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

[justinbrett]

A big issue: It will be 24 hours (at least) from time you leave home until time you disembark.

That extra few hours will see a sharp rise in the percentage of passengers who need to poop. And hence the amount of time the toilets are occupied.

It will accelerate towards the end of the flight. Last 2 hours there will be massive queues and a lot of people will be left hanging as seatbelt sign goes on for descent.

Anyone sitting within 10 rows of the toilets is going to have people standing next to them for long stretches.

State of toilets will be miserable.

I’m not sure it’s going to be much different to the current QF1 / BA16 flights. I don’t see hundreds of pax running for the loo as soon as the aircraft lands in SIN. There are lots of toilets on these aircraft and people will use them during the flight as they do now.

On any long haul flight there are queues for loos before landing, but that’s mostly pax getting changed / brushing teeth etc.

 

[markis10]

This thread is in the gutter!

 

[RooFlyer]

as the SC earn will be terrible!

at a cost of what? 3 hours...

Also the cost of a lot more dollars. The cost per SC will be higher.

When it eventually gets going and priced, beyond some initial promo period, it will be interesting to see how much per minute saved the direct flight costs.

 

[justinbrett]

Also the cost of a lot more dollars. The cost per SC will be higher.

When it eventually gets going and priced, beyond some initial promo period, it will be interesting to see how much per minute saved the direct flight costs.

Booking SYD/LHR return J fares is already a terrible way to earn status. At a reasonable 10K, it’s about $18/SC.

These fares won’t be for the status runners (although it might be better on a DONE4 or ex AKL).

 

[RooFlyer]

I’m sure our parents lamented the loss of the HNL stop on the way to the US but now it is normal.

Sure, but the alternatives since then are the Circle Pacific Fares. When I was shuttling to and from Calgary regularly, a Circle Pacific stopover night in Tokyo or Hong Kong was my preferred option. And of course it was a lot cheaper than Qantas direct over the Pacific, which the company I was contracted to, loved. Even used to pay my night's dinner and accommodation and still be well in front. Win-win. In fact, when the MD found out, he also used it.

I can't remember the last time I did straight-across and return to Nth America - early 2010s?

I know its been aired before, but I just can't get my mind around non-business people paying (a lot) more (a premium price, as they've said) to arrive in London 3 or 4 hours earlier. A blip, even in a 2-3 day stopover, let alone a holiday of a few weeks. They'll do it, but I won't understand why.

I’m not sure it’s going to be much different to the current QF1 / BA16 flights. I don’t see hundreds of pax running for the loo as soon as the aircraft lands in SIN. There are lots of toilets on these aircraft and people will use them during the flight as they do now.

The difference is about 8 hours. I reckon most people prefer not to use aircraft toilets if they can avoid it either at all, or a second time. The extra flight time means more people will not be able to avoid using the loos maybe a second time in flight. Not saying its going to be a problem (but we shall see), but I don't doubt that it will happen. YMMV and I know you'll want the last word.

 

[justinbrett]

Sure, but the alternatives since then are the Circle Pacific Fares.

You capitalised it so it reads you are referring to the oneworld product by that name, which is significantly more expensive than a SYD-LAX/JFK etc return fare. I assume you just mean booking a return flight via an Asian hub.

If that’s your argument then I’d say that proves the vast majority are choosing the quicker non stop option even if it’s more expensive.

The difference is about 8 hours. I reckon most people prefer not to use aircraft toilets if they can avoid it either at all, or a second time. The extra flight time means more people will not be able to avoid using the loos maybe a second time in flight. Not saying its going to be a problem (but we shall see), but I don't doubt that it will happen. YMMV and I know you'll want the last word.

I’m not sure what the argument is. Yes a longer flight means more use of the loos. Will this lead to half the aircraft pax standing up at once as the plane approaches LHR? I think not.

Is it a problem on PER/LHR, JFK/AKL? There’s always a queue for the loos before landing, even on a 3 hour flight. This is a bizarre argument.

