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

[jrfsp]

These ULH routes are expensive to operate and QF must be hoping fuel prices will come down by launch date otherwise the economics might not stack up.

 

[SYD]

I wonder if they’ll renumber QF1/2 (via SIN) a season before they launch the sunrise flights? I bit like how HNL got renumbered to 103/104 before they launched the new JFK (via AKL) flights.

Absolutely. I’d expect QF31/32 for the SYD-SIN-LHR flights.

And SYD-JFK will probably pinch QF3/4 (so a renumbering coming for SYD-AKL-JFK.

 

[mviy]

However I think until SYD sunrise is daily, the via SIN service will stay numbered from SYD.

Waiting for 3 aircraft before starting Sunrise flights suggests they intend to launch the routes with daily flights.

 

[mviy]

But MEL will get their own sunrise flights in time, so long term would make sense for the flight number to go from BNE (so they can say they have direct flights to all big 4 cities), but I’d expect the actual (larger) aircraft to go from SYD and switch to the LHR flight in SIN. They used to do this on the LAX-JFK segment, flight number came from SYD but aircraft came from BNE.

As much as I would love SIN-LHR to remain an A380 flight to increase chances of J/F seat releases, I do think it would likely change to a 787 flight from BNE or possibly an A350 without the extra fuel tank.

If Sunrise exceeds QF’s expectations and they add BNE-LHR Sunrise flights that would raise questions as to whether SIN-LHR flights disappear entirely unless there is a disruption forcing a stop in SIN.

 

[transpactraveller]

I do wonder if they'll struggle to sell the economy seats for the 22 hour London flight. I think many would prefer a stop in SIN.

 

[moa999]

think many would prefer a stop in SIN

The majority flying SYD-LHR will still stop in SIN, KUL, DXB, DOH, AUH, HKG, etc....

Qantas only needs a small percentage of people willing to pay a bit extra for not stopping and getting 33" pitch for the flight to be successful.

I actually wonder whether they might market the whole back of plane as Economy Plus given the minimum 33" pitch.

 

[SeatBackForward]

I actually wonder whether they might market the whole back of plane as Economy Plus given the minimum 33" pitch.

They should absolutely do this. I'm honestly surprised that airlines haven't moved to a more premium model for long haul flights. The market for bare minimum pricing even if this means a shoebox for 10+hrs seems to be there!

 

[AIRwin]

I'm honestly surprised that airlines haven't moved to a more premium model for long haul flights.

SQ?

 

[dajop]

They should absolutely do this. I'm honestly surprised that airlines haven't moved to a more premium model for long haul flights. The market for bare minimum pricing even if this means a shoebox for 10+hrs seems to be there!

JL seems to offer a premium long haul economy product. But I'd guess that it's a careful balance, if you make the economy cabin too much better it may reduce people's willingness to pay 2.5x (or whatever the multiple is) for PE.

 

[SeatBackForward]

SQ?

Isn't that just the SIN<>NYC route?

I mean more broadly, there surely is an opportunity for an airline with a business model of premium seating exclusively for long haul. But then again, I'm no aviation economics expert and I'll assume the airlines are!

 

[AIRwin]

Isn't that just the SIN<>NYC route?

And SFO

 

[Chrizztofa]

They should absolutely do this. I'm honestly surprised that airlines haven't moved to a more premium model for long haul flights. The market for bare minimum pricing even if this means a shoebox for 10+hrs seems to be there!

On a related note I've wondered why airlines just go with the standard 3-3-3 in economy, when they could consider something with 2-5-2 alternating with 2-4-2, giving long haul economy passengers more choice.

That way the middle seat in the block of 5 could have extra pitch (but not extra width) and the block of 4 could have extra width (but not extra pitch).

For example:
39: AB CDEFG HK
40: AB CDFG HK
41: AB CDEFG HK
42: AB CDFG HK
etc.

