So essentially the same 1000 airframe with bigger fuel tanks, right?

[-]

swoodshadow@reddit

I suspect this also has a layout heavy on first/business/premium economy and light on economy to reduce the weight of passengers/luggage. But havent been able to confirm that.

[-]

Nok1a_@reddit

Ive seen in a video, that 238 longer space between seat and the seats looks more "fancy" than normal and I would say the configuration if Im not wrong was 2 - 2

[-]

BadahBingBadahBoom@reddit

2-2 configuration?

The latest information from Qantas states seating for the a350 will be:

• 52 Business suites in a 1-2-1 configuration • 40 Premium Economy seats in a 2-4-2 configuration • 140 Economy seats in a 3-3-3 configuration

[-]

BadahBingBadahBoom@reddit

I don't believe they are doing First Class. Just not profitable enough for the space it takes up and fuel it burns I guess.

[-]

That seems strange to me. I would have thought first class was the place to go heavy here since you can charge a premium for the direct flight and the length of the flight really lets people enjoy the amenities like a nice sleep experience.

Is Qantas business class lie-flat seats?

[-]

BadahBingBadahBoom@reddit

Most of Qantas business class is lie flat (I imagine virtually all very long-haul business) like its competitors. But for this flight it absolutely will be lie flat for business.

I know they released the virtual mock-up a few years ago that showed the lie-flat business seating, not sure if they have since released an actual physical mock-up to see how this looks, but imagine will be highly similar.

I think the issue with first class is that, per square foot, first class isn't actually that profitable. To make it as profitable as business you would essentially have to charge an amount so high that those individuals would then see business jet chartering as more competitive.

Sam Denby did a really interesting Wendover Productions YouTube video ages ago about the economics of different commerical airline classes.

[-]

swoodshadow@reddit

I believe you on the economics of business vs first, but even crazy expensive first class is far from the price of flying private. Especially for a 22 hour flight because you need a private jet with very extreme range and you have all sorts of crew issues.

Then you add in issues like having unequal demand and having to cover repositioning flights.

Private flying gets very expensive very fast.

[-]

BadahBingBadahBoom@reddit

Yeah but I think you're looking at a direct comparison which isn't truly fair. The reality is commercial flying has a number of disadvantages to the very high-end passenger: fixed schedules, no flexibility, only available at certain larger airports, boarding/immigration/baggage hassle at these (even tho first class passengers still have extra accommodations), no assurance seats will be available last minute, first class not always available and aircraft changes can easily force passengers to be moved into business, for the celebrities: privacy (but also for those C-suite ppl that wish to perform highly-sensitive business mid-flight).

Then you have to realise that it is still perfectly possible to fly long-haul privately, there are charter flights that can easily match even longest long-haul commercial.

The only bonus to first class long haus is the amenities of larger aircraft like a380 with first class 'suites', showers, and less claustrophobia.

[-]

swoodshadow@reddit

I know domestic NA is easily 5-10x to go from first to private. Long haul from Australia is going to be a much bigger markup. Especially because most of the NA private flights are not on particularly luxurious planes. Often ones with nothing other than an emergency toilet (queue someone linking the story about the person having explosive diarrhea with nothing more than a chest high curtain around them).

The true A-list celebrities and major CEOs are very rarely flying commercial but that still leaves a massive market of people that want the luxury of first and can afford it - but are nowhere close to being able to fly private.

Anyway, I suspect your first point is the right one. Trading Business for First isn’t profitable for these routes/planes and so they stick with a very nice business product.

[-]

BadahBingBadahBoom@reddit

I guess the luxury depends on the charter company. But there are many options of aircraft that are quite luxurious, even for long haul.

Gulf-streams long-range fleet is certainly not the 'shit in a bucket' kind lol. But yeah some have let's say more basic amenities than others.

[-]

swoodshadow@reddit

I know they exist, my point is that the markup on those planes is a lot more than a 5-10x markup.

[-]

Nok1a_@reddit

then I was totally wrong, I probably was thinking in another video as I could not find the video where I saw it, thanks!

[-]

maxehaxe@reddit

It also has a neat self service bar and a relaxing and stretching zone accessible for all passengers.

[-]

therealhlmencken@reddit

What if I wanted my drink on the rocks, I have to go to the tended bar?

[-]

swift1883@reddit

Time goes faster when the mind is occupied.

[-]

sigga_genesis@reddit

I'll make you a drink, but I don't do Jack&Cokes

[-]

MayorAg@reddit

What about Jim and Pepsi?

[-]

Koulidaddy123@reddit

isnt this negated by the more premium seating being much heavier?

[-]

Far-Yellow9303@reddit

Premium seating is, per passenger, heavier. But takes up more space proportional to the weight used, so it does overall work out somewhat lighter.

