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

[SYD]

No! you are thinking of that silly Continental Drift theory. In reality, the Earth is like a balloon inflating - any point you draw on it will drift further away from every other point over time.

Until it bursts like Mr Creosote….! Better get a bucket…

 

[Himeno]

The Earth is flatter than first realised…

They found out the Airbus aircraft don't come with the needed magic fuel duplicators that the Boeings do.
They can't operate the sunrise flights without those fuel duplicators if they are going to maintain the ICAO required globe earth story.

 

[jpp42]

Matter of time before QF announce Project Sunrise was only an "idea" and won't be going ahead as intended.

At least they will get some A350's to replace the A380's with

Problem is that the A350-1000's for Sunrise have extra belly fuel tanks, and extra armor to protect those tanks in the event of hard landings/crashes, that they would be uneconomic to operate unless you have the supposed high yields that Sunrise flights will generate. My understanding this this "armor" (not sure the official term) can only be installed at point of manufacture and is integrated into the structure, so it won't even be economic to remove in case the business case changes (the fuel tanks themselves could be removed and the space returned to cargo).

 

[Quickstatus]

lifetime of the aircraft on order.

Well the airline has a habit of waiting a looong time before ordering new aircraft...

 

[elanshin]

Well the airline has a habit of waiting a looong time before ordering new aircraft...

Wasn't the a380 and 787s quite early on and "forward thinking" but in a perhaps too overly optimistic direction.

 

[Berlin]

I don't know, Qantas seems to have done their research before endeavouring on such a costly project- and I can imagine that there's indeed a market for these non-stop flights. I myself would always prefer having a stopover so this will be a once done as a bit of a novelty (holding out for Paris or Frankfurt rather so that gives me some time to save the $$$) but I was surprised how big a success those PER-LHR flights seem to have been.

So, in short, I would be very surprised if the whole thing was now suddenly canceled again. But you never know, crazier thing have certainly happened.

 

[justinbrett]

Don't feed the troll.

Not a skerrick of evidence to suggest Sunrise is in jeopardy, and contracts have already been signed for the aircraft. Just the usual naysayers trying to cause trouble.

If anything QF ordering the vanilla A350s make it even more certain, as it will be like the mixed fleet of B747-400s and -400ERs they used to have, reducing engineering costs (not to mention very favourable terms with Airbus, including the very large A32X order)

 

[Himeno]

Don't feed the troll.

Not a skerrick of evidence to suggest Sunrise is in jeopardy, and contracts have already been signed for the aircraft. Just the usual naysayers trying to cause trouble.

If anything QF ordering the vanilla A350s make it even more certain, as it will be like the mixed fleet of B747-400s and -400ERs they used to have, reducing engineering costs (not to mention very favourable terms with Airbus, including the very large A32X order)

Not to mention the credit they had with Airbus for the 8 deferred and later cancelled A380s.

 

[lovestotravel]

Don't feed the troll.

Not a skerrick of evidence to suggest Sunrise is in jeopardy, and contracts have already been signed for the aircraft. Just the usual naysayers trying to cause trouble.

If anything QF ordering the vanilla A350s make it even more certain, as it will be like the mixed fleet of B747-400s and -400ERs they used to have, reducing engineering costs (not to mention very favourable terms with Airbus, including the very large A32X order)

Contracts signed for aircraft - Yes
Aircraft built with the extra tanks - No

What will happen either way is the new A350's with or without the extra tanks can make SYD-JFK

What likely won't happen is SYD-CDG/FRA/LHR unless those tanks actually get fitted or at a much lighter weight

 

[MooTime]

Contracts signed for aircraft - Yes
Aircraft built with the extra tanks - No

What will happen either way is the new A350's with or without the extra tanks can make SYD-JFK

What likely won't happen is SYD-CDG/FRA/LHR unless those tanks actually get fitted or at a much lighter weight

Big call to say project sunrise, East Coast to Europe won't eventuate.

This tank issue, is it essential, more fuel required, will flight be restricted by weight & pax?

At least @lovestotravel your on record for it, time will tell.

 

[Quickstatus]

Contracts signed for aircraft - Yes

A firm order? or an option?.
What are the terms of cancellation of the sunrise order?

 

[jb747]

…and AJ is not there any more

But the smell lingers.

At least they will get some A350's to replace the A380's with

I wouldn't have thought the 350 was really a 380 replacement, unless your overall plan is to continue offering less seats.

The fact that the Earth is expanding means the distance is getting too far to fly with the aircraft ordered.

No! you are thinking of that silly Continental Drift theory. In reality, the Earth is like a balloon inflating - any point you draw on it will drift further away from every other point over time.

Nothing like a bit of cosmic inflation. Which apparently can exceed the speed of light, so how much fuel would that need.

