I personally spoke to one of the Airbus engineers that worked on the wing of the XWB at an event about flight test campaign of this very aircraft about a month ago... First question I asked was if the A350-1000ULR is real, and he literally replied "we MIGHT have been studying minor aerodynamic refinements, we MIGHT have been studying weight optimisations here and there in the fuselage, we MIGHT have been studying some wing efficiency improvements, we MIGHT have asked RR for some slight engine software control & materials tweaks, we MIGHT have discussed a larger center tank designed to utilise 100% of the space around the landing gear bay...so we MIGHT come out with said plane..." Basically, they already know where to act and improve on, they're justing waiting for the go ahead. It's all on Qantas now The real deal for me is that: 1) Qantas would have to pay the variant's development cost, that whilst not immense, it's still considerable, or order a high number of planes (not just A350s, perhaps some more A320neo for Jetstar or A330NEOs for themselves) to make the actual development worth it for Airbus. So for now Airbus has put the bait on the table with the case study for the ULR and the real High MTOW variant, but they're not going ahead just yet. After all, we're talking about what, a 20 plane order at best? And Boeing has basically shot itself in the foot by postponing the 777-8, so it's not like competition is fierce. 2) The research flights, contrary to all the media enthusiasm, might quite likely NOT been a success, not completely at least. They perhaps found out that fatigue and similar are way too high on the crew, meaning more pilots/cabin needed, resulting in skyrocketing operating costs (Qantas crew is amongst the highest payed and unionised in the industry). They might also be doubting the passenger interest, but given the Perth-London load factors, I don't think that's the issue I guess we'll see...let's not forget that up until now mister James Joyce has only been doing fancy talking and not really committed yet. Not saying it could be all just a PR stunt, but it might not end the way we all hope.
Luca Mino I do agree that it has generated a lot of PR, but as you pointed out, the cost of development of an aircraft for a niche market will have to be paid by someone. I think Singapore Air has the right approach keeping their ultra long hauls a premium product offering. All the talk of amenities like sleeping berths, gyms and lounges will not be for free and will not be for people seeking low cost travel. Another factor is competition. Other airlines can go through an intermediary stop, let passengers get up and walk around in one of these mega hubs before boarding a freshly cleaned and stocked plane with new flight crew to multiple final destinations. Some of those airlines won’t need double flight crews and be so loaded with fuel and supplies, they can carry revenue generating cargo. If Qantas forgoes cargo capacity and revenue for passenger capacity, those seat tickets will not be low cost. I have done many 16 hour flights to Asia and always in a premium class and the time change and scheduling of flights both ways makes it easy to catch up on sleep. There is no way I would do 16-20 hours in economy and if you increase seat pitch and seat width, then it becomes premium economy.
As a FF I feel A350 to be far superior to B787 in passenger comfort, general feeling and quietness of passenger cabin. Always prefer to fly on A350 if choice is available
Iqt Slovenia Thanks for your comment! Yep, having flown on both I can only agree! The 787 is quiet but A350 is way quieter. By the way, if you are interested in seeing flight reviews about me flying the 787-10 and comparing it with A350, do consider checking out my second channel, the AviationFlyer here -> m.ua-cam.com/video/BTMDzuqaPbI/v-deo.html and stay tuned for an epic 787-10 flight report coming soon!
I'm agreed...last month I used A350 & B787 with same route and same airlines also... The feel is so big...A350 is far away better with all you can feel : seats, entertainment screen, tray table, windows, even the lavatories
Rashad Khan Thanks for your comment. Yep, the A350 looks good in any livery, and the Qantas one will certainly be one of the best! Thanks for watching and do stay tuned for more of such great videos!
Don't be concerned Qantas is just bean counters, this aircraft is very nice indeed , but when it comes to something to admire ... do yourself a favor and find something else .
Just to be clear the A350-900 overlaps the 787--10X and 777--8X while the A350--1000 competes with the 777--9X and 777--300ER. The 787--8 and --9 are faced with the new A330neo--800 and --900
It looks like what QANTAS needs is about 10% less fuel burn so that passenger numbers and cargo doesn’t need to be compromised in order to carry extra fuel. Sounds 10 years away. At one point Airbus said they would consider reactivating the A350-800 project to meet project sunrise requirements. By shortening the body of the A350-900 to create the A350-800 with the same fuel much weight is saved thereby achieving a better compromise in passenger numbers versus range than the A350-900ULR for ultra long range flights. The -800 would be more economic on long flights than a -900ULR. For Airbus it would be a niche market.
William Jones-Halibut Thanks for tuning in! Yeah the A350-800 has got high range in its standard configurations however Airbus cancelled development as a shrink of the heavy A350-900 simply isn't cost efficient in the 250 seater medium sized widebody market. The A330neo is more cost efficient overall than a smaller A350-800, I do believe you have checked out that video in the past :) Qantas doesn't want to compromise payload for range though with current aircraft, that seems unlikely, even the 777-8 has to compromise payloads to get maximum range. Thanks for watching!
Qantas have stipulated they want a 300 pax capacity. The A350-1000 in 321T MTOW format available from April 2020 is the only one of this variant that can achieve this. However the payload after fuel, pax, baggage and supplies is literally about 5T at the most.
joe montero Thanks for the feedback! Will do so in future Detailed Aviation Analysis and Epic Comparisons on the way, of which there are many more so do stay tuned :)
Omari Joseph Thanks for your enquiry. ULR stands for ultra long range, while XLR stands for xtra long range. Ultra Long Range refers to the airplane having incredible longest ranges while Xtra Long Range refers to the airplane having more range than a current version. That is my opinion. Thanks for watching :)
Qantas has a great record of Competitive Tendering so it is most likely that A.J.is playing his "cost games" with the A350-1000 and yes they have announced that a review for the replacement of their A330 fleet is forthcoming so interesting times ahead. Meantime, seriously, why would you just order a standard A350-10 when you are limited to just 237 pax at a surcharge too, and most likely minimal if any freight and, your fleet operation flexibility mix is limited as well; it just doesn't add up. Do it right the first time, get the extra tankage or forget it. As I see it at the moment it is an expensive border line operational pleasant thought bubble that QF should maybe delay for a while whilst they sort out their current fleet type/numbers problems.
Airbus have done some changes to the A350-1000 wing. It has received its fair share of tweaks, with 50cm taller sharklets being introduced, a revised wing twist, reduced carbon layers on the wing to reduce weight and redesigned flap fairings. The original A35-900 had a 268T MTOW. It is now at 280T. Airbus have informed Qatar Airways that from April 2020 the A350-1000 will be available in 321T MTOW, meaning it has been scaled up similarly to the 900. This Aircraft should easily carry 300 pax from Sydney to London. The problem is that there is no shortage of takers for the A350 as Airbus do both versions on the same line. Airbus don't need to offer Qantas a massive discount to buy these aircraft. Current slots in the programme are now pushed up to 2024 and Rolls are saying they anticipate having the Ultrafan ready as an option in 2025. Alan Joyce thought he held the ace in this "Project Sunrise" thing and that he could play off Airbus against Boeing. He now realises he does not hold the Ace and cannot pit Boeing and Airbus against each other either. He will soon find Virgin and British Airways doing these very flights that he has made a song and dance about BEFORE he has even put an order in!!
