Qantas Project Sunrise goes ahead, 12 new A350-1000s ordered

[dajop]

With 12 aircraft, that's enough for at least 5 pairs of routes flying daily, with spares.

So enough for SYD/LHR, MEL/LHR, SYD/JFK, MEL/JFK and SYD/CDG.

Wouldn’t be surprised if ultimately LHR goes double daily ex-SYD before anywhere else in Europe or MEL/JFK.

But, it will be interesting what schedules they end up with, assuming a 19 hr trip eastbound, in the Aussie winter, a 6am arrival into SYD would involve a 2am departure from LHR (or midnight departure in the Aussie summer). I guess, curfew permitting, a 1am departure ex LHR might work for a 5am into SYD. Otherwise it will be at the other end of the day - a 10am from LHR would reach SYD at 2pm, 3pm or 4pm, depending on time of year.

 

[Must...Fly!]

LHR has curfew restrictions too.

I think they will leave timings pretty traditional. A late-afternoon eastbound to arrive in the early morning at LHR (circa 5-6am), turn it around on-stand and depart ~10am to compete with the morning departures on other carriers.

MEL could be fiddled with more due to lack of curfew.

 

[Lynda2475]

Id prefer non traditional timing, arriving in LHR so early is always a pain as you cant check in at accommodation until early arvo; although the early arvo departure from LHR that the PER flight has is good, as you can have a leisurely check-out and journey to LFR outside of peak Tube usage.

 

[dajop]

Id prefer non traditional timing, arriving in LHR so early is always a pain as you cant check in at accommodation until early arvo;

I am the exception rather than the norm, but ex-SIN I vastly prefer the flights that leave at 9am or 1pm and arrive at 3pm or 7pm. Go to hotel, have dinner, sleep. Refreshed and ready the next day. But from SYD, it would make it a very long day indeed, such as the 6am departure on EK that arrives at 8pm ( I guess with Project Sunrise that would save 2-3 hrs so could leave at 8-9am).

 

[RichardMEL]

Couple of combined coimments:

1. re jet lag and non stop vs connection breaking up the plan - yes, that's a very valid point. I know I have tried various strategies to get into the destination timezone on longer haul flights over the decades. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. I suppose it's an individual choice

2. Another ULH route will be NZ AKL_EWR coming up

3. re ZRH/BER etc... these cities, as nice as they are, do not offer either demand or good connecting opportunities - unlike a FRA or CDG would. They are just too secondary (in terms of air travel) and in the case of ZRH and BER specifically they are Star heavy which gives QF nothing. CDG as discussed at least has current partners AF/KL. FRA is problematic. If Air Berlin still exisited and in OW that would be a no brainer, however it is a large enough O&D for the right size aircraft that might be an option as well as potentially doing some sort of deal ex-FRA. OW is pretty poor in Central/Eastern Europe (lt's just ignore S7 for the moment) and QF may see offering connections/codeshares potentially ex-CDG and LHR to better suit their needs.

4. Re A380 LHR flights via SIN future. In the medium term as these flights ramp up I would say the 380's will stay, along with 787 MEL-PER-LHR (or it may revert to going via SIN by then, who knows). I suspect though that the 380 may be redeployed at some point (or simply retired), or may just feed SIN and HKG in the mid 2020's depending on demand and where things stand. Slot issues aside, I can't see QF going A380 1 stop and A350 from say SYD to LHR. As shells are delivered though we may see say an A380 on say 3 days a week and A350 on the other days, or something like that - a mix and match. I think though that as the decade wares on the 380's may see different uses, or the fleet may be whittled away slowly. Time will tell.

 

[Captain Halliday]

If QF considers OW connectivity important, HEL is within range.

As a stand alone destination, it would not be on their radar (pun intended), but as a OW hub?

 

[Must...Fly!]

If QF considers OW connectivity important, HEL is within range.

As a stand alone destination, it would not be on their radar (pun intended), but as a OW hub?

Though, then there is no point to this Project Sunrise if 90% of the passengers are connecting.

 

[Captain Halliday]

Though, then there is no point to this Project Sunrise if 90% of the passengers are connecting.

I agree in principle.

I guess I’m thinking about the “captive” Australian market. Not FFers. Those people who plan an overseas holiday and only think of, or consider QF.

Direct to LHR or HEL gives them one stop to their final destination.

AFFers or highly price sensitive travellers might look at an Asia or mid-east stop to other EU destinations.

But my guess is QF are banking on blind loyalty from Aussies - whether by ignorance of alternatives, marketing, golden handcuffs or an inaccurate line in a Hollywood film.

 

[justinbrett]

If QF considers OW connectivity important, HEL is within range.

As a stand alone destination, it would not be on their radar (pun intended), but as a OW hub?

I think you'd see MAD for IB before you saw that.

AFFers or highly price sensitive travellers might look at an Asia or mid-east stop to other EU destinations.

But my guess is QF are banking on blind loyalty from Aussies - whether by ignorance of alternatives, marketing, golden handcuffs or an inaccurate line in a Hollywood film.

As far as I'm aware, QF intends to keep the EK alliance, so one stop to locations not offered by sunrise still can be sold through them.

