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

[WilsonM]

Yes good point, however that route isn't going to be as long the project sunrise flights, but I suppose PER-LHR is a good indicator of potential success

A flight that is 19 hours vs 17 hours doesn't change a great deal from a cost perspective - 2 hours of extra cruising isn't using a ridiculously higher amount of fuel that it makes the flights uneconomical.

But the real consideration is yield, and the A35Ks that QF has for Sunrise are perfectly setup for that - they have basically the same number of seats as a 789, but many more premium seats (98 on the A35K vs 70 on the 789). More premium seats = more avg. rev per customer. That's how they'll make it work

 

[jase05]

I do think it will be a huge success.
Personally I have no interest in it and for me it makes zero sense but for those in the Eastern states it will be a huge success IMO

 

[justinbrett]

Yes good point, however that route isn't going to be as long the project sunrise flights, but I suppose PER-LHR is a good indicator of potential success

I'm just curious why you think people are happy to fly for 17 hours on routes like DFW-SYD (which is very successful), but not 20 hours? Does that extra 3 hours really make a huge difference?

Plus the QF A350 Y seats will have the greatest pitch of the fleet at 33" (787/A380 is 32"); and while I can't find exact seat width measurements, at 3-3-3 in a wider fuselage (12cm wider), that should equate to close on an half an inch per Y seat. It's not much, but compared to the narrow 787 seats, I'll take it!

I flew QF4 recently (JFK-SYD) and it would have been greatly improved by eliminating the AKL stopover. I didn't need the double breakfast (actually skipped the first), I would have preferred to sleep longer and have breakfast over the Tasman.

 

[mviy]

QF will examine the performance of the initial routes. If Sunrise is the huge success QF hopes it will be they will likely place firm orders for more aircraft to add additional routes and/or upgrade popular Dreamliner routes. In the unlikely event that it is a flop they’ve only bought 12 aircraft to find other uses for.

 

[markis10]

A flight that is 19 hours vs 17 hours doesn't change a great deal from a cost perspective - 2 hours of extra cruising isn't using a ridiculously higher amount of fuel that it makes the flights uneconomical.

I beg to differ, the cost of carrying that fuel is very much significant, it’s 10-12T of dead weight at the expense of payload.
The range/payload chart clearly demonstrates this, 1500nm extra halves the payload. And let’s not talk about freight

 

[Spacetravel]

If they could fill their first/business seats that would be good for them, but I can't imagin to many in premium econ/economy wanting to pay a premium just to sit in a metal tube for 20 hours lol

I travel regularly on fairly tight schedules and always prefer the most direct option over a stop. I personally haven’t done PER > LHR as my home port is SYD and I prefer the a380 experience but I am looking forward to project sunrise. Having to be woken up/ disrupted mid journey for landing and take off is inconvenient. I suspect I am not alone with this.

Economy sucks, economy with a stop isn’t usually a whole lot better.

The only reason I might not fly project sunrise is if the a350 is less comfortable than the a380 and it’s on the same route.

 

[Lucass]

I'm just curious why you think people are happy to fly for 17 hours on routes like DFW-SYD (which is very successful), but not 20 hours? Does that extra 3 hours really make a huge difference?

Plus the QF A350 Y seats will have the greatest pitch of the fleet at 33" (787/A380 is 32"); and while I can't find exact seat width measurements, at 3-3-3 in a wider fuselage (12cm wider), that should equate to close on an half an inch per Y seat. It's not much, but compared to the narrow 787 seats, I'll take it!

I flew QF4 recently (JFK-SYD) and it would have been greatly improved by eliminating the AKL stopover. I didn't need the double breakfast (actually skipped the first), I would have preferred to sleep longer and have breakfast over the Tasman.

I'm not sure, for some people it might be a big difference, for some probably not at all.

 

[WilsonM]

I beg to differ, the cost of carrying that fuel is very much significant, it’s 10-12T of dead weight at the expense of payload.
The range/payload chart clearly demonstrates this, 1500nm extra halves the payload. And let’s not talk about freight

View attachment 441549

Good point - I probably underestimated it

Although, I still don't think it's enough to make them uneconomcial vs PER-LHR considering higher yields

 

[justinbrett]

Although, I still don't think it's enough to make them uneconomcial vs PER-LHR considering higher yields

Agree, I'm pretty confident QF has the numbers on this - can't exactly accuse them of rushing it!

I'm not sure, for some people it might be a big difference, for some probably not at all.

Well just look back to when ULH was considered ~15 hours with the 747-400ER. and then that was extended when the 787-9 came in to service. Did people suddenly stop flying? (hint, the answer is no).

I think price, as always, will be everything when it comes to Y.

 

[evanb]

Ultimately Project Sunrise is low risk. When Thai and Singapore went into the ULH game with the A340-500s the aircraft were a sunk cost as they weren't going to be that useful elsewhere in the network given their incredibly high unit cost compared to other aircraft. Thai retired them after 7 year and Singapore carried on a little longer.

