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

[oz_mark]

Interpretation please?

I believe a reference to @lovestotravel mentioning the aircraft were heavy

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

I'm confused by what you mean. via? over? AJ's thoughts was SYD-LHR & MEL-LHR non stop, then the existing PER-LHR will remain but upgraded to A350 which is more suitable to the route. He also said he expects SIN-LHR to remain. Of course, now QF are getting standard A350s as well, they might...

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

 

[SYD]

I believe a reference to @lovestotravel mentioning the aircraft were heavy

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

I'm confused by what you mean. via? over? AJ's thoughts was SYD-LHR & MEL-LHR non stop, then the existing PER-LHR will remain but upgraded to A350 which is more suitable to the route. He also said he expects SIN-LHR to remain. Of course, now QF are getting standard A350s as well, they might...

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

Specifically that the additional fuel tanks are possibly too heavy.

 

[RichardMEL]

Interpretation please?

Pardon the mobile typo(one of many) but near I could tell they brought up the fuel tank issue back in January. If i'm wrong and someone else did earlier then my apologies to all

 

[Sabot]

The intentions and language style of messages like this, and others resembles the language that the QR and anti-QF lobbyists and operatives based in Australia would use.

“The fuel tank will be too heavy - SYD-LHR is off the cards!”

“There will be geopolitical airspace issues that make SYD-LHR unsustainable!”

“QF’s SIN-LHR and PER-LHR routes are also at risk they might as well stop too!”

None of these issues are major, and it’s highly unlikely they will be true.

QF1 SYD-LHR nonstop is all systems go at this stage, and airlines like QR should genuinely be worried about market share loss when other services like SYD-CDG and SYD-FRA launch - just like how flying three-stop between Australia and Europe was replaced by two-stop, which was then replaced by the current one-stop, nonstop will eventually become the norm by the mid-late 2030s at the expense of the ME3.

<redacted>

This is 100% correct, the future is ULR aircraft transiting direct to major airport hubs and I look forward to it. Qantas are at the forefront by virtue of our isolated geography. Not having to stop in Singapore or the Middle East is going to be awesome.

 

[jase05]

QR should genuinely be worried about market share loss when other services like SYD-CDG and SYD-FRA launch - just like how flying three-stop between Australia and Europe was replaced by two-stop, which was then replaced by the current one-stop, nonstop will eventually become the norm by the mid-late 2030s at the expense of the ME3.

I’m sure QR are quaking in their boots about a mediocre airline like QF running non stop on a product that will be so far inferior to theirs yet far more expensive. Give me a break in the ME anyday thanks especially when QF is still going to be a 2 stop flight and I have to put up with the woeful SYD domestic to International connection

 

[RSVKanga]

QF is still going to be a 2 stop flight

I’m really not sure how you see an ADL-LHR nonstop flight as an economical, sustainable and viable service, if that’s what you want.

Adelaide is not a major city internationally and it would be unsustainable to house QF long haul international flights in ADL these days. Adelaide is basically Australia’s CHC - they have no long haul flights from their flag carrier but foreign airlines operate their long-haul dailies into these cities. It’s profitable for the foreign carriers but would be unsustainable for airlines like QF and NZ to have long haul from ADL and CHC respectively.

 

[RSVKanga]

I’m sure QR are quaking in their boots about a mediocre airline like QF running non stop

They absolutely will be. It’s technologically obsolete to have a stopover when flying between NSW/Vic/Qld and California, and Sunrise routes will become a well-established feature of the industry by the mid 2030s which is when stopovers on journeys between the AU East Coast and Europe may also become obsolete.

Airlines like QR on the East Aus-Europe corridor will become the equivalent of airlines like Fiji Airways or Hawaiian on the East Aus-West USA corridor, where over 80% fly nonstop. A matter of when, not if. By by the mid 30s to early 40s QR won’t be a competitor for QF to worry about, it’ll be BA, UA and VS flying alongside QF on the Sunrise routes who QF will fight for market share against.