They could then market it as:

• Window pairs (AB / HK): Standard 18" width, 32" pitch, good for couples
• Middle seats in block of 4 (CDFG - no E seat): 20-21" width, 32" pitch with potential wider armrests or side table for drinks / phone charging
• Outer four seats in the block of 5 (CD & FG next to E): Standard 18" width, 32" pitch
• Middle seat in block of 5 (E seat): 18" width, angled lay flat, good for tall people or parents with kids who can alternate rest

 

[justinbrett]

Waiting for 3 aircraft before starting Sunrise flights suggests they intend to launch the routes with daily flights.

Unless they launch JFK at the same time.

As much as I would love SIN-LHR to remain an A380 flight to increase chances of J/F seat releases, I do think it would likely change to a 787 flight from BNE or possibly an A350 without the extra fuel tank.

If Sunrise exceeds QF’s expectations and they add BNE-LHR Sunrise flights that would raise questions as to whether SIN-LHR flights disappear entirely unless there is a disruption forcing a stop in SIN.

I think there’s a high chance jt will stay an A380 as long as they’re in service - they do sell seats ex SIN and there will be plenty of people from SYD and MEL who don’t want to fly sunrise (don’t forget, QF has confirmed there will be a ~20% premium on sunrise tickets).

The LHR slots are very valuable so unless QF can get some more, or it expands to LGW, it make sense to make the most of the A380’s capacity while they have it.

Personally I think sunrise BNE-LHR is a bit of a pipe dream, maybe they could do 3x weekly in peak seasons - but I think that’s much further down the track - probably requiring a new order of the -1000ULRs.

 

[mbe1510]

Personally I think sunrise BNE-LHR is a bit of a pipe dream, maybe they could do 3x weekly in peak seasons - but I think that’s much further down the track - probably requiring a new order of the -1000ULRs.

An A380 from Brisbane would be an unlikely deployment given the city's lack of big business. If Qantas removed the A380 from Melbourne because it believed the aircraft could generate stronger returns elsewhere, it's difficult to see Brisbane making the cut.

The A380 is arguably best utilised on the Sydney to London via Singapore. Demand from both Singapore and the UK/Europe is stronger for Sydney than Brisbane.

QF is soon to be operating double daily A380s from Sydney to Singapore so there is a strong chance one of those flights will continue onto London. Often QF is cheaper than SQ from Singapore so picks up a fair bit of local demand.

 

[PineappleSkip]

there surely is an opportunity for an airline with a business model of premium seating exclusively

Ozjet! Although their model was around short haul.

 

[serfty]

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!

I'd suggest ETOPs would have to be radically adjusted for that to occur.

 

[dajop]

I'd suggest ETOPs would have to be radically adjusted for that to occur.

Would it though? JL and BA both fly polar routes from HND to LHR (currently, to avoid Russia airspace), BA on A350, JL on 787.

ETOPS 120 for SYD-Alaska-LHR:

 

[LondonAussie]

I'd suggest ETOPs would have to be radically adjusted for that to occur.

The quote from Hudson was, “from Sydney to London will be over Japan and over the North Pole and down the other side”

 

[serfty]

Would it though? JL and BA both fly polar routes from HND to LHR (currently, to avoid Russia airspace), BA on A350, JL on 787.

ETOPS 120 for SYD-Alaska-LHR:
View attachment 508975

The quote from Hudson was, “from Sydney to London will be over Japan and over the North Pole and down the other side”

Sorry, for some reason i read that as Antarctic ...

 

[transpactraveller]

SYD-LHR on the most direct routing is 17,000km - but that's over Russia - they can't fly that.

Flying westwards they'd have to stay further south, basically following the current SIN-LHR route over India, Turkmenistan, and onto Europe - about 18,000km of flying.

Flying north easterly, SYD-LHR going just west of Alaska is probably about 18,500km. So not much more distance, and with favourable tail winds, likely to be faster. Just not a whole lot of diversion options if there's an emergency.