Is this the true meaning behind ULR? And should Airbus have developed an ULR version of its A350-1000? Comment below! Thanks for all your support and do stay tuned for more of such Detailed Aviation Analysis and Epic Comparisons on the way! If you are new to the channel, a WARM WELCOME and do consider subscribing to join our #aviationcommunity ! If you would like to be updated on the Latest and Greatest in the Aviation Industry, head over to the AirplaneProductions Instagram page, the new home for ALL Future Aviation News Updates by clicking here -> instagram.com/airplaneproductionnews/
stradivarious hardhiantz Thanks for these stats! Yep they are both really close, with less passenger payloads and increase in takeoff weight, the A350-1000 should be even closer to the A350-900ULR. Thanks for watching!
Whilst Airbus has been pitching the heavier version of the A350-1000 with 300-320 passengers to Qantas for Project Sunrise in a 3 and 4 class configuration, Airbus is hoping that Qantas will become the launch customer of the A350-1000ulr which is will have an extra fuel tank apparently in the rear cargo bay to meet the range requirements, by reducing the normal seating of 369 in a 2 class configuration which is still in the Project Sunrise specifications. As launch customer of an A350-1000ulr, Qantas will get the usual cash incentives and discounts that launch customer receives. What is in Airbus favour, the A350-1000 is operating with various airlines and would meet the start dates for Project Sunrise, where the B777-8 is still in designed stage. It is going to be interesting to see what Qantas decides on the the aircraft will be used for Project Sunrise.
@@chingweixion621 That's because they used the -1000 fuel system. But for a -1000ULR there is nothing to take. A new design is required and there is no real market for it at this point. Point to point is the new market and therefore lower capacity is the new norm.
@@intuitivAviationnews depends on your definition of new fuel system. The A350-1000ULR has other alternatives to overcome fuel capacity restrictions. It's real hard limit is its MTOW. For now, the best the aircraft could do is a few more tons above the proposed 321T. The Trent XWB engine is already at its limits and cannot be pushed further. Airbus approach is currently stay within the hard limits and find ways to reduce the weight of the aircraft. This will allow for a not so ULR but it will have significantly lower cost.
One other important aspect to illustrate the challenges of ULR missions: the extremely high cost of fuel involved, and the consequent vulnerability to changes in oil prices. A 20 hour mission will burn some 130 tons of fuel in the case of A350-1000 (for 777-8 or 9 it will be more). At today’s prices that is about usd130,000. Dividing that by 180 paying pax (you cannot expect full occupancy) that comes down to usd725 each way. Were SYD-LHR flown via HKG instead, fuel consumption would be 120 tons or usd120,000, but divided by 330 paying pax. That comes down to usd365 per pax each way. This will necessarily reflect in an extra cost between usd500 for Y pax and usd1,000-1,500 for J & F classes. Just for the privilege of shaving two hours from an otherwise unavoidably long flight. Plus the fact that nonstop Qantas (or any other airline for that matter under similar circumstances) will just be able to offer a single premium departure, whereas with an intermediate stopover 3-5 are possible, at different times during the day, a special bonus for business travellers
Qantas have stipulated they want a 300 pax capacity. The A350-1000 in 321T MTOW format available from April 2020 is the only one of this variant that can achieve this on a SYD-LON sector. However the payload after fuel, pax, baggage and supplies is literally about 5T at the most. The max fuel load on this aircraft is 124T and it will burn about 118T.
Nath D obviously a 5 ton increase in MTOW is possible, but that in turn requires some structural reinforcements, heavier landing gear, etc, and that entails an extra cost that Qantas declares itself unwilling to pay. Plus evidently weight added to the fuselage, which increases OEW and commensurably decreases payload. I ignore where you got the concept that the plane in question with an increased MTOW can fly for 20 hours on a 118 ton fuel load. That is under 6 tons/hour. That is pure fantasy. Please refer to my other post here for a detailed calculation of payload limitations for the intended mission.
@@luisdestefano6056 Airbus initially rated the A350-1000 at 308T MTOW. Once testing was underway they found out what characteristics the airframe had. As far as I know the current jump to 319T and the proposed increase to 321T are without any changes to the landing gear or wing box. The wing has already had many modifications though to strip out unnecessary weight and improve performance. There is also room within those wings to increase fuel capacity that has yet to be used. As for the fuel consumption of the A350-1000, initial consumption with a fully fueled aircraft and 300 pax is 6.6 tonnes per hour. This has been verified by Cathay and Qatar. After burning 110 tonnes of fuel the figure decreases to 5.2T per hour in cruise (and with only 14T of fuel left on board). If you average the figure that gives a fuel burn of 5.9T per hour over the course of a long haul. That means 118T for a 20hr sector. This is the aircraft that Airbus offered Qantas. The figures are not fantasy...they are available go and look. A fully loaded A350-900ULR burns 6T per hour at initial stage of flight and a non-ULR burns 5.8T per hour.
Where did you get your sources? I'm about to write a thesis on the Boeing Airbus duopoly in the context of competition law so this will be very useful.Thank you very much, and nice video!
Slaven Hadzic Thanks for your enquiry. Statistics about the aircraft performances are based on the stats provided by aircraft manufacturers based on their performance guarantees. However, this video does also contain some of my own thoughts and opinions about what ULR really means. Thanks for watching and do stay tuned for more on the way!
Adding fuel capacity would be the last and ultimate option. When the 'flying the fuel' distance is reached the fuel bill starts going way up, 100% + the price of the fuel. That has to be added to the ticket price. I'd bet they are looking at, and/or working on any other options first. JMHO of course...
I’d say that all of the Airbus A350s is better than all of the Boeing 777s (My Opinion) The A350 is quiet, as well as the 777 is kind of louder. Airbus has the A350-900, A350-1000, and A350-900ULR. Boeing has the 777-200, 777-200ER, 777-200LR, 777-300, and the 777-300ER. F. Y. I.
An A350-1000 in its 316 metric ton MTOW will offer the following: 1) up to 5,500NM it carries its max payload, 67.5 MT. Up to 8,500NM when fuel tanks become full it must trade payload for fuel, up to 32MT or 320 pax. Beyond that point payload must be removed at an increased rate up to 9,500NM where payload is 0. This is called ferry range or the absolute max range a plane can fly with no pax or cargo. No airline obviously wants to operate in this region. If MTOW is increased by 3MT to 319MT then you can either add 30 pax OR 200NM to the above. But flying SYD-LHR requires 9,200NM great circle in still air. Adding wind on the western run you have to cover 10,000NM still air distance. By travelling eastbound instead from SYD via Alaska you can profit from tailwinds and cut the distance to 9,500NM and 20 hours. That is still 1,000NM in excess of 8,500NM so that is burning fuel for 2 extra hours, some 13 tons.. Anything above that today is a Piper’s Dream. For a 20 hour flight at a consumption of 6.5 tons/hour, or 130 tons of fuel are required. The standard version offers a capacity of 124,651 kg, so tanks with 5 tons or 6,000 liters are to be added. Same weigh one ton, so an additional 6 tons are to be offloaded, leaving just 160 pax. These are the actual numbers with which Qantas has to contend with (they are unhappy, but they will not get a better offer for several years). All Boeing proposals (the non-existent 777-8, or a modified 777-9, or a revamped 777-200ER or a 787-9) will offer even less palatable numbers.