 

[dajop]

But let's not forget QF don't constrain themselves to oneworld partners. Often they prefer non-OW partners, and where the rubber hits the road is who they develop strategic partnerships with. By the time they look beyond LHR, those partnerships could look very different to now (not necessarily, but you don't know), at least to the west of Australia. EK could be out, AF/KL could be strengthened, or even dropped in favor of LH/LX/OS.

These services also need strong, high value origin/destination traffic (in J) to drive extra margins, so places like MAD and HEL perhaps less important than Tier 1b cities of CDG and FRA and even Tier 2 cities like ZRH, MXP and AMS.

 

[justinbrett]

But let's not forget QF don't constrain themselves to oneworld partners. Often they prefer non-OW partners, and where the rubber hits the road is who they develop strategic partnerships with. By the time they look beyond LHR, those partnerships could look very different to now (not necessarily, but you don't know), at least to the west of Australia. EK could be out, AF/KL could be strengthened, or even dropped in favor of LH/LX/OS.

These services also need strong, high value origin/destination traffic (in J) to drive extra margins, so places like MAD and HEL perhaps less important than Tier 1b cities of CDG and FRA and even Tier 2 cities like ZRH, MXP and AMS.

I would not put MAD in the same league as HEL. Lots of traffic to Spain and Portugal - not to mention the islands, and all accessible via high speed rail from MAD, or connecting flight.

I doubt you'll see more than 3-4 European cities. Just because they can fly there doesn't mean they will (just look at the US market - plenty of cities they could be serving but they don't).

 

[dajop]

I would not put MAD in the same league as HEL. Lots of traffic to Spain and Portugal - not to mention the islands, and all accessible via high speed rail from MAD, or connecting flight.

Fair enough, make HEL Tier 4. But even for MAD would there be enough point to point business class traffic? The connecting traffic just erodes margins and QF needs strong, high value P2P traffic to make the service viable. That's why they talk about SYD, LHR and JFK (and to a lesser extent MEL, CDG and FRA).

 

[jakeseven7]

I agree in principle.

I guess I’m thinking about the “captive” Australian market. Not FFers. Those people who plan an overseas holiday and only think of, or consider QF.

Direct to LHR or HEL gives them one stop to their final destination.

AFFers or highly price sensitive travellers might look at an Asia or mid-east stop to other EU destinations.

But my guess is QF are banking on blind loyalty from Aussies - whether by ignorance of alternatives, marketing, golden handcuffs or an inaccurate line in a Hollywood film.

Or just high flying business people and premium passengers who just want to get there as quickly as possible and happy to pay the premium… there are many many many of them - just not many on AFF

 

[justinbrett]

Fair enough, make HEL Tier 4. But even for MAD would there be enough point to point business class traffic? The connecting traffic just erodes margins and QF needs strong, high value P2P traffic to make the service viable. That's why they talk about SYD, LHR and JFK (and to a lesser extent MEL, CDG and FRA).

No I agree - which is why I think you won't see anything other than LHR, CDG and FRA. Seasonal FCO via PER. Maybe a seasonal MAN and/or GLA.

 

[Berlin]

No I agree - which is why I think you won't see anything other than LHR, CDG and FRA.

That nails it on the head. These flights are obviously about charging a pretty penny (and having USP over pretty much every competitor) by leaving out the connection. So which cities in Europe in and by themselves are big/ $$$ worthy enough to drive this kind of business? That's why you end up with CDG and maybe FRA.

I think connection to secondary cities are, well, secondary as you very well can do them with the same amount of connections via DXB on EK for example or just via LHR. And MAD? I really don't think that holiday makers connecting to Southern Spain or the Islands in Y (and the occasional empty nesters in J, maybe) will even be on Qantas' radar.

 

[Lynda2475]

Well if QF fly direct to CDG or FRA it will allow for quicker and less expensive connections into Europe (including rail) than going via LHR due to the LHR tax. And these direct flights will appeal to those not prepared to consider transit via the ME.

I do not think that introducing SYD-LHR will mean that SYD-SIN-LHR ceases to operate, the capacity of the new direct flight is lower than an A380 via SIN, but maybe the SIN route will change to a Dreamliner.

 

[unclejoe]

would munich be an option by QF from say SYD

 

[justinbrett]

That nails it on the head. These flights are obviously about charging a pretty penny (and having USP over pretty much every competitor) by leaving out the connection. So which cities in Europe in and by themselves are big/ $$$ worthy enough to drive this kind of business? That's why you end up with CDG and maybe FRA.

I think connection to secondary cities are, well, secondary as you very well can do them with the same amount of connections via DXB on EK for example or just via LHR. And MAD? I really don't think that holiday makers connecting to Southern Spain or the Islands in Y (and the occasional empty nesters in J, maybe) will even be on Qantas' radar.

Getting off topic now, but FCO is a leisure market. QF does serve leisure markets.

There will still be connections from sunrise services - it’s the tertiary cities that don’t have direct flights to the Asian / ME hubs where they will continue to make sense - and there’s still quite a lot of them.

 

[Must...Fly!]

would munich be an option by QF from say SYD

Of course but it would make little sense vs FRA

 

[RooFlyer]

Just on hubs and onwards connections.

Does anyone know if say, a pax got ticketed on Qantas paper SYD-HEL connecting HEL- <any European port> on AY, would Qantas get some part of the AY fare?

In other words, would the OW partners want to, or be able to, offer ‘incentives ‘ to Qantas to come to their hub? @madrooster ?