LHR-SYD Non-stop B787
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alan Joyce was commenting yesterday that the 787 flights are crew and pax research only. They are considering the the new 777x or the A350-1000 for the ULH routes.
Thread Starter
Now add enough enough passengers and freight to make it pay its' way and see what they have left on landing..
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately an 0600 local time departure from London meant zero (that I saw) media publicity here. Journalists don't get up that early !
So I didn't see it go either. But I did see its predecessor 747 some 30 years ago, which passed right over our office at a much more civil time just before 0900 a few miles into its run, notably low actually. The track of the 747 was quite different, over the Middle East and (I think) south of Singapore. The 787 seems to have gone south of Moscow and overhead Hong Kong. Wonder what the mileage difference was. Shame the captain of the 747 passed away not long ago, and couldn't be on board today. There was an interesting account on the Web (can't find it now) by the steward of the 747 flight, with details of all the catering they provided.
So I didn't see it go either. But I did see its predecessor 747 some 30 years ago, which passed right over our office at a much more civil time just before 0900 a few miles into its run, notably low actually. The track of the 747 was quite different, over the Middle East and (I think) south of Singapore. The 787 seems to have gone south of Moscow and overhead Hong Kong. Wonder what the mileage difference was. Shame the captain of the 747 passed away not long ago, and couldn't be on board today. There was an interesting account on the Web (can't find it now) by the steward of the 747 flight, with details of all the catering they provided.
Almost zero PR at LHR for something this epic. Could they not have gotten a daytime departure? The cameras would have been out in force for sure. Disappointing lack of marketing here.
Thread Starter
Probably as it was test flight and the main interest was in Australia, it sort of makes sense that there was a fanfare that end after the successful flight, rather than at the beginning of the endeavour. That said, I was surprised that there was no mention on the breakfast news etc.
Already being discussed that 777 is not going to work for ULH LON-OZ but BA have talked to Airbus re the A350 for non-stops to SYD
If BA get that then that cocks a snoop at QF with PER, but seems all has gone quiet on this...
SYD non-stop is the holy grail but will flight deck crews (senior older ones) really want to do this?
Basically a 24+ hour day (or longer) starting from home, then report, fly the thing, going east, dreadful time zone changes - Then eventually arrive at the hotel and hope your room is ready.
Likely minimum layovers - then do it all again going back West. (yuk)
Inadequate crew rest areas & bunks that will need radical changes to enable heavy crewing to get satisfactory rest.
If BA get that then that cocks a snoop at QF with PER, but seems all has gone quiet on this...
SYD non-stop is the holy grail but will flight deck crews (senior older ones) really want to do this?
Basically a 24+ hour day (or longer) starting from home, then report, fly the thing, going east, dreadful time zone changes - Then eventually arrive at the hotel and hope your room is ready.
Likely minimum layovers - then do it all again going back West. (yuk)
Inadequate crew rest areas & bunks that will need radical changes to enable heavy crewing to get satisfactory rest.
and the
Thread Starter
In some modern office, somewhere within the HQ of one of the majors there's an executive working on a cunning plan to have an AI flight crew with human observers overseeing the fun that will enable all those impatient long distance customers to do silly nonstops hither and thither.
Looking at various sources of data (as a non pilot) it would seem that an 359 or 351 can fly for about 21hr 30 min with a reasonable (just under 20 tonne) payload. Allowing for reserve and day to day variations in wind speeds this equates to a roughly 19:30 hr flight or a 20 hr block time. This would allow JFK - SYD in both directions, LHR - SYD but not SYD - LHR with any meaningful payload. I recently checked an M.Sc. thesis which calculated (from Jepperson data) that calculated that a 77L with maximum fuel but a reduced TOW could carry 72 pax (data below) but I then calculated that fitting three auxiliary tanks it might be feasible.to carry a sensible payload. My question is would SYD - LHR be possible? I don't know about the 778 but you would either need a higher gross weight 359 (probably just under 30 tonnes) or a shortened 351 (think of the 747 SP) with additional tankage. Obviously both would require development & certification which may not be justifiable for a short production run - and there is unlikely to be a high demand. Do you think that we will see SYD - LHR nonstop in the near future or will we need an extra stop. (Many years ago SQ flew LHR - SIN non stop witha 743 but but had to make a technical stop in the reverse direction.)
Thoughts anyone?
Technical appendices (from a novice)
359 - OEW 136.5, Payload 19.5, Fuel 124.0 TOW 280.0 tonnes
77L SYD - LHR winter (worst time of year)
Forecast duration: 21:14 Total reserves 2:03 (more than required, but make an allowance for adverse winds, routing, altitude, etc)
OWE 144,846 kg
Trip fuel 134,643
Contingency 10,916
Total fuel 145,559
Payload 6,583
TOW 296,989
However this is below the 77L MTOW which is about 345 tonnes and if the three optional fuel tanks are included and an additional 17t of fuel is carried the payload will increase by roughly the same about allowing a full load in high premium configuration.
Thoughts anyone?
Technical appendices (from a novice)
359 - OEW 136.5, Payload 19.5, Fuel 124.0 TOW 280.0 tonnes
77L SYD - LHR winter (worst time of year)
Forecast duration: 21:14 Total reserves 2:03 (more than required, but make an allowance for adverse winds, routing, altitude, etc)
OWE 144,846 kg
Trip fuel 134,643
Contingency 10,916
Total fuel 145,559
Payload 6,583
TOW 296,989
However this is below the 77L MTOW which is about 345 tonnes and if the three optional fuel tanks are included and an additional 17t of fuel is carried the payload will increase by roughly the same about allowing a full load in high premium configuration.
"SYD non-stop is the holy grail "
Why? I haven't seen any passengers asking for it
Why? I haven't seen any passengers asking for it
Thread Starter
"SYD non-stop is the holy grail "
Why? I haven't seen any passengers asking for it
Why? I haven't seen any passengers asking for it
Just a thought but I guess SYD-LHR or LHR-SYD might be a "holy grail" if destinations with a common language ( on second thoughts) is a driver....
OTOH if people travelling on a non-stopper then connect into/out of LHR for mainland Europe in significant numbers ( and they certainly do on the current direct services...) then maybe FRA -SYD would make more sense to target as a non-stopper.
OTOH if people travelling on a non-stopper then connect into/out of LHR for mainland Europe in significant numbers ( and they certainly do on the current direct services...) then maybe FRA -SYD would make more sense to target as a non-stopper.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought but I guess SYD-LHR or LHR-SYD might be a "holy grail" if destinations with a common language ( on second thoughts) is a driver....
OTOH if people travelling on a non-stopper then connect into/out of LHR for mainland Europe in significant numbers ( and they certainly do on the current direct services...) then maybe FRA -SYD would make more sense to target as a non-stopper.
OTOH if people travelling on a non-stopper then connect into/out of LHR for mainland Europe in significant numbers ( and they certainly do on the current direct services...) then maybe FRA -SYD would make more sense to target as a non-stopper.
For most people in the UK an Emirates flight from a local airport with a change in Dubai is far more preferable than a change at LHR to a non-stop
If you read the Australian thread you get the impression LHR-SYD is only of interest to Qantas who can't run a profitable service against the other, newer, airlines that compete
If you read the Australian thread you get the impression LHR-SYD is only of interest to Qantas who can't run a profitable service against the other, newer, airlines that compete