Luis de stefano Thanks as ever for this comment! Yep, the A350-1000 is also lighter than the competing 777-8 with a lower operating weight empty which further helps. However, even the A350-1000 319 tonne variant seems not to be able to carry 300 passengers over such long routes. By the way, thanks for calculating the math! Really appreciate your comments :)
AirplaneProductions I made a calculation mistake which I just corrected, to which please refer. As to your question of what is ULR I suppose one could say any aircraft of flying 15,000km or 8,100NM and beyond, and in this category Airbus fields A350-900 & 1000, plus the unloved A330-800. Boeing has 777-200ER, the future 777-8 and with some tweaks 787-9 snd 777-9
airjimracing 777-200LR could actually also be considered, with some caveats. It is an older craft, with much higher fuel consumption than all other contenders, with some big drawbacks. Qantas does operate the variant since 2005, but it has a much smaller cabin floor area than both A350-1000 and the yet to be developed 777-8. For this the airline discarded A350-900ULR. With 3 auxiliary tanks it could carry some 163 tons of fuel. Compare that with 130 tons for the bigger and roomier A350-1000 with an additional tank or 159 tons for 777-8 or 9. This should give you a glimpse of how expensive this option would be. Sure, it would carry 38 tons of payload the full 9,500NM, but at what cost. And more cramped, militating against the possibility of offering extra amenities and hence getting higher revenue.
5:41 😬😬 I hope that's from a tailstrike test, but then Ithought for tailstrike testing, they use a wheel so the rear doesn't actually scrape the runway.
Perhaps from 2020 standardize XLR or ULR for all Airbus models 321 ,330,350 XLR extra fuel with regular passenger capacity ULR extra fuel with additional passenger capacity
@@kazedcat Just saw the seat map and yeah, only one third, the rest is Business (like 1st for many airlines)! No wonder it can make it... I assume that Qantas' passengers are mostly economy then. You know... This is a job for Super A380! 👏 👏 👏
Firstly SYD-LHR is two more flying hours than SIN-JFK. A really huge difference. Secondly Singapore is content with a smaller business oriented cabin, Qantas wants a larger one, including economy pax. This compounds problems considerably
Yeng Sabio 300 passengers across a 4 class layout with enough range to cover the missions. I have pinned a comment by Luis de stefano who took the time to do the math for the benefit of all of us #avgeeks! Thanks to you for watching as well :)
@@oneskyflyer When it happens, I hope Qantas will always fly passenger fully-loaded! That is, if Boeing or Airbus can give them the bird they need to meet their flight requirements.
Why not a 787-9LR. Quantas is flying the 787 on the route now for testing with 50 passengers. Based on the counts of the Singapore ULR, the 787 doesn’t need to as a ton more passengers. I agree cargo counts. So shouldn’t Boeing LR the 78 to meet the Quantas need. In addition, it would allow fleet commonality for Quantas and likely be a far cheaper a option. No pilot retraining, parts etc. Thoughts on why the 78 couldn’t be made to add the range? Does the 78 not have the capacity required?
JBWhitney0402 Thanks for your interesting comment. I do believe that Boeing would have considered upgrading their 787-9 but in my opinion the aircraft is already at its limits in range and payloads as of today. However this is certainly an interesting topic... stay tuned for something similar about the 787 on the way and do subscribe so you won’t miss out on that!
AirplaneProductions thanks for the response. For arguments sake, the 777-ER to the 777LR gained 1.5k in additional miles of range. From the standard 777-2 to the LR is a huge jump in range. The current 787 range is ~8k miles. They need to add ~1K in miles of range to meet Project Sunrise. I just feel the the 78 could be LR’d. Yes it’s a stretch but for the fleet commonality and the success of the 78 on the current Perth to LHR, it makes sense to me. It also makes sense that Quantas outright declined both the 350 and 777 last month. Removing cargo for fuel seems like an simplified approach. Likely new landing gear is needed also to meet weights etc. My guess is Quantas either wants a price reduction, additional specs or a 78-9LR. They need economics not passenger numbers. The 78 provides the economics.
@@JBWhitney0402 the huge jump that you see in the B777 classic (B777-200ER) to the B777NG (B777-200LR) is largely coming from a new and more capable wing and the larger GE90-115B engine. Its a revamp of the B777 classic aircraft. So unless boeing slap on a new wing and put on the new GE9X-105B engine on the B787, it will not be able to make the trip.
Ching Wei Xion great point, I did not know. To me, it makes sense to see if the 787 could be made to do it. It would fit in perfectly with Quantas operations. But I concede it would be a stretch to make it work.
Hong Hui Ng Thanks for your comment. Well some were footage credits to Airbus, while others were taken on the part of the second channel, the AviationFlyer channel. If you are interested in #planespotting , do check out my other channel by clicking here -> m.ua-cam.com/channels/Xi-E9Xpba_Gb7brWwq53FA.html
Baruna Syahbani Its fine! Thanks for tuning in! Do still check out this cool and interesting video for some great knowledge and hope you enjoy this one :)
I really have to say you are truly pro airbus,you haven’t said nothing good about boring or it’s aircraft. It’s all about airbus. Your very bias when u it comes to boring. Why haven’t you say anything good about the 787-9 the worlds most fuel efficient aircraft
Rel Thanks for your feedback. Well, some great Boeing aircraft analysis on the 787-10, the most efficient widebody twin ever built is coming soon. However as the hot topic is currently surrounding ultra long range aircraft, the AirplaneProductions will focus on this part of the aviation industry. By the way, the video on the -10 will be a really interesting direct video to Boeing, with some dreamy ideas about improvements to their Dreamliners, so definitely stay tuned (should be coming by the end of the month). Thanks for watching!
AirplaneProductions you should speak about the 787-9 and how the 787-9 changed air travel. We all know that airbus has added extras fuel tanks to there url serious and for some strange reason Boeing refused to follow the same steps as airbus until air New Zealand choose the 787-10 over the a350-900 and that the only way they would purchase the 787-10 who’s replacing the 777-200 is if they would modify and extend the range of the 787-10 so it could make the flight from Auckland to las Angeles and to New York.
Why would he talk about Boeing when this video is about the A350?? I have found this channel to be the most balanced between Boeing and Airbus, if you just want Pro-Boeing content watch Boeingeek (Navgeek) channel who puts a video of an airbus plane then spends 75% of the video talking about how Boeing is better. Both manufacturers produce great planes but we are never going to stop the Boeing V's Airbus or is it Airbus v's Boeing fanboys bias.
