Project Sunrise: A350 or 777X?

[p--and--t]

Does this apply in this particular case (the QF 744 retirements) or is it just a general statement?

General statement. Only QF would know why they have end 2020 as a target.

 

[jakeseven7]

Unless you provide a link, it did not happen. I think you will agree with that....

Check front page of AFR today with AJ and PS combining and going after the airports together with PER repeatedly called out as the worst offender, and was also in last Fridays AFR - all pay walled, but if you are interested. Today's story was more the 'poor old monopoly' airports hitting back at the nasty VA and QF for criticizing them.... Fridays was more the reverse.

RE: Corporate welfare - happens everywhere, suggest you check into how much $ was doled out to VA for setting up in Brisbane (11M+) - you can do that whenever you have time. A few years ago VA were strong arming the QLD government to cough up $ and routes to get them to stay.... So both VA and QF are quite good at sucking down some good old corporate welfare. I don't think this is paywalled: Queensland govt wants Virgin to remain

Can't be bothered to read the rest of your rant sorry, you are just too one sided unfortunately to be taken seriously any more which is a pity because I think you could have a lot to add to our community.

Typing this from J in a VA cabin and the internet is actually decent today!

 

[Alyopsis]

This is interesting if it's true

Protected Blog › Log in

oztraveller.com.au

 

[jetset]

I would have thought that skipping a takeoff/landing/refuelling cycle would be enough of an efficiency gain?
Joyce is really milking these proposed routes hard.

 

[moa999]

Were some suggestions on other forums of a 6 person crew, and/or additional day layover in LHR/JFK.. which obviously adds costs.

Unsure if they are actual union policy or the usual pilot chat

 

[DC3]

I would have thought that skipping a takeoff/landing/refuelling cycle would be enough of an efficiency gain?
Joyce is really milking these proposed routes hard.

Interesting. Would you have a link to your information?

 

[stm1sydney]

Extract from article in the Oz below. AJ playing hard ball, shock horror. JB747 will have a comment I am sure.

Qantas boss Alan Joyce has warned he will shelve the airline’s ambitious Project Sunrise if a new agreement is not reached with pilots to operate the ultra-long-haul flights by the end of the year.
During the unveiling of the first refurbished A380 in Sydney on Wednesday, Mr Joyce said negotiations with pilots should not take months or years.

“It’s not Brexit,” he said. “We are hoping to have a good dialogue with them but we can’t put an order in for a new aircraft unless we know the business case is going to meet the thresholds.”

Qantas’s firm stance on such issues was why the airline was in “the great position it is today”.

“We are going to have a hard nose on this,” said Mr Joyce of the planned non-stop flights from Australia’s east coast to cities such as New York, London and Paris. “It’s a very exciting project but it is not too big to fail and if we don’t have a business case we won’t do it because that’s what our shareholders expect.”

 

[Himeno]

What are the current agreements? What do they want to change?

In force enterprise agreements are public documents, assuming you can find them.
The Qantas agreements should be buried on the FWC website somewhere.

Document search for: Agreements

www.fwc.gov.au

 

[DC3]

Comments so far are quite tame for AJ, considering it's probably at/approaching negotiation stage. Media spin to some extent, to follow.

 

[moa999]

What are the

Don't think there are any current arrangement for flight lengths beyond PER-LHR.
Its a new type, and new length

 

[jb747]

I would have thought that skipping a takeoff/landing/refuelling cycle would be enough of an efficiency gain?
Joyce is really milking these proposed routes hard.

Quite the opposite actually. You’ll use less fuel by having a refuelling stop. ULR is extremely inefficient. I worked the numbers comparing a 747-400 fuel use on the two stop routes as used by the Classics, vs the 744 non stop. Not only was there an appreciable fuel saving, but because your loadings weren’t so affected by fuel, there was much more weight available for payload (i.e. cargo).

These ULR routes, if they appear, with come with a substantial premium for the passengers to pay.

Were some suggestions on other forums of a 6 person crew, and/or additional day layover in LHR/JFK.. which obviously adds costs.

What on earth would you do with a 6 person crew? The union will simply want the same 4 man that has existed for time ages, and which, by the way, saves the company a fortune, as most airlines require two Captains, and two FOs, whilst QF uses 1 Captain, 1 FO and 2 SOs. There are always individuals who would like something else, and the common thread would be FOs who’d like to see 2 Captains (‘cos that mean more Captains), and SOs who would like the same to FO. There is no support for that.

Extract from article in the Oz below. AJ playing hard ball, shock horror. JB747 will have a comment I am sure.

Qantas boss Alan Joyce has warned he will shelve the airline’s ambitious Project Sunrise if a new agreement is not reached with pilots to operate the ultra-long-haul flights by the end of the year.
During the unveiling of the first refurbished A380 in Sydney on Wednesday, Mr Joyce said negotiations with pilots should not take months or years.