If PS is a total dud, those A350-1000s can be reconfigured and will still be an excellent aircraft. They'll carry around the additional weight of the RCT structure (maybe 1t) and lose a handful of cargo positions, but these will be relatively small sunk costs.

If it works the reward is huge since the stopover carriers can't respond and it's not like European carriers are going to be rushing into the market. If it doesn't work they'll just have very capable A350s.

 

[Lucass]

I beg to differ, the cost of carrying that fuel is very much significant, it’s 10-12T of dead weight at the expense of payload.
The range/payload chart clearly demonstrates this, 1500nm extra halves the payload. And let’s not talk about freight

View attachment 441549

So does that mean they'll only have roughly 20 tons of payload on these project sunrise flights?!?

 

[evanb]

So does that mean they'll only have roughly 20 tons of payload on these project sunrise flights?!?

Probably a bit more, but how much do they need? It's a 236 seat aircraft - call that 24 tons with the assumption that they won't carry anything other than the lightest and highest priority cargo.

 

[justinbrett]

I beg to differ, the cost of carrying that fuel is very much significant, it’s 10-12T of dead weight at the expense of payload.
The range/payload chart clearly demonstrates this, 1500nm extra halves the payload. And let’s not talk about freight

View attachment 441549

I don't think this is accurate (the graph, not your statement), having found the source and read the article. It seems they are assuming a ZFW based on the standard A350-1000, whereas QF's aircraft will have a lower weight with only 238 seats (vs 350-410). It was also published well before QF announced their config.

Compared to the standard A350-1000 performance charts released by Airbus, this is only (just) slightly better and not what I would expect from a dedicated model with such a low density configuration and extra fuel tanks.

For IATA averages, the payload would need to be around 26T (238x 84Kg for pax, 238x23Kg for bags). I doubt QF will plan on using these flights for cargo as it will be cheaper to send via SIN.

So in short, it still sounds about right that these aircraft will make SYD-LHR with the configuration they've selected. But yes, costs a lot of fuel to carry extra fuel. That's why there will be a surcharge.

 

[ANstar]

If it works the reward is huge since the stopover carriers can't respond and it's not like European carriers are going to be rushing into the market. If it doesn't work they'll just have very capable A350s.

I don't believe the EU carriers can fly the route. Under EASA rules the maximum hours a pilot can work (with flat bed rest and a second crew) is 18 hours. Even the shorter PER-LHR is not possible to be operated by the likes of BA due to this rule.

 

[evanb]

I don't think this is accurate (the graph, not your statement), having found the source and read the article. It seems they are assuming a ZFW based on the standard A350-1000, whereas QF's aircraft will have a lower weight with only 238 seats (vs 350-410). It was also published well before QF announced their config.

Compared to the standard A350-1000 performance charts released by Airbus, this is only (just) slightly better and not what I would expect from a dedicated model with such a low density configuration and extra fuel tanks.

It's also based on 316t MTOW. QF's will be 322t. That's a substantial difference!

 

[evanb]

I don't believe the EU carriers can fly the route. Under EASA rules the maximum hours a pilot can work (with flat bed rest and a second crew) is 18 hours. Even the shorter PER-LHR is not possible to be operated by the likes of BA due to this rule.

That can be changed in time. That was also a barrier in Australia and has required changes but without any European carriers seeking it there's been no need to.

 

[justinbrett]

I don't believe the EU carriers can fly the route. Under EASA rules the maximum hours a pilot can work (with flat bed rest and a second crew) is 18 hours. Even the shorter PER-LHR is not possible to be operated by the likes of BA due to this rule.

BA isn't subject to EASA, UK withdrew from it so CAA can set the rules.

If BA (or VS) asked CAA citing QF's operational record and mitigation they could probably get it over the line depending on the unions. QF had to do this with CASA.

 

[evanb]

BA isn't subject to EASA, UK withdrew from it so CAA can set the rules.

If BA (or VS) asked CAA citing QF's operational record and mitigation they could probably get it over the line depending on the unions. QF had to do this with CASA.

Agreed, QF had/have bigger challenges with the long haul EBA than they had/have with CASA.

 

[jase05]

If it works the reward is huge since the stopover carriers can't respond

But they can respond by continuing to offer a better product and at better prices if they choose. These carriers simply aren’t going to roll over.
If anything it’s a great outcome for Australian passengers as we will have plenty of options to choose from and hopefully a nice little price war from time to time

 

[markis10]

I don't think this is accurate (the graph, not your statement), having found the source and read the article. It seems they are assuming a ZFW based on the standard A350-1000, whereas QF's aircraft will have a lower weight with only 238 seats (vs 350-410). It was also published well before QF announced their config.

I was answering a post that said the two extra hours makes little difference to cost, pointing out that’s not the case. QF will have different figures in their production aircraft charts, given their lower payload and higher MTOW, just like SQ etc ultra long distance aircraft need to be premium heavy to justify the fuel load. QF have done the sums and it makes sense, assuming the market meets those expectations.