Project Sunrise: A350 or 777X?

[dajop]

What's missing from that article is the detail that (as everyone reminds me) AJ has said there will be an F cabin on the Project Sunrise aircraft.

It's interesting that QF still maintain the need for F, meanwhile SQ has chosen not to install F on the aircraft it uses for the ULH flights, and surely markets like EWR-SIN would have a reasonable amount of premium traffic. Maybe the amount of real estate it takes up, makes it uneconomic. Also of note of the 10 longest passneger flights in the world at the moment, only 2 of those have First Class - both of the A380 routes (AKL-DXB and SYD-DFW). None of the ULH twin engine aircraft have an F cabin. Read into that what you will (I'm not sure what to read into it!)

 

[Doctore1003]

Yes it‘s curious that Qantas wants an F cabin when J is already ”mini first class”

 

[woodborer]

Yes it‘s curious that Qantas wants an F cabin when J is already ”mini first class”

Mini first class is for non-Sydney flights
First Class is for Sydney flights

 

[DC3]

... If you made the F cabin much smaller - say as few as 6 seats ...

Yes, 4-8 would be good.

I like the QR A380 1-2-1 in F, with 2 rows, although some complain that they were disappointed (privacy?) with the open layout.

 

[docjames]

I’m surprised Airbus hasn’t put a (lightly loaded) 350 onto a demo flight JFK-SYD-LHR or (more feasible) vice versa? Would be good PR stunt and capitalises on “our aircraft is already flying”.....

 

[DC3]

I’m surprised Airbus hasn’t put a (lightly loaded) 350 onto a demo flight JFK-SYD-LHR or (more feasible) vice versa ...

Good point. Coming soon, I’d guess.

 

[sxc]

What's missing from that article is the detail that (as everyone reminds me) AJ has said there will be an F cabin on the Project Sunrise aircraft.
So the QF configuration will be 4 class not 3 class, and should have even fewer than the 300-320 the article envisages.
The A350-1000 cabin is only 5 inches wider than the B787-9 cabin so that won't make a huge difference and I can't see QF doing 10 abreast in Y on this aircraft.
It is 11 metres longer. It seems to me this doesn't offer the chance to do much more than add an F cabin of 12-14 seats similar to the A380 F cabin.
Adding that to the 789's 42 J, 28 PE & 166 Y would give you about 250 seats.
If you made the F cabin much smaller - say as few as 6 seats - then being optimistic you could increase the J seats by about 16 or PE by 21 or Y by 27.
Or some combination thereof, which might be influenced by doors, bulkhead, galley and toilet placement.
Of course extra toilets and possibly galley space dedicated to first would eat into the room for extra seating.
But on these rough calculations you would be looking at between 250 (14 F), 258 (6F, 58J) or at most 269 seats if you have an F cabin at all.
You could squeeze more in but that would be inconsistent with AJ's stated "premium heavy" aproach.
At 270 or fewer seats the range of the A350-1000 would be looking pretty good!

An indicative loading at normal pitch is CXs 334 seats on an A350-1000. This doesn’t have F class.

 

[DC3]

The first test flight is scheduled to depart JFK at 10am Sydney time tomorrow.

Just about to pass Hawaii, near half-way now.

 

[sxc]

What was the point of all the meditation and yoga onboard? I thought they were meant to be replicating a real flight and there’s no way they will have the room for the whole cabin to be doing that stuff?

(I know the answer is publicity)

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Actually I think it is more sinister.
There are commercial advantages to these point to point flights. They bypass hubs, and potentially give an airline such as Qantas a competitive advantage.
They save a little time. However, perhaps counter intuitively, they involve some increased costs. One of these is fuel. A 787 can carry enough fuel to fly from PER to LHR. But if it is flying PER-SIN-LHR it will only carry the fuel it needs for each sector. So it will be lighter and use less fuel. The extra cost is reduced, but not eliminated, by avoiding an extra landing and take off.
Another area of increased cost is crew. You don't need extra crew on duty at any one time, but to give crew enough rest and still have the same number of crew operational at any one time, you probably need a greater overall crew compliment. This has some on costs as there won't be enough crew rest bunks and some seats in business may need to be dedicated to crew rest (hence the curtains on 7A or 7K on some QFi A333s).
A further area is catering. Pushing flight times to 20 hours probably requires 3 full meal services instead of the 2 which are common on 11-15 hours flights.
I haven't flown PER<->LHR on QF9/10 so I am unsure what the schedule is on that flight but at a guess I would assume they get away with 2 (fact check anyone?).
Apart from the cost of the extra meals themselves this becomes a space and weight issue. An extra meal service means an extra set of catering containers/trolleys.
They have to be stowed somewhere. There probably isn't enough galley space in existing layouts. Any increase in galley space is potentially a reduction in seats which would impact profitability. Multiply this accross all the galleys in all the cabins (F, J, PE, Y) and it begins to look significant. And of course the extra weight increases fuel consumption which not only increases costs but at some point would also start to impact range which is the critical factor in the whole exercise. The weight may not be huge but it is extra weight which is generating no additional revenue so it would be seen as an unnecessary burden.
As we all know AJ is not only keen to reduce costs he insists that reaching agreements with pilots and cabin crew to cut costs is a prerequisite for project sunrise.
We know that he is in dispute with both pilots and cabin crew over his proposed cost cutting measures.
Recently we have also heard reports that PAX will be left without food for six hours, supposedly to help reset their body clocks.
Let's look at what this could mean for costs.
It would eliminate the need for an extra meal service, immediately solving the problems of direct meal cost, extra galley storage space and non-revenue-earning weight. But it could also help reduce the need for extra staff. AJ could argue that fewer staff need to be on duty during the period without a meal service. This could allow him to roster sufficient crew rest without rostering extra staff. This could represent huge savings.
However, passenger expectations will be a problem. Passengers like being waited on and have come to expect to be plied with food and drink during a flight.
Airlines have encouraged this because meal services keep passengers quiet and keeps them in their seats.
How do you go about disappointing the expectations you have created and exploited for decades?
It seems you do it by persuading passengers that a 20 hour flight is not just quantitatively but qualitatively different to a 15 hour flight.
That "science" has found you should go without food for at least 6 hours to help your body clock adjust.
The yoga and meditation are all part of convincing us that a 20 hour flight is a very different proposition and we shouldn't expect the same service.
Cut our expectations to cut costs.
Long haul travel.
Enhanced.

