Project Sunrise: A350 or 777X?

[pauly7]

Thought this was interesting and relevant.... mentions the 777X and how the FAA is crawling all over that model too.

Sorry Boeing, you are not America

We all love Michael O’Leary, (Ryanair) for various reasons. But most of all, we love him for being one of the few airline executives apart from Akbar Al Baker of Qatar Airways who “tells it like it is” in every scenario.

www.linkedin.com

 

[opusman]

I find it hard to believe Qantas would risk ordering new model Boeings while the 737 MAX saga is still ongoing.

 

[juddles]

I find it hard to believe Qantas would risk ordering new model Boeings while the 737 MAX saga is still ongoing.

I find it hard to believe Qantas would risk ordering new model Boeings while the 737 MAX saga is still ongoing.

This is an OPPORTUNITY!

 

[moa999]

Boeing aren't ditching anything. Just their budget has a new crisis to overcome.

The problem is the 778 currently has 3 nominated customers - none of which are certain:
QF - Not happy with delays and in competition
EK - Public about wanting to renegotiate, and given cancellation of A380s needing bigger aircraft, plus ordered 339s and 359s
QR - Broader political issues

The larger 779 and possible 77k don't seem to have the necessary range.

 

[juddles]

The problem is the 778 currently has 3 nominated customers - none of which are certain:
QF - Not happy with delays and in competition
EK - Public about wanting to renegotiate, and given cancellation of A380s needing bigger aircraft, plus ordered 339s and 359s
QR - Broader political issues

The larger 779 and possible 77k don't seem to have the necessary range.

They have the range. They all have. It is about what you can carry over that range.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

A350, and remove the economy cabin.

Problems solved.

 

[jb747]

Anything that involves buying the MAX is not an opportunity.

This will provide another opportunity to delay, which is what Joyce is best at.

 

[Altair]

To be honest I do not see Project Sunrise going ahead. Fuel prices will be higher and the subsequent cost to operate these ULR flights with the small times savings involved may make the flights uncompetitive compared to mid-point carriers with a lower cost base. The fact that statements that SYD-LHR will not be a full load but "commercial load" to me indicates a small margin for profitability that may be quickly eroded depending on global economics and fuel costs.
IIRC if there is a move towards a mix of fossil and biofuel the volume of fuel required is larger due to the reduced energy content in biofuel. This may reduce range as the tanks are only so big.

 

[opusman]

This is an OPPORTUNITY!

An opportunity to lose all public trust?

 

[moa999]

To be honest I do not see Project Sunrise going ahead. Fuel prices will be higher and the subsequent cost to operate these ULR flights with the small times savings involved may make the flights uncompetitive compared to mid-point carriers with a lower cost base.

Fuel price will impact stopping flights as well.
The key advantage for QF is they will have a monopoly (or near monopoly) on the direct flights and be able to get a premium

 

[opusman]

Fuel price will impact stopping flights as well.

Not as much. Non-stop means you have to carry all your fuel the whole way, including extra fuel just to carry all the fuel.

 

[SeatBackForward]

This is an OPPORTUNITY!

I'm sure the airline will figure out a way to get customers to pay optional extra $$'s for extra safety on their flight.

 

[mel-world]

Have the proposed flight times SYD-LHR or MEL-JFK been published, or even rumored, anywhere? I worry about the crew hours, let alone the poor Y pax.

 

[jb747]

Have the proposed flight times SYD-LHR or MEL-JFK been published, or even rumored, anywhere? I worry about the crew hours, let alone the poor Y pax.

Well you can't really publish any times until you know what aircraft you're looking at. I don't think Melbourne-JFK is likely under any circumstances. Brisbane or Sydney if it works at all.

You're going to be looking at times in the 21-24 hour region for crew duty periods. Unless the crew rest is a lot more generous than usual, that translates to pilots who will be very tired at the end of the flight.

As a passenger, I did Melbourne - LA - Vegas the other day, in PE, and I was shattered at the end. Some people may find it desirable, but personally, I'd much rather have a stop half way...preferably for a day or so.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Have the proposed flight times SYD-LHR or MEL-JFK been published, or even rumored, anywhere? I worry about the crew hours, let alone the poor Y pax.

I'm sure to crew it will be sold similar to how such flights are sold to passengers. Aircraft with oodles of legroom and space to go for a walk and a stretch, bored? maybe pop down to the in-flight cinema seats or try the on-board gymnasium and pool.

And within a a couple of years of service, this will all get ripped out for more Y/Y+/J- seating.

 

[jb747]

The crew are far more cynical than that. If it doesn't have a decent crew rest (and very few aircraft do), then the chances are that at the end of your flight you'll be being landed by someone who has been awake for 24 plus hours. Believe me, that is not a nice place to be operating from.

 

[dajop]

jb, how many flight crew do you think they will need will put on the flight? I counted 5 one time I did EWR-SIN. 2 in the flight deck, 3 checking that the de-cing had been completed properly (for the third time) .

 

[TomJones]

I can barely drive for 3 hours without feeling tired, even with all the cruise controls and lane assists that my car has. I couldn't imagine how the poor pilots would go!

 

[jb747]

jb, how many flight crew do you think they will need will put on the flight? I counted 5 one time I did EWR-SIN. 2 in the flight deck, 3 checking that the de-cing had been completed properly (for the third time) .

The crew will be four. I'll eat my hat if it changes from that.

The issue is not how many there are, but whether they will actually be able to get any sleep.

 

[dajop]

The issue is not how many there are, but whether they will actually be able to get any sleep.

4 crew for what 42-44 hrs? of safety critical work seems tough - that’s still 11 hrs each without considering the (lack of) sleep considerations.