[-]

swoodshadow@reddit

Yeah, if you think about it the heaviest part of any seat is definitely the body + their luggage. Especially on long distance flights like this where people have a lot more checked luggage.

[-]

beepbeepboopbeep1977@reddit

Why would passengers have more checked luggage? If I were flying from Sydney to either DFW or New York, I’d probably have the same? To Vancouver or Tokyo or Singapore, still the same? I’m not meaning to be a dick, just trying to understand your rationale

[-]

svidrod@reddit

Because most people don’t take a long haul flight for a weekend trip. They stay a week or two, means more luggage.

[-]

beepbeepboopbeep1977@reddit

I live in New Zealand, and if you live here or Australia and work for a multinational you end up doing a LOT of long haul, often traveling quite lite. So on balance it evens out.

My question was why the commenter thought the sunrise flights (22 hours) would be different from the existing long haul flights (12-18). They have clarified that they don’t think they’ll be different.

[-]

swoodshadow@reddit

Fair question, I don’t think you need downvotes. I meant a flight from Sydney to any of those destinations VS something like a 4-6 hour flight or even an NA to Europe flight.

[-]

beepbeepboopbeep1977@reddit

Oh, yeah, sweet. Thanks for the clarification.

Yeah, I almost didn’t ask my question as I have seen compound questions collect downvotes in other places, and once it starts it’s unlikely it’ll turn around, but I thought you might have some insider information, as some folks in this sub do, which would have been really interesting to know.

[-]

dontpaynotaxes@reddit

Yeah - it’s about 45% premium seating apparently

[-]

tr00th@reddit

What is the estimated range of this airframe?

Eventually, we’re gonna end up with aircraft. I’ll be able to fly for 24 hours straight on one tank. If we don’t already have them now.

[-]

Hour_Analyst_7765@reddit

Extra 20 000 litre fuel tank in the back of the plane, on top of the existing 140 795L from the A350-900. The -900 has a range of 15750km, so I estimate the 1000ULR is around 18000km range.

The world's perimeter is around 40000-40100 km depending where you measure, so we need just 2000km more to have a plane that can fly any 2 random points A to B, via direct route, without fuelstops. In theory.

I'm betting that if the plane is empty its already pretty close.

Also fun to play with, hope they add this version soon:

https://aircraft-range-map.airbus.com/#/A350

[-]

ZeePM@reddit

With a fairly light load I’m sure the A350-900 and 1000 can do HGK-LHR going east over North America. Boeing did it with the B777-200LR on a demo run, 21,602km over 22 hours and 42 minutes. These newer planes are even more efficient.

[-]

Maximus560@reddit

Yeah. I wonder what the maximum theoretical range could be with various upgrades to a 777 - a slightly modified wing similar to a 787, along with folding tips, a carbon fiber fuselage and wings, and upgraded GE90s. That'd be really cool to see what they could squeeze out of that.

[-]

BigDiesel07@reddit

Hmm, that is an interesting concept. Sounds like a medium-sized upgrade to the current design, so it should not take too long to certify? Right?

[-]

Maximus560@reddit

In theory yes in practice no as we’ve seen with the 777x lol. I think that’s the most viable path as simply changing the 777 fuselage to carbon would probably save 15-20% in fuel costs. It’s also idea as it’s a progressive upgrade program for the 777 where they can swap out certain components over time as tech matures.

This is also the path I think they need to take with the 737 & 757 replacement. Something roughly in between the 737 and 757 in size, with variants that are close to the 737 and 757 at each end to capture a big part of the market. Design it for hot and high and for small airports like DCA/LGA. Use technology developed via the 787 (carbon fiber fuselage and wings with aggressive skew), options for folding wings like the 737, and a common type rating (or easy switching) with the 787 using almost the same cockpit. That would be massive for this new aircraft. If I was Boeing, I’d be working on this right now as designing all of these things would take 8ish years most likely

[-]

NaiveRevolution9072@reddit

simply

you don't actually think that's simple, right?

[-]

Maximus560@reddit

Not necessarily- it’s a massively complex project. I’m saying that they don’t need to reinvent the wheel from scratch and that they already have bits and pieces of various systems that are already validated and could speed up production times

[-]

MacSergey@reddit

If it was bare airframe without any passenger equipment it would make more, but it is not what planes are made for. So, interesting but makes no real sense to compare

[-]

Supersnow845@reddit

I think this is an overlooked problem with increases in ultra long haul flights

Trans pacific is about the average limit people can tolerate, beyond 14 hours people start to prefer layovers because travelling 14 hours and still having 6 to go just becomes unbearable in economy

[-]

collinsl02@reddit

Plus passengers are basically at their comfort limit now on 18-20hr flights, longer ones don't make much sense economically as people will start to want layovers.