I serious doubt in the lifetime of the aircraft on order.

Australia is a couple of metres closer to Asia in my lifetime, so extrapolating AJ orders and fulfillment for his tenure as CEO makes this a real issue (zero aircraft ordered and delivered).

Problem is that the A350-1000's for Sunrise have extra belly fuel tanks, and extra armor to protect those tanks in the event of hard landings/crashes, that they would be uneconomic to operate unless you have the supposed high yields that Sunrise flights will generate. My understanding this this "armor" (not sure the official term) can only be installed at point of manufacture and is integrated into the structure, so it won't even be economic to remove in case the business case changes (the fuel tanks themselves could be removed and the space returned to cargo).

If the extra weighed a couple of tonnes, I'd be surprised. It will be relative trivia anway.

 

[jrfsp]

Big call to say project sunrise, East Coast to Europe won't eventuate.

This tank issue, is it essential, more fuel required, will flight be restricted by weight & pax?

At least @lovestotravel your on record for it, time will tell.

The other interesting point at the moment for Europe is available flight paths are not necessarily the most direct / efficient and who knows what's next for the ME airspace

 

[Quickstatus]

East Coast to Europe won't eventuate

The Project Sunrise press release says "direct flights from the east coast of Australia to Europe and New York"

SYD-ROM is slightly longer than JFK-SYD. FRA about 260nm further than JFK-SYD. IST definitely shorter.
Europe, for me at least, excludes the UK

It does say however: "The inaugural flights are scheduled for take-off in late 2025, starting with Sydney to London and New York." Whether this involves a 1 stop to LHR is unclear but note the word "direct" is never used for LHR in that press release.

 

[justinbrett]

The other interesting point at the moment for Europe is available flight paths are not necessarily the most direct / efficient and who knows what's next for the ME airspace

Great circle route for SYD-LHR goes nowhere near the middle east.

It's China and Russia - which I guess is equally or even more problematic.

That said it's only 100NM longer to go via the Indian Ocean & ME.

 

[jrfsp]

Great circle route for SYD-LHR goes nowhere near the middle east.

It's China and Russia - which I guess is equally or even more problematic.

That said it's only 100NM longer to go via the Indian Ocean & ME.

Yes that was my point.....Russia overflights are not an option and the detour via the ME (over the Gulf and Iraq) (+300-400NM) isnt much further but with current global events even that route may need adjustment which would scupper any nonstop viability

 

[justinbrett]

Yes that was my point.....Russia overflights are not an option and the detour via the ME (over the Gulf and Iraq) (+300-400NM) isnt much further but with current global events even that route may need adjustment which would scupper any nonstop viability

It's that much further compared to the GC route, not the practical route over China. It's only about 100NM more than the practical route over China (I have 9664 vs 9562. GC route is 9187). China is notorious for adding extra track miles to RPT.

I'd be betting they just go via the ME. Unless there's an all out war there will be a path through.

If you want to check:
via China:
KAMPI6 RIC H530 SURVO R340 AMN A461 ZAM A583 BIGEX B330 POU W90 TEPID W22 YIN A461 BUBDA W56 DHB W520 WTM NSH V34 ZNX DNC W622 BUKPU W197 ANDIM B215 IBANO G470 AKLAS W192 FKG A368 SARIN M166 AGZ N993 ULTOP T759 LANTO L158 IRGOS T613 DOGOB M864 ELMOD L4 TOKNU T288 STAPA N869 DURTI L29 TEGLU T487 BATKU M865 TIGNU B65 LATMI LARMA DETNI ASDIN ROSOK EEL LONAM P43 LARDI N866 BUKUT P7 BARMI BARM1H

via ME:
KAMPI6 KADOM A576 PKS J141 LEC T21 PD N509 ELATI N640 KAT P570 ITURA M762 MIVEK RIDAP M557 TUMAK L602 TASMI UL602 GADSI UM860 ODALI UL852 NEGEM T746 ARGES DEGET PATAK ODNEM RAPET MASEK TIVUN BREDA ABNED L980 LOGAN LOGA2H

 

[Quickstatus]

extra weighed a couple of tonnes

And Airbus has increased the MTOW of the -1000 by 3T from 319 to 322T

 

[Himeno]

Yes that was my point.....Russia overflights are not an option and the detour via the ME (over the Gulf and Iraq) (+300-400NM) isnt much further but with current global events even that route may need adjustment which would scupper any nonstop viability

How much longer would it be if they went via Alaska and approached Europe from the north?

 

[justinbrett]

How much longer would it be if they went via Alaska and approached Europe from the north?

At least 10022 (GC to Western Alaska, and GC from there to LHR).

Of course distance is only one factor, winds pay a huge part too. Good thing QF has had practice with PER-LHR in terms of route planning.