hint they are not the same) What cost index ?

Have you actually flown any of them ? Or are these more more uniformed statements like trying to blame others earlier in the thread ?

[Veruka Salt]

SWH, I'll try to help the Boeing fan boys out

One airline "with which I am familiar" is currently running the A330 at CI49, and the A340 at CI54, both equating to around M0.82. For reference, LRC on the A330 is approx. CI40, or CI50 on the A340.

Therefore, given a real world airline is currently flying its Airbuses at a speed approximating LRC, I would expect it will run its A350s close to LRC also which, as previously mentioned, equates to M0.85.

[SandyPalms]

Qantas Group CEO Alan Joyce, at the CAPA Australia Pacific Aviation Summit, said (04-Aug-2015) the Boeing 787-9 “is a great replacement aircraft for some of the 747s over time.” Mr Joyce noted the carrier evaluated the A350 but: “We found in our minds the 787-9 is a better aircraft for us in the markets and network we’re talking about.” Mr Joyce said the recent agreements with pilots to operate the 787-9 “was a major step in the right direction” but noted: “We’re working through the fleet economics, the route economics to see if we can justify the 787s... We’re working through that process now.”

Looks like it is settled.

[Going Boeing]

Have you actually flown any of them ? Or are these more more uniformed statements like trying to blame others earlier in the thread ?

SWH, it appears that you totally mis-interpreted what was a simple question. I asked what the practical cruise speed of the A350 is, and I amplified the question to indicate that my thinking was to do with Flight Duty Limits. VS obviously read it correctly and gave me the answer.

[swh]

For reference, LRC on the A330 is approx. CI40, or CI50 on the A340

LRC is actually much higher as a FM input, you seem to be quoting MRC.

The CI put into the FM is not the airline CI, there is a graph/formula used to convert the airline CI to the airframe CI. The CI value to use in the FM changes based upon airframe, FM, and engines. An airframe CI of around 50 is only an airline CI of around 10, that is MRC, not LRC. Airline CI of 0 represents a FM CI of around 35 +/-5.

Originally Posted by Goeing Boeing

I asked what the practical cruise speed of the A350 is, and I amplified the question to indicate that my thinking was to do with Flight Duty Limits.

Then you got on your soap box and started to sprout how the 787 was so much faster that the A330/A340 because of its "significantly greater" sweep and cruise speeds about aircraft you have obviously little knowledge other than what you hear at the bar. Sure an A330/A340 can fly at 0.81, and many operators do it because it saves fuel. Flying faster just gets that fuel savings taken away with "world best practice" ATC.

Operating a fleet of say 50 A330s, the daily fuel savings between flying around at MRC vs LRC is over 100t.

On their route proving flights, the A350 took off 30 minutes after the LAN A340 out of AKL, and landed 45 minutes before in GRU, on a 5300 nm leg.

[Regan_Moore]

Qantas Repalcing 737NG

Are they really replacing it????

[Derfred]

Operating a fleet of say 50 A330s, the daily fuel savings between flying around at MRC vs LRC is over 100t.

LRC burns 1% more than MRC for a given distance right?

If I have my sums right, 100T/day would equate to over $36M per year of fuel savings if fuel cost $1/kg

But based on an assumption of an average of 15 airborne hrs per day per airframe at an average of 5T/hr FF, (optimistic) my pocket calculator gets about 37T savings per day, not 100T.

So on that basis the annual fuel saving would be under $14M - not $36M.

But $14M is enough money to make an operator of 50 aircraft take notice.

It seems that most airlines cruise somewhere between MRC and LRC (closer to LRC) if operating at lowish cost indexes - the fuel saving slightly under LRC seems to make economic sense when other factors are taken into account (hence normal cost index is slightly less than LRC in general).

[m.r.a.z.23]

http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-recently-considered-airbus-a350-staying-with-boeing-787

[Popgun]

Loads often vary

May help JQ stop the bleeding on HNL. The loads for JQ on that route on the days qantas operates are appalling. On the days QF operate they generally have 15-25 empty seats. JQ on those days often has 100+.

This statement is completely false.

Perhaps it should have been written to include a qualifier such as "may sometimes".

Apparently today, for example, there are around one third (more than 70) empty seats on the QF HNL service.

In comparison, both JQ services to HNL (from SYD as well as MEL) have zero empty seats. You cannot buy a ticket as the aircraft are full.

So the QF group is carrying more than 800 passengers to Hawaii today...Three quarters of them on JQ.

While yield and profit are something completely different altogether, there is clearly room in many markets for both premium and leisure fares.

While I am definitely no management apologist, I believe contemporary dual brand strategic thinking is correct. If you force the consumer to choose one or the other you may lose them to a competitor. Evidence of this was probably seen, for example, on routes to OOL and HMI, when the QF group may have lost customers to Virgin when they were forced to choose a JQ product post-QF route suspension.

PG

[The Green Goblin]

Well said and spot on popgun.

Precisely why JB grabbed tiger by the tail and is now removing Virgin from routes in favour of tiger.