George JerubBaal Bang on! Easy one to guess though... Hope you enjoyed this video and if you would like to see more do consider subscribing if you haven't already done so :)
Whilst Airbus has been pitching the heavier version of the A350-1000 with 300-320 passengers to Qantas for Project Sunrise in a 3 and 4 class configuration, Airbus is hoping that Qantas will become the launch customer of the A350-1000ulr which is will have an extra fuel tank apparently in the rear cargo bay to meet the range requirements, by reducing the normal seating of 369 in a 2 class configuration which is still in the Project Sunrise specifications. As launch customer of an A350-1000ulr, Qantas will get the usual cash incentives and discounts that launch customer receives. What is in Airbus favour, the A350-1000 is operating with various airlines and would meet the start dates for Project Sunrise, where the B777-8 is still in designed stage. It is going to be interesting to see what Qantas decides on the the aircraft will be used for Project Sunrise.
Airbus offered an upgraded but non-ulr version of the A350-1000 to Qantas a few weeks ago. The upgraded version could fly 380 passengers in typical config for 8700nm. A standard A350-1000 could fly 370 passengers in typical config for 8400nm
@@308Karl - I am aware that Airbus has submitted the heavier version of the A350-1000 to Qantas for Project Sunrise. Airbus has previously stated, that the A350-1000 can be modified to an ULR by deactivating the rear cargo hold behind the wings and add an extra fuel tank giving the range for a non-stop Melbourne and Sydney to London services. Qantas CEO wants to carry cargo plus a 4 class cabin configuration with a minimum of 300 passengers, which is complicating matters of both Airbus and Boeing as neither can fit cargo and 300 plus passengers in either the A350-1000 or proposed B777-8. Airbus will not launch an A350-1000ULR until they have a launch customer. The A350-1000ULR would suit Project Sunrise specifications if Qantas is prepared to reduce cargo space requirements and have a maximum of 320 in a 4 class configuration or 300 passengers in a 3 class configuration plus the A350 will meet the timelines for Melbourne and Sydney to London non-stop services, as Boeing can not give 100% guarantee that the B777-8 will be available for the timeline Qantas wants. All will be revealed early next year.
@@chrismckellar9350 It was made public that neither airbus or boeing could carry up to 300pax and fly between SYD and LHR. Proposal from both airframe manufacturers requires Qantas to trade off some pax count for fuel In order to make the journey.
@@chingweixion621 - The A350-1000 can carry up to 369 in 2 class configuration. Qantas wants 4 class configuration - First, Business, Premium Economy and Economy with an aircraft carrying 300 plus passengers but could go for 3 class configuration. To get the range by adding the 4th fuel tank for an A350-1000ULR variant, the maximum passengers would be 320 at 4 class configuration or 300 passengers on a 3 class configuration. The general feeling in aviation circles down here in the South Pacific, that Qantas would go 3 class configuration using a A350-1000ulr up to 280 passengers. The current Perth to London nonstop is heavily booked in the 2 premium classes on the B787 and is giving good data for Project Sunrise. It is hoped that Qantas will announce the aircraft type to be use by the end of this month but it is expected early next year.
@@chrismckellar9350 the A350-1000ULR is more MTOW limited than fuel limited. The 369pax in 2 class only has a range of 8400nm before the MTOW hike. To fly SYD-LHR you need an additional 2hrs of fuel or roughly about 13.6T of fuel based on the average of 6.8t/hr as reported by Qatar and Cathay Pacific. The MTOW hike will give take 3-5T off but you will still need to trade in some 80-100pax for fuel. That will bring the number of pax count below 300 regardless of 2/3/4 class configuration. The A350-1000ULR MTOW isn't going to get a miraculous big jump as the Trent XWB engine is almost at its limits. It is currently the hottest operating temperature engine and has the highest compressor RPM on any RR powered commercial aircraft in service. Only when the RR Ultrafan comes about that airbus will be able to increase the MTOW significantly for the A350.
I personally spoke to one of the Airbus engineers that worked on the wing of the XWB at an event about flight test campaign of this very aircraft about a month ago...
First question I asked was if the A350-1000ULR is real, and he literally replied "we MIGHT have been studying minor aerodynamic refinements, we MIGHT have been studying weight optimisations here and there in the fuselage, we MIGHT have been studying some wing efficiency improvements, we MIGHT have asked RR for some slight engine software control & materials tweaks, we MIGHT have discussed a larger center tank designed to utilise 100% of the space around the landing gear bay...so we MIGHT come out with said plane..."
Basically, they already know where to act and improve on, they're justing waiting for the go ahead. It's all on Qantas now
The real deal for me is that:
1) Qantas would have to pay the variant's development cost, that whilst not immense, it's still considerable, or order a high number of planes (not just A350s, perhaps some more A320neo for Jetstar or A330NEOs for themselves) to make the actual development worth it for Airbus. So for now Airbus has put the bait on the table with the case study for the ULR and the real High MTOW variant, but they're not going ahead just yet. After all, we're talking about what, a 20 plane order at best? And Boeing has basically shot itself in the foot by postponing the 777-8, so it's not like competition is fierce.
2) The research flights, contrary to all the media enthusiasm, might quite likely NOT been a success, not completely at least. They perhaps found out that fatigue and similar are way too high on the crew, meaning more pilots/cabin needed, resulting in skyrocketing operating costs (Qantas crew is amongst the highest payed and unionised in the industry). They might also be doubting the passenger interest, but given the Perth-London load factors, I don't think that's the issue
I guess we'll see...let's not forget that up until now mister James Joyce has only been doing fancy talking and not really committed yet. Not saying it could be all just a PR stunt, but it might not end the way we all hope.
Luca Mino
I do agree that it has generated a lot of PR, but as you pointed out, the cost of development of an aircraft for a niche market will have to be paid by someone.
I think Singapore Air has the right approach keeping their ultra long hauls a premium product offering. All the talk of amenities like sleeping berths, gyms and lounges will not be for free and will not be for people seeking low cost travel.
Another factor is competition. Other airlines can go through an intermediary stop, let passengers get up and walk around in one of these mega hubs before boarding a freshly cleaned and stocked plane with new flight crew to multiple final destinations. Some of those airlines won’t need double flight crews and be so loaded with fuel and supplies, they can carry revenue generating cargo.
If Qantas forgoes cargo capacity and revenue for passenger capacity, those seat tickets will not be low cost.
I have done many 16 hour flights to Asia and always in a premium class and the time change and scheduling of flights both ways makes it easy to catch up on sleep. There is no way I would do 16-20 hours in economy and if you increase seat pitch and seat width, then it becomes premium economy.
They should increase the wing size so as to carry the extra fuel
Obi Joy LOL, it’s not that simple. Once the wings’ size increases, the frame would need to be adjusted which would lead to several problems too.