 

[dajop]

It will accelerate towards the end of the flight. Last 2 hours there will be massive queues and a lot of people will be left hanging as seatbelt sign goes on for descent.

Anyone sitting within 10 rows of the toilets is going to have people standing next to them for long stretches.

State of toilets will be miserable.

From a business and PE class perspective I can’t say I’ve ever noticed anything unusual during the SIN-NYC/vv flights that I’ve taken. If anything less of a rush on the toilets towards the end than on a short overnight like SIN-MEL/SYD. Of course economy may be different, but still remember you’re spreading it out over 20-21 hours rather than 6-7.

 

[Doddler]

Routing won’t be relevant once Qantas moves to $-based SCs…

These flights will appeal to passengers for who time is critical. That means people flying for business, and people with really tight dates due to vacation timing.

My +1 and I have been talking about how pleasant it will be once we retire to not have to worry about timing. 1-2 day, or longer, SE Asia stopovers will be our norm when flying to Europe.

 

[AuSammy]

Routing won’t be relevant once Qantas moves to $-based SCs…

These flights will appeal to passengers for who time is critical. That means people flying for business, and people with really tight dates due to vacation timing.

My +1 and I have been talking about how pleasant it will be once we retire to not have to worry about timing. 1-2 day, or longer, SE Asia stopovers will be our norm when flying to Europe.

Will also appeal to those passengers who absolutely abhor airports and security and queuing.

The chance to get from A to B with only one boarding and one disembarking is a huge benefit to a significant number of passengers who will pay extra for that convenience.

 

[Doddler]

Yep, good point. I guess I’ve been somewhat shielded from those horrors through a combo of FF status and using airports with quick security.

 

[anat0l]

Will also appeal to those passengers who absolutely abhor airports and security and queuing.

The chance to get from A to B with only one boarding and one disembarking is a huge benefit to a significant number of passengers who will pay extra for that convenience.

That's an interesting thought. So instead of having to do the whole process of getting ready to land at a stop, disembark, go through security again (after doing all your transit stuff like lounge or use the bathroom), re-embark, wait for cruise and then resume as before, you can dispense all that and continue without disruption (e.g. if you wanted to sleep, you could keep sleeping).

Now I imagine getting sleep (enough sleep), probably in a couple of spells, will be key and possibly one sell point of these flights, though it does assume one can sleep on board in the first place.

 

[justinbrett]

That's an interesting thought. So instead of having to do the whole process of getting ready to land at a stop, disembark, go through security again (after doing all your transit stuff like lounge or use the bathroom), re-embark, wait for cruise and then resume as before, you can dispense all that and continue without disruption (e.g. if you wanted to sleep, you could keep sleeping).

Now I imagine getting sleep (enough sleep), probably in a couple of spells, will be key and possibly one sell point of these flights, though it does assume one can sleep on board in the first place.

My main complaint with QF4 is that the AKL stop occurs at 3am SYD time, usually landing even earlier, meaning you’re probably awake starting from 1-2am. I found I had more jet lag after these flights vs flying from LAX or DFW.

The new QF4 won’t land before 6am which means you can sleep longer and get closer to the destination TZ.

Yes NY is 3 TZs away from LAX (only 1 from DFW) but still I think the lack of the AKL stop would make this easier, not harder.

 

[mviy]

QF’s intent is to charge a premium for the Sunrise flights. I will probably mostly continue to fly to LHR via SIN if that option remains available to save on price.

 

[drron]

The other thing I consider important and hopefully QF does to is will the extra time cause an increase in DVTs/PEs.
A few years ago BA flights across the ditch were surveyed and it was found that the incidence of such problems in F or J pax compared to those in Y. In absolute numbers there were more in Y because there were a lot more of them. Maybe making all the seats more comfortable so less need to get up and around.

Also would be interesting to compare incidence on flight via SIN with Sunrise.

 

[anat0l]

My main complaint with QF4 is that the AKL stop occurs at 3am SYD time, usually landing even earlier, meaning you’re probably awake starting from 1-2am. I found I had more jet lag after these flights vs flying from LAX or DFW.

