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

[anat0l]

Nice sentiment but doubtful. I bet Hudson is on it.

Wouldn't doubt for a second that Hudson will be on. She can settle for J - plenty of seats and likely where most of the press are going to be (heck, and the "influencers").

That would be a change. Just a few months ago they were talking about Project Sunrise aircraft allowing them to fly SYD-LHR via the Arctic to avoid the ME airspace!

What would be the likely flight route of SYD-LHR non-stop? Assuming both scenarios, i.e. whether the war is still on or has already stopped?

 

[transpactraveller]

What would be the likely flight route of SYD-LHR non-stop? Assuming both scenarios, i.e. whether the war is still on or has already stopped?

They were talking about seasonal routing that would change based on tail-winds.

This is what Hudson said last year:

“Our pilots are doing lots of flight planning for that flight. They’ve got over 12 months’ worth of wind data and are doing lots of flight-planning simulations. Don’t just assume that you have to fly west [from Sydney to London] all the time – there will be other routes that we can take.”

“At some times of the year, the fastest way to get from Sydney to London will be over Japan and over the North Pole and down the other side because of the wind direction.”

In the same interview she said they wouldn't start any of the Sunrise flights until they had 3 aircraft, and they'd be deploying the first aircraft on flights to New Zealand for crew training.

 

[LondonAussie]

Hudson actually started changing the messaging about a year ago, hinting that JFK might come first before LHR.

Back then the concern was about ongoing Russian airspace closures and how that would impact the SYD-LHR direct routing.

Now the latest conflicts in the Middle East make it an even more precarious route. Particularly with the Perth non-stops having to divert via Singapore. It wouldn’t be a good look if Sunrise aircraft had to regularly do the same.

So it would not surprise me at all if they’ve now fully pivoted to JFK being the launch route. It’s the safer option.

 

[markis10]

Syd-JFK via Japan was an old Northwest routing, very scenic.

 

[dajop]

There’s also maintenance outside of peak travel times to consider, where planes are grounded for multiple days or longer. They need to have sufficient planes to be able to do that. So maybe 5 in rotation with 1 in maintenance.

Thinking of the bean counters, could still be possible with 4 + 1 in maintenance, if they can achieve 2 hr turns in SYD & JFK.
Hypothetically, SYD-LHR 18:00M/06:00Tu, LHR-SYD 11:30Tu/15:30W SYD-JFK 17:30W/20:30W JFK-SYD 23:00W/08:00F

 

[Kiwi_Flyer]

Thinking of the bean counters, could still be possible with 4 + 1 in maintenance, if they can achieve 2 hr turns in SYD & JFK.
Hypothetically, SYD-LHR 18:00M/06:00Tu, LHR-SYD 11:30Tu/15:30W SYD-JFK 17:30W/20:30W JFK-SYD 23:00W/08:00F

Not realistic and lhr-syd arrives 2nd day after departure not 1st day.

 

[markis10]

Not realistic and lhr-syd arrives 2nd day after departure not 1st day.

LHR-Syd would not arrive second day, QF10 which leaves 20 minutes later doesn’t now

 

[Quickstatus]

they need some ability to have service recovery when there are inevitable unexpected delays

The airline has never deliberately kept aircraft in spare as a just in case.

There was a few months a little while ago when there were some excess A380 when the aircraft were coming back from Covid storage and the airline marketed it as an "operational spare". They made a big song and dance about it at the time. That didn't last long once the aircraft was sequenced back into normal programming.

 

[dajop]

LHR-Syd would not arrive second day, QF10 which leaves 20 minutes later doesn’t now

Yes exactly. Leave any. carrier eastbound from Europe (with decent connections), before/around lunch time, you arrive back in SYD the following evening.

 

[Chrizztofa]

The 'ops spare' could be the one deployed on PER-LHR (I understand this was also going to use a PS aircraft, possibly rotating through LHR with the aircraft on SYD-LHR). If needed it could be swapped for a 789 from PER (or cancelled if one aircraft goes tech in LHR).

 

[LionKing]

Hudson actually started changing the messaging about a year ago, hinting that JFK might come first before LHR.

Back then the concern was about ongoing Russian airspace closures and how that would impact the SYD-LHR direct routing.

Now the latest conflicts in the Middle East make it an even more precarious route. Particularly with the Perth non-stops having to divert via Singapore. It wouldn’t be a good look if Sunrise aircraft had to regularly do the same.

So it would not surprise me at all if they’ve now fully pivoted to JFK being the launch route. It’s the safer option.

I am a bit concerned of the loading for direct JFK flights.
As demand to the US has softened, is there really demand for going to JFK direct without capturing NZ passengers?
And if direct JFK is launched, is there enough demand for 2 flights from Australia to JFK?
It seemed that Qantas has no choice due to geopolitical situation and had to launch JFK instead of LON?

