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

[justinbrett]

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.

Read my comments above again - A380 from SYD, and then it continues from SIN as the BNE-LHR flight number. Aircraft goes SYD-SIN-LHR, flight number goes BNE-SIN-LHR. They had this set up for SYD-LAX-JFK, where the actual aircraft flew BNE-LAX-JFK.

So yes, effectively still an A380 service from SYD-LHR, but it gives them the prestige of marketing direct flights between BNE and LHR, which would take them to 4 direct flights to the 4 largest cities.

 

[NM]

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

Not sure it would be an ETOPS issue. JAL regularly operates 777-300ER on the JAL48 route between HEL and HND with an average of around 13.5 hours flight time within ETOPS certifications for the polar route. Add a little extra for departing LHR and heading north over the pole, and then south over the northern pacific towards SYD and LHR-SYD via Iceland and Greenland and over far western Alaska (WAA Wales, Alaska), over St Lawrence Island, Bering Sea and south to Australia would not have an A350 outside 120 min ETOPS operating ranges (shown light blue shade below)



But it is almost 1000nm further than the Great Circle distance for LHR-SYD and does avoid the Middle East. The southern polar routing might be an issue.

 

[LondonAussie]

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

The optimal route (based on distance alone) would be just west of Hong Kong, through China, over Kazakhstan and into Russia passing just north of Moscow before crossing into Latvia and over to London.

Obviously not possible at the moment. Just look at the path BA32 has to take from HKG to LHR. It adds about 1,500km to the trip.

 

[serfty]

Not sure it would be an ETOPS issue. JAL regularly operates 777-300ER on the JAL48 route between HEL and HND with an average of around 13.5 hours flight time within ETOPS certifications for the polar route. Add a little extra for departing LHR and heading north over the pole, and then south over the northern pacific towards SYD and LHR-SYD via Iceland and Greenland and over far western Alaska (WAA Wales, Alaska), over St Lawrence Island, Bering Sea and south to Australia would not have an A350 outside 120 min ETOPS operating ranges (shown light blue shade below)

View attachment 508978

But it is almost 1000nm further than the Great Circle distance for LHR-SYD and does avoid the Middle East. The southern polar routing might be an issue.

No it would not be ETOPS. As I have already posted I misread arctic as antactic.

 

[transpactraveller]

The optimal route (based on distance alone)

The optimal route is often not the shortest distance though.

Especially for eastbound flights, flying a longer distance route that stays in the jetstream for longer can still be a much faster flight time.

Don't forget fuel burn is more about time in the air than distance travelled.

So for a long flight like this, Qantas will be wanting to find the fastest route that burns the least fuel.

 

[dajop]

But it is almost 1000nm further than the Great Circle distance for LHR-SYD and does avoid the Middle East. The southern polar routing might be an issue.

Presumably the most likely routing (avoiding Russia and the ME, like QF1) would approximately be SYD-DEL-GYD-SOF-LHR, which is 9500 nm, so the artic route would add 700nm. I guess favourable seasonal conditions could make that a possibility.

 

[LondonAussie]

There’s a strong polar jet stream during the northern winter months, if they can tap into that, I’m sure it will be faster.

Flights from the west coast USA to Europe often deviate further north to use it.

 

[dajop]

The optimal route is often not the shortest distance though.

Especially for eastbound flights, flying a longer distance route that stays in the jetstream for longer can still be a much faster flight time.
.

That's why SQ travels SIN-NYC via Alaska (never the great circle , even prior to Russia airspace restrictions) and usually returns over Europe. Before Russia restrictions it would occasionally do the polar (great circle) route going NYC-SIN, and I have even travelled on it westbound once from NYC to SIN over Alaska.

When we did the journey in February, such was the jetstream we landed 1.5 hrs early in both directions. (landed being the operative word here, at JFK we reached the gate 25 mins early).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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!

Maybe they have the AA experiment in mind? More Room Throughout Coach was introduced in the late 90s early 2000s. 34’ pitch through economy… it failed unfortunately.

Times have changed however with more emphasis it seems on PEY and other premium options these days. So who knows? But presumably if airlines thought they could get away with it, they would? I mean taking a row of economy out of the a350 would = much less weight. But they obviously think pax won’t pay 10% extra for that room?

 

[moa999]

Not Just the jetstream itself also overflight fees, as well as the various political/ security overlays