 

[wandering_fred]

Then you have the die hard AFFers..... Whose opinion of Project Sunrise is:
Why fly direct when you can connect and sleep in a real bed
when wandering
Fred

PS Bring back the HNL-CNS flight (actually flown in 1987)

 

[jase05]

I’m really not sure how you see an ADL-LHR nonstop flight as an economical, sustainable and viable service, if that’s what you want.

Adelaide is not a major city internationally and it would be unsustainable to house QF long haul international flights in ADL these days. Adelaide is basically Australia’s CHC - they have no long haul flights from their flag carrier but foreign airlines operate their long-haul dailies into these cities. It’s profitable for the foreign carriers but would be unsustainable for airlines like QF and NZ to have long haul from ADL and CHC respectively.

I’ve never said I wanted ADL-LHR non stop.
If I’m going to require a stop to Europe though I’m choosing Asia or the ME over a domestic stop everyday of the week especially on an airline that offers a superior product and far better priced.

 

[dajop]

Yep, QR and EK businesses will be just small boutique carriers and we’ll see all sorts of non-stop routes open up, such as MEL-MXP, PER-PRG, ADL-AMS, BNE-BUD etc. or DPS-DUS, CGK-CPH, HAN-HAM etc No need for hubs

Instead we’ll all just have a pet pig to fly us where want to get to.

 

[SYD]

This is very true and often gets lost in the mix but yes if you are going to the UK then Sunrise would definitely appeal to many but if I’m going to somewhere else in Europe then I still need to put up with the “Heathrow experience” and the costs that go with it to backtrack so in the end how much time do you save. The Sunrise flights will also have a very Premium (inflated) fare attached too which would put some people off. QF are still going to need to relly on EK to carry the bulk of their European travel for some time id think

Which is part the reason why QF ditched the BA partnership in lieu of EK. Fortunately, we can all still fly one stop to multiple Euro cites one stop on QF codes.

With 20:20 hindsight, it would have been great if QF had partnered with QR but at the time, they were only flying to MEL and no where else to be seen in Oz. A real shame. Plus, I doubt QF would have bothered flying their own metal to DOH like they did to DXB.

 

[tdimdad]

While it's great that ULR flights are available to those who want or need them, the travel comfort needs to be very good for it to appeal to the big masses. This means that the "back of the bus" needs a change in paradigm from the accountant driven "how to squeeze the max out of this space" to "how to make it palatable".

12-14 hours in QF A380 Y borderlines legalised torture and I outright refuse e.g. PER-LHR on their B787 because it'd probably wreck me and need two to three days of recovery. I'd rather spend 6 hours extra in transit, connecting in SIN and enjoying a quick meal & chat with friends while there, and be in ok shape the next morning after arrival to destination. That 6 hours is time well spent.

It'd be interesting to see what's the data or market research behind the claim that 80% of the future long-haul is ULR like Project Sunrise. Do we have pointers to this? And how do we secure the 20% for those who'd rather break the trip into two or more legs?

 

[Sabot]

While it's great that ULR flights are available to those who want or need them, the travel comfort needs to be very good for it to appeal to the big masses. This means that the "back of the bus" needs a change in paradigm from the accountant driven "how to squeeze the max out of this space" to "how to make it palatable".

12-14 hours in QF A380 Y borderlines legalised torture and I outright refuse e.g. PER-LHR on their B787 because it'd probably wreck me and need two to three days of recovery. I'd rather spend 6 hours extra in transit, connecting in SIN and enjoying a quick meal & chat with friends while there, and be in ok shape the next morning after arrival to destination. That 6 hours is time well spent.

It'd be interesting to see what's the data or market research behind the claim that 80% of the future long-haul is ULR like Project Sunrise. Do we have pointers to this? And how do we secure the 20% for those who'd rather break the trip into two or more legs?

I expect people who want to break their services up will end up flying smaller regional airlines between hops. It's simply the availability of flights to current hubs (Singapore and ME) that will reduce as stops become unnecessary & uneconomical.

It will be interesting to see the impact on airline partnerships (Oneworld etc) when they all need each other far less.

