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

[evanb]

It isn't just the early morning long hual arrivals that QF may want to change when WSI opens. There may be some current evening departures that leave before QF may want, but are stuck with the start of the curfew period. Such as Tokyo and maybe some North American routes.

Tokyo is immovable due to the countervailing slots. Only North American flights in that scope are YVR and SFO, but problem with shifting later SYD departure is later arrival and fewer onwards connections at YVR and SFO. They're probably as late as they want to go. If they wanted to go later they could already shift YVR and SFO nearly 90 minutes later, but they don't, so not sure why going beyond 11pm would be useful.

 

[justinbrett]

On which side? UK CMA and EC will definitely allow it. In some respects they can't block it since they've allowed the IAG merger and near controlling QR position in IAG. They would have to target the ownership structure first. That said, they may require some minor remedy actions.

It might be considered a diplomatic overstretch for ACCC to be too harsh on approving the QR/BA/IB JV, so I suspect the most they might do it focus on specific routes. Even when combined, can't think that the JVs would form a dominant enough position on any route to worry the ACCC, especially given that there's ample competition (even on SYD-LHR). The benchmark they set with QF-MU and QF-JL was clearly routes where there were no/few other carriers e.g. SYD-PVG and SYD-HND.

What's possibly likely is QF going to ACCC for something with MH or CX ...

ACCC. Is it normal for an airline to have two overlapping JVs in the same market? That’s where I was going with that. I would have thought that was quite strange.

Yes, technically it’s not a 4 way JV but with the largest airline QR being in both, isn’t it effectively that?

I guess similarly wouldn’t ACCC have a problem with QF having a JV with anyone as long as it also has a JV with EK? I would have thought so.

 

[evanb]

ACCC. Is it normal for an airline to have two overlapping JVs in the same market? That’s where I was going with that. I would have thought that was quite strange.

Yes, technically it’s not a 4 way JV but with the largest airline QR being in both, isn’t it effectively that?

I guess similarly wouldn’t ACCC have a problem with QF having a JV with anyone as long as it also has a JV with EK? I would have thought so.

There are precedents for overlapping partnerships and some near JVs. Technically, VA hold seperate authorities with QR and SQ that are partially overlapping, but it's certainly NOT the same scope. Similarly, VA have some overlap between QR and UA.

Trying to bundle them together would likely be a problem, but ACCC will view them separately, hence why the market share on key routes (e.g. SYD-LHR) wouldn't likely be sufficiently dominant. That said, ACCC have made some reactionary decisions recently. It's not a stretch that they decided QF just wasn't going to have another one and hence MU decision, so maybe they'll do the same and just say QR must choose.

 

[exceladdict]

The conversation has moved on a bit I do wonder if the ramping up code shares and partnerships with AF/KLM and existing ones with AY ex-SIN might be a piece of the puzzle in filling au<>sin capacity, enabling all cities to connect on to the sin/LHR.

Many flights seem to have half a dictionary worth of code shares on them these days

 

[RSD]

The conversation has moved on a bit I do wonder if the ramping up code shares and partnerships with AF/KLM and existing ones with AY ex-SIN might be a piece of the puzzle in filling au<>sin capacity, enabling all cities to connect on to the sin/LHR.

Many flights seem to have half a dictionary worth of code shares on them these days

The conversation certainly has - and the conversation would have been very minimal still if QF had of chosen the 777X instead of the A380ULR - they dodged a bullet there!

 

[elanshin]

But QF shifting a single route over doesn't help them.

Its likely to be cheaper. Which could JQi moving over. Not just one kr two flights but all JQi ops. Also takes them out of the SYD QF lounge for the QF status/Q club holders.

Mainline QFi we won't see much movement for ages if ever. Maybe one day they'll have a huge network and theres not enough to land into SYD anymore.

 

[dajop]

Covered about 10 times upthread. WSI is not in the middle of nowhere for millions of people. Population catchment almost twice that of South Australia.

Ummm perhaps not in this thread, which has gone way off on a tangent on WSI, which of course has its own thread where it is covered about 10 times.

 

[dajop]

Some international back of clock operations probably the initial exception (eg SQ to SIN and QF/JQ to AKL, maybe with time EK with a midnight departure) with perhaps a smattering of narrowbody services to NZ and Bali.

