Project Sunrise: A350 or 777X?

[DavidFlynn]

The time savings are one factor, but IMHO it's the freedom of the use of the travel time that's the big selling factor, particularly for repeat customers in J/F. You aren't constrained by having to wake up, lug your bags through security and back onto the plane 2 hrs later to try and sleep again. You have 19-20 hrs to plan your journey to suit whatever sleep/work/time zone adjustment/entertainment arrangements you want.

That's exactly right, IMHO. A few hours saved is certainly a bonus, but it's more that the ultra-long range flight gives you all of those 18 -20 hours in one contiguous block, to use as you will.

 

[DavidFlynn]

Would they convert though?
They may have started with a total order book of 115 787s across firm orders, options and rights, but most of those were cancelled. They are now down to 6 orders, 9 options and 30 rights, with 28 aging A330s to look at replacing.

That's true, however Alan Joyce has said the previous plan to retire all A330s and replace them with 787s has now been nixed, with Qantas looking to sweat those A330s assets a little more and eyeing the Boeing '797' as the ideal replacement. But this was a couple of years back, things can and do change.

 

[kpc]

I think they are after the repeat business (in the premium cabins at least). Once you go ULH once, you don't look back, at least in the F, J and possibly even Y+ cabins. Y pax will either love or hate it, most likely the latter, depending on whether the magic number is 32 or 35.

The time savings are one factor, but IMHO it's the freedom of the use of the travel time that's the big selling factor, particularly for repeat customers in J/F. You aren't constrained by having to wake up, lug your bags through security and back onto the plane 2 hrs later to try and sleep again. You have 19-20 hrs to plan your journey to suit whatever sleep/work/time zone adjustment/entertainment arrangements you want.

I kinda agree with you...then why bother with Y which most of us will consider as torture.....follow Sq's arrangement on its Sin-Ewr route with all J (and F) and Y+...that will remove 100+ seats.

 

[DavidFlynn]

Alan Joyce has said the Sunrise jets will (like the PER-LHR 787) also feature on conventional routes, eg SYD-LAX, rather than be a dedicated fleet.

 

[jetset]

Boeing 777X Structural Tests Suspended After Door Blows Off - SamChui.com

Boeing has suspended 777X structural testing after a cabin door reportedly blew off, prompting an immediate investigation.

samchui.com

"Boeing has suspended structural testing of the 777X, after a door reportedly blew off the fuselage."

Doubtlessly some more delays for the 777x. I'm glad this happened on the ground and not in the air.
The talk of Boeing targeting an 'aggressive' flight testing schedule is very frightening given that the 737MAX remains a lead balloon.

I imagine that Qantas is keeping a close eye on this for their project Sunrise.

 

[Berlin]

Please please please, Qantas come to senses and leave shoddy Boeing where it belongs until they got their sh$% sorted. The A350 is such a beautiful plane and, best of it, it actually flies. I'm hoping that AJ is just bluffing to get a cheaper price out of Airbus.

 

[pauly7]

Please please please, Qantas come to senses and leave shoddy Boeing where it belongs until they got their sh$% sorted. The A350 is such a beautiful plane and, best of it, it actually flies. I'm hoping that AJ is just bluffing to get a cheaper price out of Airbus.

If the $ don’t stack up they could go with neither!

 

[jetset]

If the $ don’t stack up they could go with neither!

I think that's a little misleading. The viability of such a route depends heavily on load factors, fuel prices and what premium the market would bear for a direct route. Given that a direct Sydney - London route has never existed before, it is impossible for any airline to make a complete assessment without attempting to fly the route. We do know that the direct Perth-London route is surprisingly successful.

Qantas's modelling is not going to change between now and December. Qantas are simply using the cost rhetoric as a negotiating tactic to influence Boeing and Airbus.

 

[pauly7]

I think that's a little misleading. The viability of such a route depends heavily on load factors, fuel prices and what premium the market would bear for a direct route. Given that a direct Sydney - London route has never existed before, it is impossible for any airline to make a complete assessment without attempting to fly the route. We do know that the direct Perth-London route is surprisingly successful.

Qantas's modelling is not going to change between now and December. Qantas are simply using the cost rhetoric as a negotiating tactic to influence Boeing and Airbus.

So, if QF’s modelling and the $ don’t stack up they won’t proceed... hardly misleading.

 

[jetset]

So, if QF’s modelling and the $ don’t stack up they won’t proceed... hardly misleading.