As a FF I feel A350 to be far superior to B787 in passenger comfort, general feeling and quietness of passenger cabin. Always prefer to fly on A350 if choice is available
Iqt Slovenia Thanks for your comment! Yep, having flown on both I can only agree! The 787 is quiet but A350 is way quieter. By the way, if you are interested in seeing flight reviews about me flying the 787-10 and comparing it with A350, do consider checking out my second channel, the AviationFlyer here -> m.ua-cam.com/video/BTMDzuqaPbI/v-deo.html and stay tuned for an epic 787-10 flight report coming soon!
I'm agreed...last month I used A350 & B787 with same route and same airlines also...
The feel is so big...A350 is far away better with all you can feel : seats, entertainment screen, tray table, windows, even the lavatories
ya agree. A350 totally different level of comfort
Well yeah, but I feel like the a350 is like this because airbus knew it would be used for longer routes while the 787 flies only like 6h flights
The 787 was never meant to be a competitor for the A350. They serve different markets
I think the A350-1000ULR will be great for Qantas! Love to see that in Qantas’ fleet!
Rashad Khan Thanks for your comment. Yep, the A350 looks good in any livery, and the Qantas one will certainly be one of the best! Thanks for watching and do stay tuned for more of such great videos!
Don't be concerned Qantas is just bean counters, this aircraft is very nice indeed , but when it comes to something to admire ... do yourself a favor and find something else .
There is no A350-1000ULR.Only the A350-900ULR.Plus there will be a stoppver
you should do a comparison between the 777-8x and the A350ULR
If it's for Qantas and their choice of maximum yield seating, ULR means Usually Lots of Rigor mortis.
Can you compare A350-900ULR and the A340-500 to see which is the better Long range king?
Hong Hui Ng Thanks for this idea! Most certainly, its in the pipelines...! Thanks for watching :)
The A350-900ulr can fly 18 000km, the A340-500 can fly 17 000km
@@12345anton6789 the a340-500 is like the quiet person in class but it can thrive so well when it receives attention
I was surprised when I found out that people don’t understand the words ULR as LR just means long range
Ultra Long Range
GORGEOUS AIRPLANE ✈️
Just to be clear the A350-900 overlaps the 787--10X and 777--8X while the A350--1000 competes with the 777--9X and 777--300ER.
The 787--8 and --9 are faced with the new A330neo--800 and --900
But Singapore is flying with premium only. Incomparable with what Qantas wants.
Qantas Airways will consider buying the Airbus A350XWB-1000ULR Variants too.
It looks like what QANTAS needs is about 10% less fuel burn so that passenger numbers and cargo doesn’t need to be compromised in order to carry extra fuel. Sounds 10 years away. At one point Airbus said they would consider reactivating the A350-800 project to meet project sunrise requirements. By shortening the body of the A350-900 to create the A350-800 with the same fuel much weight is saved thereby achieving a better compromise in passenger numbers versus range than the A350-900ULR for ultra long range flights. The -800 would be more economic on long flights than a -900ULR. For Airbus it would be a niche market.
William Jones-Halibut Thanks for tuning in! Yeah the A350-800 has got high range in its standard configurations however Airbus cancelled development as a shrink of the heavy A350-900 simply isn't cost efficient in the 250 seater medium sized widebody market. The A330neo is more cost efficient overall than a smaller A350-800, I do believe you have checked out that video in the past :) Qantas doesn't want to compromise payload for range though with current aircraft, that seems unlikely, even the 777-8 has to compromise payloads to get maximum range. Thanks for watching!
Qantas have stipulated they want a 300 pax capacity. The A350-1000 in 321T MTOW format available from April 2020 is the only one of this variant that can achieve this. However the payload after fuel, pax, baggage and supplies is literally about 5T at the most.
SIA is the only operator of the A350-900ULR, i hope the -1000ULR will be added to SIA too!
Great information but please increase your recording volume.
joe montero Thanks for the feedback! Will do so in future Detailed Aviation Analysis and Epic Comparisons on the way, of which there are many more so do stay tuned :)
Good job on the video.. 1000,000 sub soon
Milton Ascott Thanks for your support! Hopefully one day in the foreseeable future :)
ok forgive me, just wanted to know what is the "ULR & XLR" ? just a little confused..
Omari Joseph Thanks for your enquiry. ULR stands for ultra long range, while XLR stands for xtra long range. Ultra Long Range refers to the airplane having incredible longest ranges while Xtra Long Range refers to the airplane having more range than a current version. That is my opinion. Thanks for watching :)
@@oneskyflyer Is there a super-duper long range SDLR? lol
Qantas has a great record of Competitive Tendering so it is most likely that A.J.is playing his "cost games" with the A350-1000 and yes they have announced that a review for the replacement of their A330 fleet is forthcoming so interesting times ahead. Meantime, seriously, why would you just order a standard A350-10 when you are limited to just 237 pax at a surcharge too, and most likely minimal if any freight and, your fleet operation flexibility mix is limited as well; it just doesn't add up. Do it right the first time, get the extra tankage or forget it. As I see it at the moment it is an expensive border line operational pleasant thought bubble that QF should maybe delay for a while whilst they sort out their current fleet type/numbers problems.
I came to the END!!!
Captain Monster Haha! Well, don't worry, do still check out this video though, plenty of insightful information! Hope you enjoy :)
Beautiful!
Airbus have done some changes to the A350-1000 wing. It has received its fair share of tweaks, with 50cm taller sharklets being introduced, a revised wing twist, reduced carbon layers on the wing to reduce weight and redesigned flap fairings. The original A35-900 had a 268T MTOW. It is now at 280T. Airbus have informed Qatar Airways that from April 2020 the A350-1000 will be available in 321T MTOW, meaning it has been scaled up similarly to the 900. This Aircraft should easily carry 300 pax from Sydney to London. The problem is that there is no shortage of takers for the A350 as Airbus do both versions on the same line. Airbus don't need to offer Qantas a massive discount to buy these aircraft. Current slots in the programme are now pushed up to 2024 and Rolls are saying they anticipate having the Ultrafan ready as an option in 2025. Alan Joyce thought he held the ace in this "Project Sunrise" thing and that he could play off Airbus against Boeing. He now realises he does not hold the Ace and cannot pit Boeing and Airbus against each other either. He will soon find Virgin and British Airways doing these very flights that he has made a song and dance about BEFORE he has even put an order in!!
😊😊😊
Is this the true meaning behind ULR? And should Airbus have developed an ULR version of its A350-1000? Comment below!
Thanks for all your support and do stay tuned for more of such Detailed Aviation Analysis and Epic Comparisons on the way! If you are new to the channel, a WARM WELCOME and do consider subscribing to join our #aviationcommunity ! If you would like to be updated on the Latest and Greatest in the Aviation Industry, head over to the AirplaneProductions Instagram page, the new home for ALL Future Aviation News Updates by clicking here -> instagram.com/airplaneproductionnews/
The A350-900ULR has almost 18000km while the A350-1000 has 16100km range
stradivarious hardhiantz Thanks for these stats! Yep they are both really close, with less passenger payloads and increase in takeoff weight, the A350-1000 should be even closer to the A350-900ULR. Thanks for watching!