Well, it would be done in a day if they didn’t come in with an unreasonable bunch of claims, whilst simultaneously disallowing everything from the pilots’ side. The consensus amongst the pilots is that we were lied to when the last EBA happened, and that much of its outcome was based upon those lies. They aren’t all that keen to be caught again. Previous EBAs have been dragged out forever the the company side. One classic was the period when the government rules said that the company had the attend these negotiations, but didn’t actually specify that they had to actually negotiate. That led to one company rep spending the meetings reading the newspapers. It’s worth noting that the short haul EBA was recently, very decisively, voted down. It’s not about pay levels either. Take it or leave it isn’t negotiation. Blackmail perhaps.

At the same time though, many of us believe the the entire Sunrise project is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, to make various people think that AJ has an actual plan. From the very start we’ve believed that he’d cancel Sunrise, and blame the pilots, even though it was probably a poor idea to start with. Quite honestly, if it’s not viable unless the pilots fly it for free, then it’s not actually viable at all.

 

[Mogul]

What are the current agreements? What do they want to change?

In force enterprise agreements are public documents, assuming you can find them.
The Qantas agreements should be buried on the FWC website somewhere.

Document search for: Agreements

www.fwc.gov.au

Most current one I could find.

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/agreements/fwa/ae415325.pdf

 

[juddles]

.......

These ULR routes, if they appear, with come with a substantial premium for the passengers to pay.
.... Quite honestly, if it’s not viable unless the pilots fly it for free, then it’s not actually viable at all.

I get the fundamentals of flight. I understand that carrying fuel is a major cost for these ultra-long routes.

But what exactly is the sticking point in Qantas-pilot negotiations regarding these flights? I assume the comment of "pilots flying for free" is not a precise reality, but rather an expression of unhappiness.

 

[jetset]

Quite the opposite actually. You’ll use less fuel by having a refuelling stop. ULR is extremely inefficient. I worked the numbers comparing a 747-400 fuel use on the two stop routes as used by the Classics, vs the 744 non stop. Not only was there an appreciable fuel saving, but because your loadings weren’t so affected by fuel, there was much more weight available for payload (i.e. cargo).

These ULR routes, if they appear, with come with a substantial premium for the passengers to pay.

Alan Joyce isn't referring to fuel consumption. He's referring to manpower. That's why he's negotiating with the unions.
A quicker non-stop route could be expected to improve employee efficiency as there are fewer total work hours on the clock. That's why I'm surprised he's seeking further productivity gains from his staff.

 

[Daver6]

From talking to a bunch of QF pilots last night, their opinion is Joyce is looking for an excuse to abandon this project and blame someone...hence the argy bargy with the pilots now.

 

[jakeseven7]

From talking to a bunch of QF pilots last night, their opinion is Joyce is looking for an excuse to abandon this project and blame someone...hence the argy bargy with the pilots now.

Unsurprising I guess coming from gossiping pilots.

The facts are that a lot needs to line up to make these services viable. If they don't line up and its unprofitable then it won't be launch. Pretty simple.

 

[Boof1]

From talking to a bunch of QF pilots last night, their opinion is Joyce is looking for an excuse to abandon this project and blame someone...hence the argy bargy with the pilots now.

One would hope that if this were true the pilots would bend a little on Sunrise in return for other benefits elsewhere throughout the network.

It clearly is about working hours for the Sunrise flights and that is fair enough for the pilots. If it were me at the table I’d make sure that at all cost there is an agreement so if Sunrise turns to Sunset it’s not the pilots holding the candles.

 

[kpc]

The more I think about this, Project Sunrise is really a Qf publicity / marketing stunt...I would not pay a premium for a direct non stop Syd-Lhr ultra long haul flight saving me at most 3-4 hours over a 1 stop flight! What I would pay a (huge) premium for is a faster plane a la Concorde (doesn't have to be as fast) that would really shave some hours off a Syd-Lhr route even if it meant a quick stop somewhere...

 

[Quickstatus]

Remains fascinating to see how this plays out. First-mover advantage important to QF and time without competitors with similar also important. A (small) risk that they chose the 777, then another airline picks up the 350 and gets there first.

Qf has never been a first mover for new aircraft

 

[Quickstatus]

...
This layout would have around 65% of space in a premium seating, 12 in F, 42 in J, 38 in Y+ and 163 in Y, for a total capacity of 255 pax. Assuming the seats would use similar pitches to today's seats, 79 inches in F, 45-46 inches in J, 40 inches in Y+ and 32 inches in Y.

I think they'd probably go for a similar premium heavy layout considering it will mainly be targeting business passengers but they could also make some changes, e.g 9 in F, 42 in J, 28 in Y+ and 193 in Y (272 pax total)....

AJ wants in excess of 300. I think around 350 seats. Maybe F will dissapear altogether. I would suggest 10 abreast in a 777