But they won't really know until they proceed.

 

[moa999]

But that's like anything. They are taking a very educated guess on the future.

Demand and yield I'd think they have a very good handle on

 

[p--and--t]

Demand and yield I'd think they have a very good handle on

Agreed.

At the very least they have years of history of numbers of passengers per day departing Syd/Mel with destination LHR (regardless of transit point) and also the return, plus the extraordinary success of the PER-LHR flights.

Even if a % of passengers still wanted to transit via SIN or elsewhere, there would also be a % (given right pricing) would move off EK and others metal to the direct flight.

 

[pauly7]

But that's like anything. They are taking a very educated guess on the future.

Thank you

 

[Pleb Status]

....plus the extraordinary success of the PER-LHR flights.

This 'success' is due to the scheduling of a 236 seat aircraft onto an (modified) existing MEL-LHR service which was previously operated by a 484 seat aircraft. Nothing more....

 

[TomVexille]

Please please please, Qantas come to senses and leave shoddy Boeing where it belongs until they got their sh$% sorted. The A350 is such a beautiful plane and, best of it, it actually flies. I'm hoping that AJ is just bluffing to get a cheaper price out of Airbus.

Oh puhleeze... tell us what you really think.

Lets not forget that Airbus have had more than their fair share of shoddy design elements in their aircraft.

The a350 is a beautiful aircraft, but I hope that QF buy the right aircraft. I'm not going to pretend that I know which one that is however.

 

[Berlin]

Oh puhleeze... tell us what you really think.

Sure mate, anytime! What else would you like to hear my carefully crafted opinion on?

 

[TomVexille]

Sure mate, anytime! What else would you like to hear my carefully crafted opinion on?

How about champagne?

 

[p--and--t]

This 'success' is due to the scheduling of a 236 seat aircraft onto an (modified) existing MEL-LHR service which was previously operated by a 484 seat aircraft. Nothing more....

I'm no expert by any means, and I am sure we will continue to disagree ad infinitum, but I believe that is a totally erroneous argument.

Various postings on this site and others regularly report the large number of empty seats on other carriers departing Australia, the scaling back of number of flights of other carriers and the down gauging of their aircraft.

If customers are willing to fly from MEL and other Eastern ports to PER just to pick up that specific service rather than go via SIN or DBX or DOH or AUH on an A380, the service must appeal to certain cohort of customers, but maybe not you.

QF seem to be able to fill seats consistently direct to LHR from PER rather than customers opting to fly via DBX on an "allegedly" by some "better" carrier for the same price.

From accounts on AFF and elsewhere this service has been a totally unexpected outstanding success for a totally new route for QF despite all the predictions of gloom, "terrible seating" reports, and "nobody in their right mind would sit on an aircraft more than 14 hours". (reported Sept 2018 - 94% ave occupancy in J and 92% ave occupancy in Y)

 

[downgraded]

I'm no expert by any means, and I am sure we will continue to disagree ad infinitum, but I believe that is a totally erroneous argument.

Various postings on this site and others regularly report the large number of empty seats on other carriers departing Australia, the scaling back of number of flights of other carriers and the down gauging of their aircraft.

If customers are willing to fly from MEL and other Eastern ports to PER just to pick up that specific service rather than go via SIN or DBX or DOH or AUH on an A380, the service must appeal to certain cohort of customers, but maybe not you.

QF seem to be able to fill seats consistently direct to LHR from PER rather than customers opting to fly via DBX on an "allegedly" by some "better" carrier for the same price.

From accounts on AFF and elsewhere this service has been a totally unexpected outstanding success for a totally new route for QF despite all the predictions of gloom, "terrible seating" reports, and "nobody in their right mind would sit on an aircraft more than 14 hours". (reported Sept 2018 - 94% ave occupancy in J and 92% ave occupancy in Y)

I thought the story was that people aren't prepared to fly to PER to pick up the direct flight and that this is more about their being an untapped market in WA for that service. My spot pricing of the service from MEL indicated you usually have to pay a premium to go via SIN on the A380 at the back of the bus vs fares available on the 9/10.

 

[woodborer]

Lets not forget that Airbus have had more than their fair share of shoddy design elements in their aircraft.

Manufacturers are still learning, and things go wrong. I know some people can't get their head around how badly Boeing mucked this up, but the 737-MAX seems like a special case of getting it wrong....