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

[elanshin]

Just curious, we know MEL is left off the slides but has anyone looked into if MEL-LHR is even possible anymore without further payload restrictions?

Iirc the rumours were that SYD-LHR is already extremely touch and go (and that there might be payload restrictions at times).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yeh, OK you've got me. Yes, 'm being somewhat selective, I could only find 14 AA arrivals before 9am , and another 5 between 9 and 10., and probably a few more AS flights to boot. And not every ticket is issued with AA connectors. I've travelled a plenty on mix and match interlines bookings such as SQ/AA, QF/UA .

Exactly… QF sells connections on United as you point out. UA has plenty flight arriving early in the morning into LAX, SFO etc, and other options for connecting with evening flights.

Just curious, we know MEL is left off the slides but has anyone looked into if MEL-LHR is even possible anymore without further payload restrictions?

Iirc the rumours were that SYD-LHR is already extremely touch and go (and that there might be payload restrictions at times).

I mean we’re only talking three hours longer in the air than current 787 non stops. If PS can’t do that without restriction, what was the whole point?

 

[RooFlyer]

From the configuration and pricing of PER-LHR QF are already extracting a 20% improvement in margin and the recent statement from the CEO Intimated she wanted to match that, not add an additional 20% on top of that.

So, a 20% margin on top of current QF Syd-Sin-LHR pricing? Genuine question - We've heard 'no premium' before in this thread, and then '20%' but I'm unsure of what people mean by 20% margin.

 

[SYD]

So, a 20% margin on top of current QF Syd-Sin-LHR pricing? Genuine question - We've heard 'no premium' before in this thread, and then '20%' but I'm unsure of what people mean by 20% margin.

Pretty consistent comments suggesting a “premium” and the latest from QF was circa 20% on say QF1/2. Not sure re QF3/4 which already has a slight premium over NYC via DFW. Guess we’ll see in due course.

 

[AuSammy]

Pretty consistent comments suggesting a “premium” and the latest from QF was circa 20% on say QF1/2. Not sure re QF3/4 which already has a slight premium over NYC via DFW. Guess we’ll see in due course.

They expect a 20% increase in profitability not 20% increase in fares. There was a video on AFF somewhere recently where it was explained. It does not mean a 20% rise in prices at all. Reduced seats for same demand mean higher occupancy. More F and J means more revenue per seat km. They will sell a lot of discount Y for similar to current pricing but bump up the penalty for last minute bookings/ higher fare buckets. Several tweaks that improve profitability but not just a blanket increase in prices.

The planes are also less fuel hungry than the A380s and other older frames.

They save on airport and handling taxes on transits. They use a lot of fuel taking off and landing.

They are already making 20% additional margin on the PER flights but the prices are pretty similar.

 

[RooFlyer]

They expect a 20% increase in profitability not 20% increase in fares. There was a video on AFF somewhere recently where it was explained. It does not mean a 20% rise in prices at all. Reduced seats for same demand mean higher occupancy. More F and J means more revenue per seat km. They will sell a lot of discount Y for similar to current pricing but bump up the penalty for last minute bookings/ higher fare buckets. Several tweaks that improve profitability but not just a blanket increase in prices.

Well, we shall see. I don't see why this much-trumpeted, unique service, avoiding all the pitfalls you've mentioned, attracting corporate spend, shouldn't have a decent premium on it, over current SYD-SIN-LHR.

 

[SYD]

They expect a 20% increase in profitability not 20% increase in fares. There was a video on AFF somewhere recently where it was explained. It does not mean a 20% rise in prices at all. Reduced seats for same demand mean higher occupancy. More F and J means more revenue per seat km. They will sell a lot of discount Y for similar to current pricing but bump up the penalty for last minute bookings/ higher fare buckets. Several tweaks that improve profitability but not just a blanket increase in prices.

The planes are also less fuel hungry than the A380s and other older frames.

They save on airport and handling taxes on transits. They use a lot of fuel taking off and landing.

They are already making 20% additional margin on the PER flights but the prices are pretty similar.

Do you have a reference / source for that? 20% increase in profit is “Magic pudding” territory if no price increase.

There was a link posted - which I can’t find now - but it was QF reiterating that there’d be a ~20% premium on price BUT that they were already applying that to PER-LHR and SYD-AKL-JFK.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Interestingly 1A is my most frequent seat.

 

[RooFlyer]

They expect a 20% increase in profitability not 20% increase in fares. There was a video on AFF somewhere recently where it was explained. It does not mean a 20% rise in prices at all. Reduced seats for same demand mean higher occupancy. More F and J means more revenue per seat km. They will sell a lot of discount Y for similar to current pricing but bump up the penalty for last minute bookings/ higher fare buckets. Several tweaks that improve profitability but not just a blanket increase in prices.

The planes are also less fuel hungry than the A380s and other older frames.

They save on airport and handling taxes on transits. They use a lot of fuel taking off and landing.

They are already making 20% additional margin on the PER flights but the prices are pretty similar.

I'd only point out that notwithstanding its more fuel efficient and will save on transit costs, that its only carrying 230-odd pax, Vs the 350-odd capacity of an A350-1000. And re profit, there is the capital cost/depreciation of a new, custom built airframe. And the need for a whole, empty 'spare', given the timings/curfews at SYD and LHR. Swings and roundabouts, but I'm sure it'll be much on the plus side for the company, overall.