Whilst Airbus has been pitching the heavier version of the A350-1000 with 300-320 passengers to Qantas for Project Sunrise in a 3 and 4 class configuration, Airbus is hoping that Qantas will become the launch customer of the A350-1000ulr which is will have an extra fuel tank apparently in the rear cargo bay to meet the range requirements, by reducing the normal seating of 369 in a 2 class configuration which is still in the Project Sunrise specifications. As launch customer of an A350-1000ulr, Qantas will get the usual cash incentives and discounts that launch customer receives. What is in Airbus favour, the A350-1000 is operating with various airlines and would meet the start dates for Project Sunrise, where the B777-8 is still in designed stage. It is going to be interesting to see what Qantas decides on the the aircraft will be used for Project Sunrise.
No, Airbus will not and should not invest loads of money in an aircraft that may only sell a few. It would be throwing away money.
The development cost of the A350-900ULR is said to be only a fraction of profit from the Singapore Airlines sales profit.
@@chingweixion621 That's because they used the -1000 fuel system. But for a -1000ULR there is nothing to take. A new design is required and there is no real market for it at this point. Point to point is the new market and therefore lower capacity is the new norm.
@@intuitivAviationnews depends on your definition of new fuel system. The A350-1000ULR has other alternatives to overcome fuel capacity restrictions. It's real hard limit is its MTOW. For now, the best the aircraft could do is a few more tons above the proposed 321T. The Trent XWB engine is already at its limits and cannot be pushed further.
Airbus approach is currently stay within the hard limits and find ways to reduce the weight of the aircraft. This will allow for a not so ULR but it will have significantly lower cost.
@@chingweixion621 More fuel means more fuel to carry it :-(
Super Many thanks
One other important aspect to illustrate the challenges of ULR missions: the extremely high cost of fuel involved, and the consequent vulnerability to changes in oil prices. A 20 hour mission will burn some 130 tons of fuel in the case of A350-1000 (for 777-8 or 9 it will be more). At today’s prices that is about usd130,000. Dividing that by 180 paying pax (you cannot expect full occupancy) that comes down to usd725 each way. Were SYD-LHR flown via HKG instead, fuel consumption would be 120 tons or usd120,000, but divided by 330 paying pax. That comes down to usd365 per pax each way. This will necessarily reflect in an extra cost between usd500 for Y pax and usd1,000-1,500 for J & F classes. Just for the privilege of shaving two hours from an otherwise unavoidably long flight. Plus the fact that nonstop Qantas (or any other airline for that matter under similar circumstances) will just be able to offer a single premium departure, whereas with an intermediate stopover 3-5 are possible, at different times during the day, a special bonus for business travellers
Qantas have stipulated they want a 300 pax capacity. The A350-1000 in 321T MTOW format available from April 2020 is the only one of this variant that can achieve this on a SYD-LON sector. However the payload after fuel, pax, baggage and supplies is literally about 5T at the most. The max fuel load on this aircraft is 124T and it will burn about 118T.
Nath D obviously a 5 ton increase in MTOW is possible, but that in turn requires some structural reinforcements, heavier landing gear, etc, and that entails an extra cost that Qantas declares itself unwilling to pay. Plus evidently weight added to the fuselage, which increases OEW and commensurably decreases payload. I ignore where you got the concept that the plane in question with an increased MTOW can fly for 20 hours on a 118 ton fuel load. That is under 6 tons/hour. That is pure fantasy. Please refer to my other post here for a detailed calculation of payload limitations for the intended mission.
@@luisdestefano6056 Airbus initially rated the A350-1000 at 308T MTOW. Once testing was underway they found out what characteristics the airframe had. As far as I know the current jump to 319T and the proposed increase to 321T are without any changes to the landing gear or wing box. The wing has already had many modifications though to strip out unnecessary weight and improve performance. There is also room within those wings to increase fuel capacity that has yet to be used. As for the fuel consumption of the A350-1000, initial consumption with a fully fueled aircraft and 300 pax is 6.6 tonnes per hour. This has been verified by Cathay and Qatar. After burning 110 tonnes of fuel the figure decreases to 5.2T per hour in cruise (and with only 14T of fuel left on board). If you average the figure that gives a fuel burn of 5.9T per hour over the course of a long haul. That means 118T for a 20hr sector. This is the aircraft that Airbus offered Qantas. The figures are not fantasy...they are available go and look. A fully loaded A350-900ULR burns 6T per hour at initial stage of flight and a non-ULR burns 5.8T per hour.
Where did you get your sources? I'm about to write a thesis on the Boeing Airbus duopoly in the context of competition law so this will be very useful.Thank you very much, and nice video!
Slaven Hadzic Thanks for your enquiry. Statistics about the aircraft performances are based on the stats provided by aircraft manufacturers based on their performance guarantees. However, this video does also contain some of my own thoughts and opinions about what ULR really means. Thanks for watching and do stay tuned for more on the way!
Singapore 🇸🇬 Airlines Can Seriously consider buying the Larger Airbus A350XWB-1000ULR too.
Adding fuel capacity would be the last and ultimate option. When the 'flying the fuel' distance is reached the fuel bill starts going way up, 100% + the price of the fuel. That has to be added to the ticket price. I'd bet they are looking at, and/or working on any other options first. JMHO of course...
gtr1952 thanks mr couch sitting know it all
where to put cargo in long haul flight?
I’d say that all of the Airbus A350s is better than all of the Boeing 777s (My Opinion)
The A350 is quiet, as well as the 777 is kind of louder.
Airbus has the A350-900, A350-1000, and A350-900ULR.
Boeing has the 777-200, 777-200ER, 777-200LR, 777-300, and the 777-300ER.
F. Y. I.
Singapore Airlines had ordered 9 amoung the 28 Airbus A350-900 XWB to become the A350ULR .
An A350-1000 in its 316 metric ton MTOW will offer the following: 1) up to 5,500NM it carries its max payload, 67.5 MT. Up to 8,500NM when fuel tanks become full it must trade payload for fuel, up to 32MT or 320 pax. Beyond that point payload must be removed at an increased rate up to 9,500NM where payload is 0. This is called ferry range or the absolute max range a plane can fly with no pax or cargo. No airline obviously wants to operate in this region. If MTOW is increased by 3MT to 319MT then you can either add 30 pax OR 200NM to the above. But flying SYD-LHR requires 9,200NM great circle in still air. Adding wind on the western run you have to cover 10,000NM still air distance. By travelling eastbound instead from SYD via Alaska you can profit from tailwinds and cut the distance to 9,500NM and 20 hours. That is still 1,000NM in excess of 8,500NM so that is burning fuel for 2 extra hours, some 13 tons.. Anything above that today is a Piper’s Dream. For a 20 hour flight at a consumption of 6.5 tons/hour, or 130 tons of fuel are required. The standard version offers a capacity of 124,651 kg, so tanks with 5 tons or 6,000 liters are to be added. Same weigh one ton, so an additional 6 tons are to be offloaded, leaving just 160 pax. These are the actual numbers with which Qantas has to contend with (they are unhappy, but they will not get a better offer for several years). All Boeing proposals (the non-existent 777-8, or a modified 777-9, or a revamped 777-200ER or a 787-9) will offer even less palatable numbers.