The new QF4 won’t land before 6am which means you can sleep longer and get closer to the destination TZ.

Yes NY is 3 TZs away from LAX (only 1 from DFW) but still I think the lack of the AKL stop would make this easier, not harder.

The other main complaint with QF4 is that you essentially eat three breakfasts A continuous flight would manage that better (well, no, it could be better managed now, but ah well).

The other thing I consider important and hopefully QF does to is will the extra time cause an increase in DVTs/PEs.
A few years ago BA flights across the ditch were surveyed and it was found that the incidence of such problems in F or J pax compared to those in Y. In absolute numbers there were more in Y because there were a lot more of them. Maybe making all the seats more comfortable so less need to get up and around.

Also would be interesting to compare incidence on flight via SIN with Sunrise.

That will be interesting. There aren't a huge number of Y seats on the Sunrise aircraft, but if anything it would be hard to deny that people have more need to get up and around, not less. That probably applies to all pax across all classes, but of course Y (and maybe W) is of particular importance here.

How effective this works on Sunrise flights, what with the small wellbeing area and what Qantas advocates to its customers (safe to say, we won't be seeing any Richard Simmons wannabes in QF get up on flights any time soon).

 

[RSD]

The other main complaint with QF4 is that you essentially eat three breakfasts

The bacon had better be damn good!

 

[justinbrett]

The other main complaint with QF4 is that you essentially eat three breakfasts

I’m trying to work out where the third breakfast comes in. AKL lounge?

 

[jase05]

QF’s intent is to charge a premium for the Sunrise flights. I will probably mostly continue to fly to LHR via SIN if that option remains available to save on price.

Yeah, thankfully those days of strict timings are long gone. If it takes us a week and several stopovers then so be it and that’s half the fun.
Plenty of people will be happy to pay the Premium but I’d much rather pay less and take longer on a better quality airline
The other thing is that Sunrise is designed for those living in the East which is fair enough but I’m not sure how much time it saves someone in ADL for instance especially if London isn’t your final destination in Europe but we are in the minority and it will be a huge seller for QF

 

[Vic]

Also the cost of a lot more dollars. The cost per SC will be higher.

When it eventually gets going and priced, beyond some initial promo period, it will be interesting to see how much per minute saved the direct flight costs.

Yep, it will be interesting to see the pricing. My next trip to london, the pricing was rather interesting, I ended up booking via singapore, because double SC. But the flights via PER with QF1/2 were slightly cheaper.

This is in Y however, so I didn't want to do PER-LHR in Y while playing the upgrade lottery. I did PER CDG in Y+ upgraded to J. The non-stop part was actually excellent.

 

[evanb]

Yep, it will be interesting to see the pricing. My next trip to london, the pricing was rather interesting, I ended up booking via singapore, because double SC. But the flights via PER with QF1/2 were slightly cheaper.

This is in Y however, so I didn't want to do PER-LHR in Y while playing the upgrade lottery. I did PER CDG in Y+ upgraded to J. The non-stop part was actually excellent.

This is an astute observation. People keep assuming they'll charge more (i.e. higher cost or price). They won't, instead they'll earn more though higher yields, but higher yields doesn't imply higher prices. There's some nuance to it, but yields here are driven by premiumisation, i.e. more premium seats and a higher proportion of premium seats.

So a QLXEU base fare SYD-LHR-SYD will still be A$ 1650 whether you're on SYD-LHR-SYD or SYD-SIN-LHR-SIN-SYD, but when there are only 140 Y seats on the A350 compared to 341 on the A380, it should be obvious that they'll be selling a much lower proportion of them on the A350. This is exactly what we see on PER-LHR where they sell the exact same fare bases on QF9/10 or via SIN on QF1/2. When you look a longer way out you tend to find the same fare bases on both (inevitably cheaper on the non-stop since you're not paying additional taxes at SIN), but because of fewer seats available on QF9/10 they'll sell quicker and appear more expensive closer to the date, but they're no longer like-for-like inventory. What this is really showing is the higher yield on the non-stop.