 

[dajop]

I expect people who want to break their services up will end up flying smaller regional airlines between hops. It's simply the availability of flights to current hubs (Singapore and ME) that will reduce as stops become unnecessary & uneconomical.

The economics of carrying fuel to carry fuel suggest these services will be relatively niche.

There is more to the aviation industry than people flying from SE Australia to Europe. Even from Australia, the hubs in the ME serve Africa, Middle East and a multitude of secondary cities in Europe (in addition to primary cities). The SIN hub serves SE/NE Asia and the subcontinent very well in addition to Europe and also good hub for services to North America from PER.

The economic advantage that hubs have is the scissor effect of carrying people from dozens of destinations on one side of the hub to dozens of destinations on the other. BNE-DOH/DXB/SIN-CPH is still going to be preferable for many than BNE-SYD-CDG-CPH.

 

[Daver6]

The economics of carrying fuel to carry fuel suggest these services will be relatively niche.

I wonder if air to air refueling has even been investigated as to whether it would make commerical sense?

 

[elanshin]

I wonder if air to air refueling has even been investigated as to whether it would make commerical sense?

I'm sure it has, but given the increased risk of accidents thats probably something the governing bodies don't want to deal with.

 

[drron]

I expect people who want to break their services up will end up flying smaller regional airlines between hops. It's simply the availability of flights to current hubs (Singapore and ME) that will reduce as stops become unnecessary & uneconomical.

It will be interesting to see the impact on airline partnerships (Oneworld etc) when they all need each other far less.

Seeing that QF only flys about 17% of passengers out of Australia at present I think you are wrong. Quite a few of us fly other airlines because we wont fly QF. Yes JQ does fly another 11% but I very much doubt any of those passengers will change to direct services.

So flying on smaller regional airlines between hops is just not going to happen any more than it does now.
As for Oneworld the only change I think may happen is more partners will not make awards available to those in the QFF program.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

I remember discussing inflight refuelling with some up the food chain a long time ago ... quite a variety of reasons why it was a no-go.

Not having read this entire thread ("really? it's only several hours worth of reading!"), I don't know if this has been moaned about before but, here are a couple of my usual points! {Collective groan from the audience}

• Project Sydney Sunrise is indeed a revolutionary, groundbreaking advance for the nation of Sydney, remembering, Qantas is the National Flag Airline of Sydney.
• Project Sydney Sunrise should continue the proud tradition of Sydneysiders being able to fly their Flag Carrier in first class to any part of the planet.

• The chicken-little claims about airlines like EK fail to grasp passenger-flows on such airlines despite existence of alternative direct routes ... and, not just the dislike of some for ultra-long haul flights "down the back", but the fact that such routes are brittle enough by definition ... throw in QF's modern attitude to on-time and cancellation, and many people would prefer to use an airline that can retime and reroute with ease, rather than a house of cards.

Brought to you by a loyal, feudal subject proudly funding Sydney from the Australia's engine room in the West, who can just, vaguely, remember the days before Joyce.

 

[Franky]

I wonder if air to air refueling has even been investigated as to whether it would make commerical sense?

Thanks, but no thanks....

 

[Sabot]

The economics of carrying fuel to carry fuel suggest these services will be relatively niche.

There is more to the aviation industry than people flying from SE Australia to Europe. Even from Australia, the hubs in the ME serve Africa, Middle East and a multitude of secondary cities in Europe (in addition to primary cities). The SIN hub serves SE/NE Asia and the subcontinent very well in addition to Europe and also good hub for services to North America from PER.

The economic advantage that hubs have is the scissor effect of carrying people from dozens of destinations on one side of the hub to dozens of destinations on the other. BNE-DOH/DXB/SIN-CPH is still going to be preferable for many than BNE-SYD-CDG-CPH.

Overcoming the technical limitations is simply a function of time, there is an inflection point in terms of aircraft speed and efficiency where ULR direct flights will have a transformative impact on major hubs. It is coming, it's just a matter of when.