Airbus, Boeing close in on QANTAS' ultra-long haul dream

Status
Not open for further replies.

a330j

Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Posts
399
Reuters reporting the following (this report might be behind a subscription wall so I have cut and paste). I have to say sitting in a tin tube for 20 hours is not my idea of fun. Apologies if posted elsewhere.

Both Airbus AIR.PA and Boeing now offer aircraft that appear capable of flying non-stop commercial flights from Sydney to London - the "Holy Grail" for Australian carrier Qantas Airways Ltd.

As long as oil prices don't go much higher than around $70 per barrel, the 20-hour flight can be financially viable, and could be on schedules within five years, aviation experts say.

Airbus has increased the range of its A350-900ULR to 9,700 nautical miles (17,960 kms) from the 8,700 nautical miles announced when it sold the plane to Singapore Airlines in 2015 for delivery next year, a spokesman told Reuters. Including headwinds, the Sydney-London flight is equivalent to 9,600 nautical miles.

"These aircraft, we think, are potentially real goers on these routes," Qantas CEO Alan Joyce told Reuters of the A350-900ULR and the bigger but less advanced Boeing 777-8. "You know from what they have done on other aircraft that Sydney-London and Melbourne-London has real possibility."

For Qantas, a non-stop Sydney-London route that cuts three hours off the flight time would allow it to charge a premium and differentiate its product from the around two dozen other airlines plying the so-called Kangaroo route with stop-offs in Singapore, Dubai and Hong Kong.

The route accounts for only 13 percent of Qantas' international capacity, but carries the prestige QF1 flight number and is important to its global brand.
Qantas could charge around a 20 percent price premium for a non-stop Sydney-London flight as it would attract business and premium leisure travellers wanting to complete the trip as fast as possible, said Rico Merkert, a professor specialising in transport at the University of Sydney's business school.
"It's something that can be presented as a unique selling point for Qantas," he said.

FUELLING DOUBTS Qantas begins non-stop flights from Perth to London next year, using the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner. For this scheduled flight, the Dreamliner will have fewer seats than usual, will use the most advanced flight path modelling methods, and will reduce the weight in areas seemingly as minor as the dishes and forks.
The Perth flight will take 17 hours - a far cry from the four days and seven stops it took when Qantas created the Kangaroo Route to London in 1947.
Qantas can offset the higher cost of carrying more fuel to complete the flight by saving on stopover costs, such as airport charges, ground handling, taxes, crew hotel rooms and lounge usage.

"In terms of economics, much depends on fuel prices," said Teal Group aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia. "If they stay at $50 a barrel or less, it should be possible to keep costs reasonable. But as fuel goes up, the disadvantages of flying a very heavy plane begin to make ultra-long haul problematic."
He said the flight should remain economic at prices below around $70 a barrel, though Leeham Co analyst Bjorn Fehrm said the actual level could be far higher as one-stop rivals would also be squeezed by higher oil prices.

Singapore Airlines ended its New York and Los Angeles flights using the four-engined A340-500 in 2013 when oil prices topped $107 a barrel. The carrier is now waiting for delivery of the far more fuel-efficient twin-engined A350-900ULR next year.

HEADWINDS Qantas is pushing the planemakers hard on a stretch goal of completing the Sydney-London flight with 300 seats to give it the highest possible revenue and fleet flexibility.

However, Fehrm said the aircraft would likely fall short of that goal if Qantas wanted to avoid a fuel stop on the westbound leg when headwinds are strongest. If such stopovers became frequent enough, Qantas would lose its ability to charge a premium on the route.

Two aviation industry sources said the Airbus A350-900ULR would fit more than 250 passengers on the Sydney-London route, up from the 170 mainly business-class seats on Singapore Airlines' configuration for flights to New York and Los Angeles.