[-]

MacSergey@reddit

Yeah, it would make sense if speed is increased too

[-]

PotatoFeeder@reddit

Even an empty 900 ULR ferryflight can probably hit almost 24 hours flight time

[-]

Infinite-Condition41@reddit

Ferry range for passenger planes can be nearly double the normal loaded range. So, without knowing for sure, I'd imagine this one could do at least several thousand kilometers further.

[-]

hibob729@reddit

Check out the range of the ACJ350-900, it’s 20,550 km, meaning we are already there. This is the stated range for 25 passengers, but just gives proof to your flying empty theory

[-]

ThisSir5918@reddit

I read somewhere that this has a 22,000km range.

[-]

BadahBingBadahBoom@reddit

Wouldn't be surprised.

The 777-200L did just under that (empty testing/promotional fight) and that was 20y ago on much less fuel efficient engines.

[-]

VMaxF1@reddit

For interest's sake, the reason Qantas calls this "Project Sunrise" is to link back to the "Double Sunrise" flights they did during WWII that were already more than 24 hours nonstop, from Perth to Sri Lanka on Catalinas. Quite a bit slower and rather fewer passengers than their new ULR though!

[-]

GregTheIntelectual@reddit

Man with the way we're going we're going to have airframes long enough you can get to your destination by just walking from tail to nose.

[-]

Supersnow845@reddit

Finally planes that look the size of the in flight map

[-]

BlueOdyssey@reddit

Probably looking at 23-24 hours, to cover the ~17,100 KM for London - Sydney. Flight is apparently going to be about 22 hours, plus reserves to make an alternative of Canberra or maybe Melbourne.

[-]

Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit

The 777-200LR did a demo flight lasting ~23 hours.

[-]

asymmetricears@reddit

Hong Kong to London, but flying eastbound. So over the Pacific, US and Atlantic.

[-]

Mulligey@reddit

For the most part aircraft range will only go up to about half the circumference of earth. There’s not really any need beyond that

[-]

MacSergey@reddit

It is with assumption that you would fly great circle, but not every 2 points can be connected such way in real world, you would need little more to truly cover everything

[-]

ketchup1345@reddit

A350-1000

Standard fuel layout. Maximum cargo deck space.

Short winglets

*A350-1000ULR

Extra ACT fuel tanks, less cargo deck space

Taller blended winglets

Extended ETOPS

[-]

DatSexyDude@reddit

Does anyone know why they need extended ETOPS for this operation? It seems that most of the flight is over central and southeast Asia.

[-]

joesnopes@reddit

The flight to New York? That's mostly water.

[-]

DatSexyDude@reddit

Sure but why do they need extended ETOPS? US carriers use ETOPS 207 right now, and the route to NY isn't that different than the route to LA.

[-]

NAL_Gaming@reddit

Bigger winglets? Why would Airbus put different winglets on the ULR if both variants are used for long range flying anyways?

[-]

joesnopes@reddit

So that the customers can distinguish the ULR variant.

It was said when the 747-400 was being introduced and they'd already sold some, Boeing decided the winglets weren't worth the weight and they would leave them off. Customer airlines reacted so badly because of the loss of the easy recognition feature that Boeing returned the winglets as planned.

[-]

ketchup1345@reddit

The A350-900 has both the short and long winglets, but the -1000 was never certified to fly with the longer ones. So they will be exclusive to the -1000ULR

[-]

NAL_Gaming@reddit

Wow, interesting :D

[-]

gjt1337@reddit

ULR would make practically full earth coverage with ETOPS?

[-]

mz_groups@reddit

Close. Still a portion of Antarctica not reachable by ETOPS 370

[-]

gjt1337@reddit

Do you maybe know how many minutes we need to full coverage?

[-]

micgat@reddit

About 420 minutes, though the actual number will depend on the speed of the aircraft.

[-]

-_The_Phoenix_-@reddit

That's true, but the exaxt number may vary depending on the cockpit's terpene concentration.

[-]

boredatwork8866@reddit

Sorry, I’m not familiar with that term. So I googled and I got fragrances and something to do with cannabis extract.

Is this a joke that has gone over my head? Or something legitimate?

[-]

8ringer@reddit

It’s a 420 joke.

[-]

boredatwork8866@reddit

Thanks ☺️

[-]

mz_groups@reddit

Sorry, I don't, but you may play around with this:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?MS=wls&DU=mi&E=370

[-]

BillWilberforce@reddit

And a walk around area.