 

[leesionn]

I am a bit concerned of the loading for direct JFK flights.
As demand to the US has softened, is there really demand for going to JFK direct without capturing NZ passengers?
And if direct JFK is launched, is there enough demand for 2 flights from Australia to JFK?
It seemed that Qantas has no choice due to geopolitical situation and had to launch JFK instead of LON?

So currently the two ways of getting to JFK from Australia are going to MEL/BNE/SYD and going via LAX, or doing MEL/BNE/SYD -> AKL -> JFK. For the route that goes through AKL, Qantas aren't just capturing Sydneysiders (as they can capture traffic from any route in Australia that goes to Auckland, and people from New Zealand, and funnel them onto the JFK flight).

With the PS flight, you're going to be capturing a somewhat different group - those who are going to JFK and willing to pay the premium for the nonstop flight that QF have mentioned (20%, right?).

So now you've probably got corporate travellers going to JFK on the PS flights, and leisure travellers from MEL, BNE, PER, ADL, SYD etc willing to pay that premium to completely bypass LAX and then the stopover in Auckland.

The LAX flights will most likely still be filled for travellers going to the US West Coast, whether that be LAX as their final stop or being funnelled into a hub for AA traffic.

Keep in mind the A350-1000ULRs have 238 seats (just 2 more than the 787-9s). I don't think they'll really have any trouble getting a good load factor at all.

 

[SYD]

So currently the two ways of getting to JFK from Australia are going to MEL/BNE/SYD and going via LAX, or doing MEL/BNE/SYD -> AKL -> JFK. For the route that goes through AKL, Qantas aren't just capturing Sydneysiders (as they can capture traffic from any route in Australia that goes to Auckland, and people from New Zealand, and funnel them onto the JFK flight).

Actually for ex SYD/MEL there’s also DFW. Which is quicker than via AKL but requires a change of aircraft BUT you can fly into LGA.

Either way, QF know their loads into / out of the US (there’s a lot despite the commentary) and can adjust the schedule / pricing accordingly across DFW, AKL and PS.

 

[leesionn]

Actually for ex SYD/MEL there’s also DFW. Which is quicker than via AKL but requires a change of aircraft BUT you can fly into LGA.

Either way, QF know their loads into / out of the US (there’s a lot despite the commentary) and can adjust the schedule / pricing accordingly across DFW, AKL and PS.

Yep forgot about DFW - thanks for mentioning. Also an AA fortress of sorts (and massive OW hub). They can also go onto EWR if they're going to Newark, New Jersey and surrounds etc.

And agree on the second point too

 

[Quickstatus]

is there enough demand for 2 flights from Australia to JFK?

Why would there be 2 flights?

I would imagine SYD-AKL-JFK would be replaced by SYD-JFK and the 787 deployed elsewhere

 

[leesionn]

Why would there be 2 flights?

I would imagine SYD-AKL-JFK would be replaced by SYD-JFK and the 787 deployed elsewhere

Qantas International CEO Cam Wallace has stated that SYD-AKL-JFK will be retained even when SYD-JFK starts. Similar to SYD-SIN-LHR being retained.

 

[dajop]

Qantas International CEO Cam Wallace has stated that SYD-AKL-JFK will be retained even when SYD-JFK starts. Similar to SYD-SIN-LHR being retained.

Presumably some good O/D traffic on both sectors. Otherwise they could run the service MEL-AkL-JFK.

 

[Aeryn]

A lot of the passsngers on the LAX, SFO and DFW flights connect onwards to the east coast. JFK lounges are great, best in the US if you have OW status.

 

[levelnine]

Qantas International CEO Cam Wallace has stated that SYD-AKL-JFK will be retained even when SYD-JFK starts. Similar to SYD-SIN-LHR being retained.

Qantas says a lot of things. They also said they'd fly BNE-ORD at one point, among many others.

What routes they'll actually fly will depend in large part on factors outside of Qantas' control and that will change between now and the start of Sunrise: AUD-USD exchange rate, attractiveness of US as a business/leisure destination, strength of AA as a domestic connector (it is the weakest of the big three and only going backwards), whether DL/UA decide to flood the Transpac market with capacity, global events that affect travel demand, etc etc etc.

 

[Quickstatus]

Qantas International CEO Cam Wallace has stated

I remember clearly that when Cam Wallace was over at Air NZ that he said Project sunrise was a "PR stunt and I told the board with extreme confidence"

I also remember when he liked this picture in LinkedIn:
Do you see the problem?

The point, though, is that the airline and its execs will pivot quicker than you can drop a hot potato.