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

[Saab34]

Melbourne and Adelaide will become key 321XLR
destinations. Sucks I know but that’s just how it is.

I’d rather they not launch Melbourne sunrise flights to then cancel, readjust later on. I’d rather book the connecting flight myself if that’s the case and it will probably be on another carrier

 

[dajop]

While PS is a technical achievement, I still can’t get over the fact that it will save a whole four hours or so Sydney to London. There will be no end of people who think ‘ my time is important’ and good on ‘em - but I can’t see how it remotely matters for most.

As one who’s done quite a few trips on the SIN-NYC services, for me it’s not about the time saving at all. The appeal to me of the long flights is the flexibility to best use that time for what I want without the constraints of landing, transit and taking off again. Sleep when you want not when the transit stop dictates.

 

[serfty]

Melbourne is constantly ignored by Qantas' international division: no flights to JFK, LHR, MNL, JNB, SCL and HND to name a few.

Living in Suburban Melbourne I think this is great - I have been feeding off this for decades ... far more SC's to be earned with Air Sydney this way ...

... why fly direct when you can connect ...

 

[RooFlyer]

As one who’s done quite a few trips on the SIN-NYC services, for me it’s not about the time saving at all. The appeal to me of the long flights is the flexibility to best use that time for what I want without the constraints of landing, transit and taking off again. Sleep when you want not when the transit stop dictates.

Fair enough, but what you are saying in part is that you want the option, within the 22-26 hours of getting to LHR from SYD, say, to sleep ~ in the 6 hour time interval where the stopover would be, incl take off and descent. Having any option is better, but if that was important to me, I could choose a stopover point least likely to be when I want to sleep - ie SIN or ME or other.

Oh, and pay ~20% more for that option (VH at the launch yesterday)

 

[dajop]

Fair enough, but what you are saying in part is that you want the option, within the 22-26 hours of getting to LHR from SYD, say, to sleep ~ in the 6 hour time interval where the stopover would be, incl take off and descent. Having any option is better, but if that was important to me, I could choose a stopover point least likely to be when I want to sleep - ie SIN or ME or other.

It's more the flexibility, sometime you feel like sleeping and sometimes you don't, you're not locked into trying to sleep in a particular window driven by your chosen transit stop. I'm particularly bad at sleeping when I feel I have to, but for people who can sleep anywhere, anytime not so much of an issue.

Having said that, and I mentioned SIN-NYC. My preferred timings on that route are counter to popular demand (which is good for pricing) , I prefer 12:50/18:50 SIN-JFK and 09:35/16:45. Get a good night sleep the night before, I have no urge to sleep on the plane, may nod off for an hour or two, and when I arrive, I know I can go to bed after a few hours, without making jetlag worse. (vs late night departure and early morning arrival). QF will probably have this sort of timing for their eastbounds (LHR-SYD, SYD-JFK) which for me is a .

 

[justinbrett]

As one who’s done quite a few trips on the SIN-NYC services, for me it’s not about the time saving at all. The appeal to me of the long flights is the flexibility to best use that time for what I want without the constraints of landing, transit and taking off again. Sleep when you want not when the transit stop dictates.

Exact reason why I'm not a fan of the current QF4 timings.

That early arrival into AKL, which is stupid early AU time (which you should be adapting to), knocks me for 6 by the time I get back to Aus. It's good for DONE4 SC optimisation so I've done it a few times but wouldn't be my choice.

 

[moa999]

Insta interview with Qantas Chief Technical Pilot.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

The polar route for SYD-LHR will only be used about 20% or the time and mostly during the northern winter (so I assume Dec to Feb)

 

[Melburnian1]

While PS is a technical achievement, I still can’t get over the fact that it will save a whole four hours or so Sydney to London. There will be no end of people who think ‘ my time is important’ and good on ‘em - but I can’t see how it remotely matters for most.

Even for those with urgent business meetings or a relative or friend's short notice funeral to attend, the time saving is minimal in the whole scheme of things. Sure, if it departs SYD at say 1800 or 1900 hours it will allow pretty much a full work day prior to departure, but that's it.

Even if travelling in J, an intermediate stop breaks up the monotony..

 

[dajop]

Even for those with urgent business meetings or a relative or friend's short notice funeral to attend, the time saving is minimal in the whole scheme of things. Sure, if it departs SYD at say 1800 or 1900 hours it will allow pretty much a full work day prior to departure, but that's it.

Even if travelling in J, an intermediate stop breaks up the monotony..

Not just about the time saving. It's good to have choice.

A ~1830-1900 departure (SYD winter) or ~2030-2100 (SYD summer) may well save some people a half day's leave vs a 14:45 or 16:15 departure.

 

[justinbrett]

While PS is a technical achievement, I still can’t get over the fact that it will save a whole four hours or so Sydney to London. There will be no end of people who think ‘ my time is important’ and good on ‘em - but I can’t see how it remotely matters for most.

It was before my time, but I'm sure there were people making these arguments when it went from a 2 stop to 1 stop route.

Or when the US routes eliminated the HNL stop.

The novelty will wear off over the years, QF won't be the only one flying routes like this, and it will become the new normal.

 

[elanshin]

“This will set the tyranny of distance as a thing of the past. It’s going to enable us to fly from Sydney and Melbourne to New York direct and also to London direct,” Hudson added.'

Today they announced PS as a SYD/PER project with no plan for changes to MEL, apart from a possible upgauge of existing routes.

That's a noteworthy pivot.

Sure I get part of that. Also before anyone questions where I'm based - I've moved now from Sydney to Melbourne (although I'm going to be still in Sydney a fair bit).

From my understanding, it was always a SYD first, then MEL/PER operations. Right now they've underlined it as SYD first (JFK/LHR) then PER - LHR. I get that MEL being currently dropped from the conversation is a bummer, but realistically even from initial marketing I hope noone was expecting it before frame 6/7. Now it may just be that they've decided frame 7-9 will take on PER - LHR. There's still frame 10-12 which honestly could still be MEL - LHR.

We still have a few frames on order that honestly I imagine even QF isn't sure where to send right now.

Also this could literally be a change in priorities due to the ME war and the vulnerabilities of PER - LHR on a b789 caused by it. They have a profitable route they want to protect and using the a35K ULR means protecting the profitable route then it has a better business case than launching a new MEL route first.