[-]

discombobulated38x@reddit

Also a new engine thrust rating/type variant

[-]

TepidHalibut@reddit

No, just the Trent XWB-97 engine. There are always improvements being introduced, but the Thrust Rating & Engine Type isn't changing.

[-]

discombobulated38x@reddit

Yes, sorry, got myself mixed up - no change to the thrust rating but a couple of amendments had to be made to the TCDS for sunrise operation.

[-]

Thunderboltpier@reddit

Really dumb question: why not make a Beluga a passenger version?

3 level seating easy! 600 Pax! Easier to park and land than a 380, I suspect.

Only need a dozen flights for the Haj!

[-]

wasthatitthen@reddit

Short answer… it’ll need too many mods.

It was designed to carry wing and fuselage sections so it doesn’t have the structure to have extra floors.

Also, there wouldn’t be enough cargo space for that many passengers.

It would need bigger engines and wings for the increased weight of more passengers and structure.

So you’re making a new plane.

And, as the A380 has shown, it’s a niche market for that size of aircraft and only really works for the likes of Emirates who are basically mid-way between where people are and where they want to go. Most other A380 operators don’t have that many or have abandoned them because they don’t really suit their requirements.

So, really, the market size isn’t worth the expense of developing it, when it’s competing with the A350 and B777-X.

[-]

GOTCHA009@reddit

With the predicted increase in passenger flights over the next 2 decades, I think demand for larger aircraft will go up again.

Perhaps we’ll see the return of a trijet at some point with 500-600 pax capacity to offset the additional fuel burn

[-]

Infinite-Condition41@reddit

Exactly. The 777 is pretty optimized for passengers and cargo. A cylindrical cross section is best for pressurization.

Until there is a groundbreaking new engine (open fan, et al) or wing design, there is probably not going to be any fundamentally new kind of plane coming along. It's really hard to beat a twin-jet with super high bypass turbofans. It is likely that the A380 and 747 were the last 4 engined passenger planes in the present era.

Will there ever be a twinjet or any jet larger than a 777X? I don't know. It would be really interesting. I'm waiting to see what happens with open fans and truss braced wings.

[-]

GloveSmooth694@reddit

Not pressurized, payload way too low, egress would be difficult.

[-]

biggles1994@reddit

Egress could be very fast if you keep the front opening doors.

[-]

GloveSmooth694@reddit

These would be some epic slides

[-]

mattrussell2319@reddit

In addition to the many good points made by others, the range is horrible because it’s so fat (4300 km for the BelugaXL vs 7400 km for the -200F)

[-]

collinsl02@reddit

Weight is the main consideration - they're for hauling large but otherwise empty and light things, having a commercial load of passengers and freight would be way too heavy for the aifrframe.

[-]

StandardbenutzerX@reddit

The Beluga is built for high volume cargo, not for carrying much weight. It’s basically a bubble on wings

[-]

ammoniumnitrat@reddit

First issues that come to mind are no windows, MTOW and thrust don’t allow for any actual weight to be loaded, just bare airframes, and most importantly, the cargo hold cannot be pressurized. many such reasons

[-]

Blamblooze@reddit

I found it funny that the -1000 does not have any more or different tanks than the -900. They just use the full capacity for the -1000.

[-]

fireburner999@reddit

Indeed, for the -900ULR there weren’t actually any additional tanks introduced, they just enabled them to be filled up with more fuel.

[-]

Shiv_Chandra@reddit

is this for project sunrise

[-]

PlanetrainguyYT@reddit

So like the 747-400ER...?? More fuel tanks just for Qantas

[-]

Dry_Restaurant_9526@reddit

While I'm not arguing it isn't safe, I am asking what new safety features will be in the new ULR with it having 168,300 liters of fuel. We've seen in the past what happens when a plane fully loaded with fuel crashes. With up to 20 hours of fuel, it wouldn't be easy to drop it all to a reasonable amount to land. I'm assuming we will have a stronger gear system on the plane to make landings and aborted take off's safer, but what happens during a highspeed aborted take off before V1? I think these are all reasonable questions.

[-]

HappyHHoovy@reddit

You're correct those are reasonable questions, and the engineers asked those when the product development cycle started, its all built into good design process to consider these possibilities. The -1000s have 6-wheel landing gear as a standard already.

The amount of fuel doesn't really change much once you reach the size of of a wide-body aircraft. The damage will be significant either way. The thing is about balancing your risks, if there are other systems in place to reduce the possibility of mass-fatalities, then you've done you job.

For example ATC, procedures, checklists, weather record, and training are all examples of systems used to reduce risks.
Also we've got to be honest with ourselves here, we wouldn't be talking about how much fuel a plane carries on take-off 6 months ago, its just the attention on the recent UPS MD-11 crash that has everyone "caring".

[-]