Luis de stefano Thanks as ever for this comment! Yep, the A350-1000 is also lighter than the competing 777-8 with a lower operating weight empty which further helps. However, even the A350-1000 319 tonne variant seems not to be able to carry 300 passengers over such long routes. By the way, thanks for calculating the math! Really appreciate your comments :)
AirplaneProductions I made a calculation mistake which I just corrected, to which please refer. As to your question of what is ULR I suppose one could say any aircraft of flying 15,000km or 8,100NM and beyond, and in this category Airbus fields A350-900 & 1000, plus the unloved A330-800. Boeing has 777-200ER, the future 777-8 and with some tweaks 787-9 snd 777-9
You forgot Boeing's long range champ 777-200LR 😜
@@jdf1stats Hmm... did I? Do stay tuned to find out!
airjimracing 777-200LR could actually also be considered, with some caveats. It is an older craft, with much higher fuel consumption than all other contenders, with some big drawbacks. Qantas does operate the variant since 2005, but it has a much smaller cabin floor area than both A350-1000 and the yet to be developed 777-8. For this the airline discarded A350-900ULR. With 3 auxiliary tanks it could carry some 163 tons of fuel. Compare that with 130 tons for the bigger and roomier A350-1000 with an additional tank or 159 tons for 777-8 or 9. This should give you a glimpse of how expensive this option would be. Sure, it would carry 38 tons of payload the full 9,500NM, but at what cost. And more cramped, militating against the possibility of offering extra amenities and hence getting higher revenue.
For some reason, ULR means Ultra Long Range.
Great video! What is the name of music starting at 0:41 please?
5:41 😬😬 I hope that's from a tailstrike test, but then Ithought for tailstrike testing, they use a wheel so the rear doesn't actually scrape the runway.
no not a wheel but a metal plate (tail shoe), watch mentour his video about tail strikes ua-cam.com/video/04WSTEFsncw/v-deo.html
Perhaps from 2020
standardize XLR or ULR for all Airbus models 321 ,330,350
XLR extra fuel with regular passenger capacity
ULR extra fuel with additional passenger capacity
I don't think standard economy (coach) seats i.e. 31-32" pitch and 18" width is going to be suitable for 20 hour flights.
Can’t help but think your accent is that of a Singaporean?
my take is qantas may look at A350-900 capacity in A350-1000 body with extended range....
Increíble airliner... However I don't see how the 900ULR isn't viable for project sunrise when Singapore seems to be doing fine.
Quantas want to load it with basic economy seats. Singapore Airlines only have premium economy on their A350 ULR.
@@kazedcat Just saw the seat map and yeah, only one third, the rest is Business (like 1st for many airlines)! No wonder it can make it... I assume that Qantas' passengers are mostly economy then. You know... This is a job for Super A380! 👏 👏 👏
Firstly SYD-LHR is two more flying hours than SIN-JFK. A really huge difference. Secondly Singapore is content with a smaller business oriented cabin, Qantas wants a larger one, including economy pax. This compounds problems considerably
What exactly is the passenger payload desired/required by Qantas for the Project Sunrise? Thanks in advance!
Yeng Sabio 300 passengers across a 4 class layout with enough range to cover the missions. I have pinned a comment by Luis de stefano who took the time to do the math for the benefit of all of us #avgeeks! Thanks to you for watching as well :)
@@oneskyflyer When it happens, I hope Qantas will always fly passenger fully-loaded! That is, if Boeing or Airbus can give them the bird they need to meet their flight requirements.
American Airlines should get this outstanding aircraft … I prefer Airbus because is maintenance friendly…
Why not a 787-9LR. Quantas is flying the 787 on the route now for testing with 50 passengers. Based on the counts of the Singapore ULR, the 787 doesn’t need to as a ton more passengers. I agree cargo counts. So shouldn’t Boeing LR the 78 to meet the Quantas need. In addition, it would allow fleet commonality for Quantas and likely be a far cheaper a option. No pilot retraining, parts etc. Thoughts on why the 78 couldn’t be made to add the range? Does the 78 not have the capacity required?
JBWhitney0402 Thanks for your interesting comment. I do believe that Boeing would have considered upgrading their 787-9 but in my opinion the aircraft is already at its limits in range and payloads as of today. However this is certainly an interesting topic... stay tuned for something similar about the 787 on the way and do subscribe so you won’t miss out on that!
AirplaneProductions thanks for the response. For arguments sake, the 777-ER to the 777LR gained 1.5k in additional miles of range. From the standard 777-2 to the LR is a huge jump in range. The current 787 range is ~8k miles. They need to add ~1K in miles of range to meet Project Sunrise. I just feel the the 78 could be LR’d. Yes it’s a stretch but for the fleet commonality and the success of the 78 on the current Perth to LHR, it makes sense to me. It also makes sense that Quantas outright declined both the 350 and 777 last month. Removing cargo for fuel seems like an simplified approach. Likely new landing gear is needed also to meet weights etc. My guess is Quantas either wants a price reduction, additional specs or a 78-9LR. They need economics not passenger numbers. The 78 provides the economics.
@@JBWhitney0402 the huge jump that you see in the B777 classic (B777-200ER) to the B777NG (B777-200LR) is largely coming from a new and more capable wing and the larger GE90-115B engine. Its a revamp of the B777 classic aircraft.
So unless boeing slap on a new wing and put on the new GE9X-105B engine on the B787, it will not be able to make the trip.
Ching Wei Xion great point, I did not know. To me, it makes sense to see if the 787 could be made to do it. It would fit in perfectly with Quantas operations. But I concede it would be a stretch to make it work.
The thumbnail is a 787
Fl o a350
the cruise altiude should be 60000 feet into space and back down on earth ! 2 hr max flight
How did you get all the A350 planespotting vids?
Hong Hui Ng Thanks for your comment. Well some were footage credits to Airbus, while others were taken on the part of the second channel, the AviationFlyer channel. If you are interested in #planespotting , do check out my other channel by clicking here -> m.ua-cam.com/channels/Xi-E9Xpba_Gb7brWwq53FA.html
Ok sure
Just a weird thought that came to me when I was looking at the 777-8
What if Boeing gave the 737Max Family raked wingtips?
It would still fall out of the sky. It's a dead horse and Boeing have been flogging it.
777x has hull problems so it might be delayed further
I love it😢😇
It's. Really. Good 😊😇😇😇😇😇😢😢
Any aircraft with a range of more than 13000 km is defined as a ULR aircraft.
I'M LATE!!!!
Baruna Syahbani Its fine! Thanks for tuning in! Do still check out this cool and interesting video for some great knowledge and hope you enjoy this one :)
"humbly" hahahaha
I humbly laughed at that part
Hey, but first comment!
