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

[jase05]

but I do think it will be a premium service highly sought after, and they'll have no trouble filling the planes.

I don’t think too many are disputing that and absolutely they will be full.
What I’m disputing is that a handful of QF daily direct flights will have an adverse affect on the ME airlines and “kill them”
I’m tipping that it won’t even cause a ripple and that there is more than enough travellers that both options survive

 

[OATEK]

But when you look now, a lot of pax are flying to DFW and JFK via AKL. Years ago those pax where flying into LAX - and before that HNL. And of course, we now have PER-LHR/FCO/CDG.

I think there is a fair bit of small think in this thread, that things and market forces will always remain as they are. I don't think sunrise will kill the Gulf / Asian carriers but I do think it will be a premium service highly sought after, and they'll have no trouble filling the planes.

Exactly, a niche but profitable venture ...

I don’t think too many are disputing that and absolutely they will be full.
What I’m disputing is that a handful of QF daily direct flights will have an adverse affect on the ME airlines and “kill them”
I’m tipping that it won’t even cause a ripple and that there is more than enough travellers that both options survive

... but not a game changer.

 

[downgraded]

Important to remember there’s 1.1 million Australian residents born in the UK, let alone the number of second and third generations.

Also approximately 98% of London bartenders are Australian

And how many of them would therefore actually have London as their destination?

 

[justinbrett]

And how many of them would therefore actually have London as their destination?

Not all 1.1 million are flying.

But a lot. Most Brits I know fly into London and get the train from there. Including a friend of mine that lives in Scotland.

 

[downgraded]

Not all 1.1 million are flying.

But a lot. Most Brits I know fly into London and get the train from there. Including a friend of mine that lives in Scotland.

I didn't say or imply that they were. In fact most wouldn't be. The reality is flying in to Manchester, Birmingham, or Glasgow would provide a much more convenient and shorter ground transfer than doing a flight in to LHR. Getting from LHR to Kings Cross or St Pancras is a pain in the proverbial with luggage as well as the exorbitant cost of flexible tickets on overcrowded trains.
I match your profile and have done it for decades, but then ME3 options came along and as I've been saying, now I and others can actually get to our destination (or somewhere much more convenient) more readily and more cheaply.

 

[RooFlyer]

I think people here need to acknowledge that the amount of people on AFF happy flying two-stop to Europe in J/F is severely disproportionate to the amount of people actually doing this in the Australia-Europe corridor, which as you know comprises frequent and infrequent travellers in all four classes in both directions

What I think needs to happen is for you to provide some sort or evidence or substantiation for the thing almost your entire argument rests on.

When you look at the whole Australia-Europe corridor, how many people fly these exotic two-stop/RTW routings to Europe? 1%? These two-stops are for leisure purposes (no longer the norm) and go against the idea of A-to-B travel when we have improved technology.

1%? 20%? 50%. Lets pull more figures out of the air. You make many, many assertions but zero evidence for them. Give us a bit, eh?

I was saying that the Adelaide-Sofia corridor is an extremely niche market, with a estimated maximum of four people travelling that route every year.

You seem so proud of that silly assertion, but I've long argued that you aren't serious. As it happens, I was one of those who did it in 2019 . Oh! Lookit that - 4 stops to my destination. If I wanted to do this on Qantas, even today, it would be 3 stops; and if it was via LHR there would be substantial backtracking.

But Sofia is off-topic, and as you won't provide any real figures, best leave it there.

 

[jb747]

Hobart-Sofia direct. Bragging rights won.

 

[jase05]

Not all 1.1 million are flying.

But a lot. Most Brits I know fly into London and get the train from there. Including a friend of mine that lives in Scotland.

Most of my rellies try to fly in/out to whatever is convenient even if price is a bit more expensive. The ones that live just outside of Manchester nearly always fly back in to MAN or if a quick trip they might use a LCC to Stansted or Luton to try and avoid LHR.
Personally I think the other London airports are a bit of a waste but they are set in their ways

 

[justinbrett]

The reality is flying in to Manchester, Birmingham, or Glasgow would provide a much more convenient and shorter ground transfer

And for everywhere else?

 

[Jacques Vert]

I can't see myself using the non-stop flights to Europe simply because it's unlikely QF will release Award seats in J on those fights!

 

[RSVKanga]

zero evidence

History is the evidence.

Here it is again:

Qantas axed its 5 stop Sydney-Singapore-Calcutta-Karachi-Cairo-Rome-London 707 service when improved technology (747-200B) allowed for the route to be flown in only two stops, and consumers adopted that as the norm.

Qantas axed its 2 stop Sydney-Singapore-Bahrain-London 747-200B service when improved technology (747-400) allowed for one stop Sydney-Singapore-London, and consumers adopted that as the norm.

So I fully expect consumers to adopt Sunrise as the norm for people travelling to major European cities. Perth residents have embraced QF9 as the norm to get to LHR, and vice versa. I expect SYD-SIN-LHR to remain, probably on a standard A350, but it could be repositioned purely into a revenue service tapping into the Asian market, similar EK's DXB-SIN-MEL service, as opposed to a fuel stop. And as other people have pointed out, PER is also likely to remain as it's similar to Australians visiting California (business, tourist and transit destination) before travelling to the eastern USA, fundamentally different to a transit-oriented stopover in a different country. So it's all in Qantas' favour I think.