Boeing's 777-8, due to enter service early in the next decade, could carry around 280 passengers on the westbound leg of the Sydney-London flight, the sources said. The sources declined to be named because the configuration details are not finalised. Airbus and Boeing declined to comment specifically on the seat count.
"We think our airplane has the legs and the capability," said Dinesh Keskar, Boeing Senior Vice President Sales Asia-Pacific and India. "If the 787-9 can do Perth-London, we think that when the 777-8 comes out in the 2021 timeframe we will have a lot more improvement in technology."
Airbus, Boeing and engine manufacturers are constantly investing to reduce fuel usage, extending a plane's range and its ability to perform in hot conditions like the Middle East.

That means the planemakers don't have to invest specifically for any Qantas order, the size of which is still unclear.
Pushing the seat count towards 300 would also give Qantas the flexibility to use these aircraft on other long routes, such as a mooted Sydney-New York flight, as it looks to replace six ageing 747-400ER planes and eventually its fleet of 12 A380s.

BEST PRICING Qantas' Joyce has raised publicly the possibility of ordering the 777-8 for ultra-long haul flights for the last two years, but the A350-900ULR has entered the equation more recently.
"It has added competition, and we would be crazy if we didn't do a competition at the right time," Joyce said. "That gets you the best pricing and ... the most capable aircraft."

Qantas has yet to launch a formal tender process for the prestige order, as it waits for Boeing to finalise the specifications on the 777-8. But the first Sydney-London flights are possible around 2022, Joyce said.

"The Kangaroo route is probably the most competitive on the globe," Joyce said. "(Flying non-stop) takes us off this superhighway of very competitive conditions of capacity which is priced, in many cases, under costs."
 
Last edited:
That gives an indication of how long the lead times are to design and produce new aircraft.
 
Personally, I've wondered why there hasn't been much mention of the A350, as that is already a real aircraft, whereas the 777X is still mostly pie.

This will all happen after my time, so my interest is only academic. Longer range ops will certainly come, but there are many hurdles along the way. Firstly the fuel pricing mentioned seems to be wishful thinking. It's relatively cheap right now, but who would bet on it remaining so. I suppose these aircraft are fuel frugal anyway, so I guess they would still be good choices if fuel prices force intermediate stops. As an aside, I did the sums on this a while back, and a two stop strategy was the best for minimal fuel use Sydney-London. It also gave maximum payload, which is the exact opposite of ULR ops.

Issues of just how to outfit the cabin, so that the passengers don't end up crippled. You don't want a situation where people make the flight once, and swear, never again.

Crew rest, and fatigue is going to be a huge safety issue. It's one that is generally swept under the rug by managements, worldwide. But, put in a poor crew rest, and you'll be ending the journey with a pilots who are outright unsafe. Right now the A380 is the model for how to do a decent crew rest...nothing else is in the same league.

In the same area will be considerations of delays or diversions. It can be hard to recover from either now, but I'd expect an end of flight diversion would be a termination, and a mid flight one (i.e. medical) could well then require a second stop to replace the crew.

My understanding of the Singair A340 flights was that they were relatively expensive, but quite spartan.
 
My understanding of the Singair A340 flights was that they were relatively expensive, but quite spartan.

I went on SQ22 from SIN to EWR in 2009, and my old notebook says that the flight time was 17 hours 51 min. Largely I just remember being really, really, incredibly bored. Even though it was all-J and fairly flawless SQ service it started to feel like a prison for the last 5 hours or so.

And then had to deal with Newark which just topped off the experience.

My preference these days to Europe is QF to HKG or SIN then AY to HEL and connect to wherever else. The HKG - HEL flight especially is perfect at a tad over 10 hours.
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

I went on SQ22 from SIN to EWR in 2009, and my old notebook says that the flight time was 17 hours 51 min. Largely I just remember being really, really, incredibly bored. Even though it was all-J and fairly flawless SQ service it started to feel like a prison for the last 5 hours or so.

And then had to deal with Newark which just topped off the experience.

I flew EWR-SIN in 2013, announced as 17 hours and 41 minutes of flying. Plane was half empty, rearmost section (where I was) was maybe a tenth full :eek:. Scariest part to me; some people were connecting at SIN! I was connecting to the SQ service at EWR but finishing at SIN...you don't want to know my routing of how I got to EWR and where I left before it :eek: :D.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top