Captain Monster Most certainly! Hope you enjoyed this video, stay tuned for more epic premieres!
@@oneskyflyer thanks! And good work!
My heart in 7:35🤤
Ultra?
Long?
Range?
Si.
Great Video I don´t have Fly the A350, but I will do in (;
I really have to say you are truly pro airbus,you haven’t said nothing good about boring or it’s aircraft. It’s all about airbus. Your very bias when u it comes to boring. Why haven’t you say anything good about the 787-9 the worlds most fuel efficient aircraft
Rel Thanks for your feedback. Well, some great Boeing aircraft analysis on the 787-10, the most efficient widebody twin ever built is coming soon. However as the hot topic is currently surrounding ultra long range aircraft, the AirplaneProductions will focus on this part of the aviation industry. By the way, the video on the -10 will be a really interesting direct video to Boeing, with some dreamy ideas about improvements to their Dreamliners, so definitely stay tuned (should be coming by the end of the month). Thanks for watching!
AirplaneProductions you should speak about the 787-9 and how the 787-9 changed air travel. We all know that airbus has added extras fuel tanks to there url serious and for some strange reason Boeing refused to follow the same steps as airbus until air New Zealand choose the 787-10 over the a350-900 and that the only way they would purchase the 787-10 who’s replacing the 777-200 is if they would modify and extend the range of the 787-10 so it could make the flight from Auckland to las Angeles and to New York.
Why would he talk about Boeing when this video is about the A350?? I have found this channel to be the most balanced between Boeing and Airbus, if you just want Pro-Boeing content watch Boeingeek (Navgeek) channel who puts a video of an airbus plane then spends 75% of the video talking about how Boeing is better. Both manufacturers produce great planes but we are never going to stop the Boeing V's Airbus or is it Airbus v's Boeing fanboys bias.
A340 VS 777......or A340 VS A350 !
Masud Alam Thanks for these video ideas. Most certainly on the way!
@@oneskyflyer Thanks :)
You sound Singaporean
George JerubBaal Bang on! Easy one to guess though... Hope you enjoyed this video and if you would like to see more do consider subscribing if you haven't already done so :)
I sure did enjoy it, I'll think about it, at the mean time keep making creating the exciting content you've been making, you have my admiration
Strip the plane down and fill it full with fuel tanks and see if it can circumnavigate the world.
Just thinking.
Just use conformal fuel tanks & drop tanks. Also, internal bladder tanks. Lose the toilets.
If it's Boeing I'm not going.
The way things are panning out I think Boeing will be a very pushed operation in the next 20 years. Airbus have gone from tortoise to hare in a flash.
Boeing put profit over survival of the company when they listed on the stock exchange
@ 6-00min all the information needed - the rest 13minites blah blah blah
Do NOT pronounce it "KU-AH-NAS" Say /kuan-tas/ with T as in sTUpid
Yaaaaawn ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Wilbur Finnigan start your own channel then...
That would make some entertainment.
i cant be the only one that read "ABSOULR" first in the title
Kr. all. molecules carbon. W. nanotech. On. scillicon. insulate body out. thx
This video is so biased..lol
need israel visit 20 or more days
Please cut the first 5 min !!!! It's just blablabla ..... you waste my time!!
terrible accent
Whilst Airbus has been pitching the heavier version of the A350-1000 with 300-320 passengers to Qantas for Project Sunrise in a 3 and 4 class configuration, Airbus is hoping that Qantas will become the launch customer of the A350-1000ulr which is will have an extra fuel tank apparently in the rear cargo bay to meet the range requirements, by reducing the normal seating of 369 in a 2 class configuration which is still in the Project Sunrise specifications. As launch customer of an A350-1000ulr, Qantas will get the usual cash incentives and discounts that launch customer receives. What is in Airbus favour, the A350-1000 is operating with various airlines and would meet the start dates for Project Sunrise, where the B777-8 is still in designed stage. It is going to be interesting to see what Qantas decides on the the aircraft will be used for Project Sunrise.
Airbus offered an upgraded but non-ulr version of the A350-1000 to Qantas a few weeks ago. The upgraded version could fly 380 passengers in typical config for 8700nm.
A standard A350-1000 could fly 370 passengers in typical config for 8400nm
@@308Karl - I am aware that Airbus has submitted the heavier version of the A350-1000 to Qantas for Project Sunrise. Airbus has previously stated, that the A350-1000 can be modified to an ULR by deactivating the rear cargo hold behind the wings and add an extra fuel tank giving the range for a non-stop Melbourne and Sydney to London services. Qantas CEO wants to carry cargo plus a 4 class cabin configuration with a minimum of 300 passengers, which is complicating matters of both Airbus and Boeing as neither can fit cargo and 300 plus passengers in either the A350-1000 or proposed B777-8. Airbus will not launch an A350-1000ULR until they have a launch customer. The A350-1000ULR would suit Project Sunrise specifications if Qantas is prepared to reduce cargo space requirements and have a maximum of 320 in a 4 class configuration or 300 passengers in a 3 class configuration plus the A350 will meet the timelines for Melbourne and Sydney to London non-stop services, as Boeing can not give 100% guarantee that the B777-8 will be available for the timeline Qantas wants. All will be revealed early next year.
@@chrismckellar9350 It was made public that neither airbus or boeing could carry up to 300pax and fly between SYD and LHR. Proposal from both airframe manufacturers requires Qantas to trade off some pax count for fuel In order to make the journey.
@@chingweixion621 - The A350-1000 can carry up to 369 in 2 class configuration. Qantas wants 4 class configuration - First, Business, Premium Economy and Economy with an aircraft carrying 300 plus passengers but could go for 3 class configuration. To get the range by adding the 4th fuel tank for an A350-1000ULR variant, the maximum passengers would be 320 at 4 class configuration or 300 passengers on a 3 class configuration. The general feeling in aviation circles down here in the South Pacific, that Qantas would go 3 class configuration using a A350-1000ulr up to 280 passengers. The current Perth to London nonstop is heavily booked in the 2 premium classes on the B787 and is giving good data for Project Sunrise. It is hoped that Qantas will announce the aircraft type to be use by the end of this month but it is expected early next year.
@@chrismckellar9350 the A350-1000ULR is more MTOW limited than fuel limited. The 369pax in 2 class only has a range of 8400nm before the MTOW hike. To fly SYD-LHR you need an additional 2hrs of fuel or roughly about 13.6T of fuel based on the average of 6.8t/hr as reported by Qatar and Cathay Pacific. The MTOW hike will give take 3-5T off but you will still need to trade in some 80-100pax for fuel. That will bring the number of pax count below 300 regardless of 2/3/4 class configuration.
The A350-1000ULR MTOW isn't going to get a miraculous big jump as the Trent XWB engine is almost at its limits. It is currently the hottest operating temperature engine and has the highest compressor RPM on any RR powered commercial aircraft in service. Only when the RR Ultrafan comes about that airbus will be able to increase the MTOW significantly for the A350.