 

[RooFlyer]

Here it is again:

The first 2 paras are history, sure, going back to behaviours what? 30-40 years ago?

Then we come again to 'your' expectation, opinion, etc. etc. Fair enough, but don't expect us to treat that other than a rather amusing bon mot.

Perth residents have embraced QF9 as the norm to get to LHR Oh, Lord. Have they really? A survey of Perth's population would be handy to know what they have actually embraced (as opposed to, say businessmen, which was your argument before).

And on it goes.

 

[TheRealTMA]

I can't see myself using the non-stop flights to Europe simply because it's unlikely QF will release Award seats in J on those fights!

Good luck to QF but I have no interest in flying to PER then stuck for 17hrs on a QF flight on a 787 or whatever then onward flight making two stops overall when I can do BNE - any other port in one stop via DXB on a nice A380. Have done many one stoppers BNE GLA, BNE ZUR, and also BNE SEA twice via DXB rather then QF to LAX then Alaskan to SEA. Nice A380 all the way and very little difference in total travel times.

 

[p--and--t]

Good luck to QF but I have no interest in flying to PER then stuck for 17hrs on a QF flight on a 787 or whatever then onward flight making two stops overall when I can do BNE - any other port in one stop via DXB on a nice A380. Have done many on stoppers BNE GLA, BNE ZUR, and also BNE SEA twice via DXB rather then QF to LAX then Alaskan to SEA. Nice A380 all the way and very little difference in total travel times.

Probably not going to concern me at my time of life but A380s prob have about, what another 10 years of life - what then?

 

[TheRealTMA]

Probably not going to concern me at my time of life but A380s prob have about, what another 10 years of life - what then?

Will not be my problem either I believe. But there are some nice new aircraft that look interesting. As long as the airline has food and particularly beverages matching the class and cost of travel (unlike QF), plus doors on suites, I’ll be up for it.

 

[DC3]

Good luck to QF but I have no interest in flying to PER then stuck for 17hrs on a QF flight on a 787 or whatever …

What about flying up the pointy end?

 

[TheRealTMA]

What about flying up the pointy end?

Always do.

 

[DC3]

Always do.

Apologies for thinking of you sandwiched-in up the back, “stuck for 17hrs on a QF flight on a 787 or whatever”.

 

[SCM]

I'd say a huge number. Business trips are usually in the major cities (London, Paris, Rome etc). Tourists may not spend their whole trip in the one destination but it will make up an important part of it and probably proceed on rail or cheap flights (Ryanair etc) from there.

To say it's a tiny niche of pax flying from SYD-LHR is laughable.

I think that's only because those are the biggest airports to which ME3 fly to most - so the most availability. I would love to fly J to secondary cities, but there's just very few options. However this will change this coming decade, I am confident.

So I fully expect consumers to adopt Sunrise as the norm for people travelling to major European cities.

I disagree with your thesis, simply because at that time, it was basically only QF and nobody was competing on quality - in other words, there was no ME3 (soon to be ME4). We're in a very different world now, and I just don't think most people care much about 2-3 hour connections, especially when there's a lot more flexibility when leaving and arriving times. The pros and cons are simply a world away from those prior examples you gave.

And as I said in the quoted post, most people I talk to who travel, 99% of them not on AFF, remain unconvinced and uninterested in the non-stop flights.

I think it's much worse for Qantas than that. We know for a fact that the vast majority of economy pax (leisure market) are highly price sensitive, they will simply not pay the premium Qantas wants over transit flights. Ryanair has literally made a business model out of making customers travel to weird far-away middle of nowhere airports (thereby wasting time and money), just to save $100 or so on a flight. Within the context of that fact, do you really think anyone flying economy is going to care about a few hours layover vs saving many hundreds?

On the other hand for business pax, I think Qantas will need to offer a steep discount on ME3/4 because let's face it, they are not able to compete on quality - and if you are flying J, you are likely more after quality - meanwhile Qantas will not have the best quality nor the cheapest price. So what are they offering besides shaving 2 hours off the fastest connecting flights? How many business pax actually care? I'm sure some do - but most won't, flying ME3 airlines in J has a certain prestige to it, I would vouch that that is actually even more important to people. Everyone talks about qsuites or emirates bar - they are sexy, unique experiences that define the luxury of air travel. A very long non-stop flight is in no way luxurious or something to fantasise nor brag about.

Probably not going to concern me at my time of life but A380s prob have about, what another 10 years of life - what then?

Airbus will make an A380neo - bet on it. If not it will have to be something like 777X-10 stretch or something crazy like that.

 

[justinbrett]

I think that's only because those are the biggest airports to which ME3 fly to most - so the most availability. I would love to fly J to secondary cities, but there's just very few options. However this will change this coming decade, I am confident.

So circle that back one step, why do you think those are the places the Gulf airlines fly to most?

I’ll give you a hint, London and Paris are not major business and tourism destinations because that’s where the Gulf airlines deposit their pax. It’s the reverse. That’s where the majority want to go.