So to bring this thread back on topic, you don't think we'll see project sunrise flights from WSI-LTN any time soon?

 

[RooFlyer]

Ummm perhaps not in this thread, which has gone way off on a tangent on WSI, which of course has its own thread where it is covered about 10 times.

Ooops, my bad. I thought we had teleported to the WSI thread

 

[moa999]

So to bring this thread back on topic, you don't think we'll see project sunrise flights from WSI-LTN any time soon?

2045 with the Airmac AC350-1200neo produced in Wuxi

 

[elanshin]

Back on the sunrise planes. I think the biggest question is if MEL - LHR will eventuate. Although i suspect we won't see any decisions until SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK is well established.

 

[JessicaTam]

[mod hat]
This is indeed the Project Sunrise thread.

Please take WSI and related discussion elsewhere.
[/mod hat]

 

[dajop]

Back on the sunrise planes. I think the biggest question is if MEL - LHR will eventuate. Although i suspect we won't see any decisions until SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK is well established.

Agreed, Will service #3 be MEL-LHR, or SYD-CDG or a second daily either SYD-JFK or SYD-LHR?

 

[SeatBackForward]

Agreed, Will service #3 be MEL-LHR, or SYD-CDG or a second daily either SYD-JFK or SYD-LHR?

Just for fun PER<>LAX.

 

[Himeno]

Agreed, Will service #3 be MEL-LHR, or SYD-CDG or a second daily either SYD-JFK or SYD-LHR?

Are you suggesting that QF will change their minds about which routes will be the sunrise routes?

They've stated that they will operate 4 sunrise routes, SYD-LHR, SYD-JFK, MEL-LHR and MEL-JFK. They haven't yet said what order they will start in, but it is clear that they will either start both SYD routes first, or both LHR routes first.
If they were to change a route from one already stated, it's likely to be the MEL-JFK that gets removed. They'll only have enough A350-1000ULRs to operate 4 sunrise routes once fully delivered.

 

[dajop]

Are you suggesting that QF will change their minds about which routes will be the sunrise routes?

They've stated that they will operate 4 sunrise routes, SYD-LHR, SYD-JFK, MEL-LHR and MEL-JFK. They haven't yet said what order they will start in, but it is clear that they will either start both SYD routes first, or both LHR routes first.
If they were to change a route from one already stated, it's likely to be the MEL-JFK that gets removed. They'll only have enough A350-1000ULRs to operate 4 sunrise routes once fully delivered.

As a Melburnian I do remain sceptical that MEL will ever see QANTSAS doing non-stops to either LHR or JFK!

They have talked about CDG, and I think the other one in the mix that has been mentioned is SYD-ORD.

 

[Himeno]

As a Melburnian I do remain sceptical that MEL will ever see QANTSAS doing non-stops to either LHR or JFK!

They have talked about CDG, and I think the other one in the mix that has been mentioned is SYD-ORD.

The normal A350-1000 can do SYD-ORD. They don't need the ULRs for that.
CDG has the limit of the air services agreement. With the current agreement, they can't get daily to mainland France with any aircraft which is realistically going to be sent to Europe. The planned cabin fitout for the sunrise aircraft is only 2 seats under the point which would force a reduction in weekly flights. Is it worth it for QF to shift the PER-CDG flights to SYD-CDG for only 4 flights/week and 8 extra weekly seats when they could send the -1000ULR elsewhere with a daily service?

 

[elanshin]

They might actually run PER-LHR 3rd and take the 787 off the route.

 

[Feech La Manna]

They might actually run PER-LHR 3rd and take the 787 off the route.

Agree, they said they will replace the 787 with A350s and given the demand across all premium cabins on this route the 350 with extra J and Y+ it'll help. They are also generally short of 787s so those on this route could be put to good use elsewhere.

Not sure what the demand for F out of Perth will be though.

 

[moa999]

I actually see PER-LHR Sunrise coming sooner rather than later, as due to the flight length it could help with utilisation. Maybe swapped in and out with 787s as aircraft arrive.

Eg. I think four aircraft could possibly operate daily on each leg using a SYD-LHR-PER-LHR-SYD pattern.

Couod also possibly use SYD-JFK but you've got more curfews and delays to generally deal with.