 

[Daver6]

A further area is catering. Pushing flight times to 20 hours probably requires 3 full meal services instead of the 2 which are common on 11-15 hours flights.
I haven't flown PER<->LHR on QF9/10 so I am unsure what the schedule is on that flight but at a guess I would assume they get away with 2 (fact check anyone?).

Two main meals in Y. I think there might be a mid-flight snack, but I've always been asleep.

 

[Melburnian1]

esseeeayeenn's post above was most interesting, but I don't see the need for extra cabin crew.

It was widely reported that passengers would only be fed six hours into the publicity flight but articles today state they were fed two hours after takeoff.

Jb747 contributed sagaciously in the QF delays/ cancelations thread about QF7879

 

[downtheback]

It was widely reported that passengers would only be fed six hours into the publicity flight but articles today state they were fed two hours after takeoff.

On the test flight, the pax were fed 1 hour after take off, 7 hours in (roughly midnight sydney time) and 2.5 hours before landing.

 

[Flying Fox]

I'm wondering if QF ever considered NYC-HNL-SYD instead of NYC-LAX-SYD?

 

[esseeeayeenn]

esseeeayeenn's post above was most interesting, but I don't see the need for extra cabin crew.

It was widely reported that passengers would only be fed six hours into the publicity flight but articles today state they were fed two hours after takeoff.

Jb747 contributed sagaciously in the QF delays/ cancelations thread about QF7879

Contrary to popular opinion, catering is't the main responsibility of cabin crew. It's safety.
There are concerns that having fewer crew awake and on duty could be a concern in the unlikely event of an emergency.
Of course it never happens, until it does.

 

[jpp42]

I'm wondering if QF ever considered NYC-HNL-SYD instead of NYC-LAX-SYD?

The current NYC service doesn't serve just SYD as the origin. You need to realise that it collects passengers from BNE and MEL as well - the timing is arranged so that all QF flights into LAX are feeding into the LAX-JFK sector. On the SYD-LAX sector of QF11, there are way more passengers going to LAX as a destination or connecting to other destinations from there, compared to those going onward to JFK. So if you operated QF11 via HNL, you would significantly reduce SYD-LAX seats, as well as remove the NYC connecting option for BNE and MEL passengers. It's simply not going to be a consideration - that LAX O&D traffic as well as other west coast US (and even Central/South America) connections are way too important.

Also, HNL has way higher than average costs such as fuel, catering, etc. It is also a leisure destination primarily whereas LAX would attract high premium business yield by itself, even without counting the huge number of connections available there. (LAX has among the highest O&D traffic of all US airports.) While HNL does have connections around the pacific, this can be handled by existing QF flights to HNL.

If you want a stopover in HNL, there are also plenty of AA flights from HNL to NYC, so with the JV this is now even more attractive for QF passengers. These don't connect well though so would be unsuitable without a stopover in terms of connection time.

 

[Mrmaxwell]

Some video from the flight by Sunrise;

Kochie on board Qantas' non-stop New York to Sydney flight

Your seat on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner for the 19 hour journey

7news.com.au

 

[jetset]

Industrial relations cracks appear in Qantas' Project Sunrise strategy

"Qantas boss Alan Joyce is playing hardball with the unions ... Qantas management is at loggerheads with international pilots over the pay and conditions on the planned “Sunrise" flights which will fly non-stop from the eastern states of Australia to London and New York."

From the article, Alan Joyce is still attempting to extract concessions from staff. However time is running out as airplane manufacturer deadlines approach.

 

[sxc]

Industrial relations cracks appear in Qantas' Project Sunrise strategy

"Qantas boss Alan Joyce is playing hardball with the unions ... Qantas management is at loggerheads with international pilots over the pay and conditions on the planned “Sunrise" flights which will fly non-stop from the eastern states of Australia to London and New York."

From the article, Alan Joyce is still attempting to extract concessions from staff. However time is running out as airplane manufacturer deadlines approach.

I don’t believe the manufacturer “deadlines”. I’m quite certain that if qantas was to come to them in February or later with a go ahead, that the manufacturers would still accept the orders.

 

[jpp42]

I don’t believe the manufacturer “deadlines”. I’m quite certain that if qantas was to come to them in February or later with a go ahead, that the manufacturers would still accept the orders.

These deadlines don't mean you can't order the airliner. Obviously the manufacturers are always going to keep taking orders. It's just that you have to commit by a certain deadline to get a particular delivery date. Although I agree that there's certainly a lot more to it in the details then is published in the media.