I have no idea on impact on profit (I guess this means profit/pax on this route Vs SYD-SIN-LHR), but as I said, I wouldn't begrudge, and would expect, a decent fare premium over SYD-SIN-LHR.

When they begin - toppish fares taking advantage of the hype and eagerness of people to try, or low-ish fares to give it a 'flying' start?

 

[Feech La Manna]

Those old enough will remember QF put a "premium" on the original non stop 747-400 flights to the US back in the early 1990s. They also heavily restricted most fare buckets in F/J on the A380 originally, only the R and J fare buckets were generally available.

Neither of these lasted too long before QF went back to "normal" revenue management.

The thing that gets me about Sunrise is business/corporate passengers wont actually save that much time - they still wont get a full working day in Sydney before leaving for London. And on the return they'll still lose two working days.

Unlike QF9 from Perth, where its a real time saver compared to the previous Qantas options to SIN and then LHR - the flight to SIN departed lunchtime so you lost most of the day, unlike QF9 which departs in the evening. I can see that being worth a nice premium along with the reduced flight time, not so sure if Sunrise has as much value given the timings.

 

[jrfsp]

Those old enough will remember QF put a "premium" on the original non stop 747-400 flights to the US back in the early 1990s. They also heavily restricted most fare buckets in F/J on the A380 originally, only the R and J fare buckets were generally available.

Neither of these lasted too long before QF went back to "normal" revenue management.

The thing that gets me about Sunrise is business/corporate passengers wont actually save that much time - they still wont get a full working day in Sydney before leaving for London. And on the return they'll still lose two working days.

Unlike QF9 from Perth, where its a real time saver compared to the previous Qantas options to SIN and then LHR - the flight to SIN departed lunchtime so you lost most of the day, unlike QF9 which departs in the evening. I can see that being worth a nice premium along with the reduced flight time, not so sure if Sunrise has as much value given the timings.

We don’t know the timings yet but I’d assume for a 5am arrival into LHR, the SYD dept would be around 5pm, around a 4 hour saving on QF1.

 

[AuSammy]

Do you have a reference / source for that? 20% increase in profit is “Magic pudding” territory if no price increase.

There was a link posted - which I can’t find now - but it was QF reiterating that there’d be a ~20% premium on price BUT that they were already applying that to PER-LHR and SYD-AKL-JFK.

I can’t remember where I watched it right now, maybe it will come back to me but it went into how most important factor for the company was a term called RASK and in quite some detail how they can never make decent margins with a transit through a port dominated by another carrier like SIN, DOH, DXB HKG the only hope for international division was a PS strategy but it was a big risk.

 

[justinbrett]

And re profit, there is the capital cost/depreciation of a new, custom built airframe.

If you're implying this cost QF significantly more than a standard A350-1000, that's not correct. All aircraft are custom in some respect, but in the sense that QF contributed financially to the development of the type - that's not the case, it's covered by Airbus. It's an official type, and any customer can now order it (there was some talk of TK buying them).

As a direct equivalent, QF also didn't pay to develop the 747-400ER, for which they were the launch and sole customer.

 

[SYD]

It's an official type, and any customer can now order it (there was some talk of TK buying them).

Some mixed coverage on that.

The ET article just indicated that TK was going to configure a premium heavy sub fleet to do the IST-SYD/MEL non-stop.

Turkish Airlines delays non-stop Istanbul-Sydney flights to 2027

Direct flights to Sydney are now slated for the end of 2027, with Melbourne to follow in 2028.

www.executivetraveller.com

But the SimplyFlying article (interview) referred to, states TK are buying 8x ULRs and sounds like they’ll be very similar to the QF config - even the same J Suite.

Curiously, there’s a comment against the SimplyFlying article suggesting QF has an “exclusivity deal” for the A350-1000ULR for a couple of years. Maybe QF did contribute to some of the NRE costs?

 

[lovestotravel]

SQ is currently looking at an order for new aircraft. Interesting to see if they order a few

 

[justinbrett]

Some mixed coverage on that.

The ET article just indicated that TK was going to configure a premium heavy sub fleet to do the IST-SYD/MEL non-stop.

Turkish Airlines delays non-stop Istanbul-Sydney flights to 2027

Direct flights to Sydney are now slated for the end of 2027, with Melbourne to follow in 2028.

www.executivetraveller.com

But the SimplyFlying article (interview) referred to, states TK are buying 8x ULRs and sounds like they’ll be very similar to the QF config - even the same J Suite.

Curiously, there’s a comment against the SimplyFlying article suggesting QF has an “exclusivity deal” for the A350-1000ULR for a couple of years. Maybe QF did contribute to some of the NRE costs?

Yeah, Simple Flying was the source, but I think they've actually got it wrong; I believe TK has said they will config these 8 aircraft for ULR - in terms of seating and layout, not specifically order the ULR variant. They don't need the ULR for their proposed routes.

However they said they had a source direct at TK so who knows. I would have thought Airbus would have made a song and dance about that if it happened.

As for the exclusivity deal, I wouldn't be paying much attention to a random comment on what seems an unreliable website. They still may have got it as a term of the order without paying (I mean, QF remains the only airline that operated 747-400ER) - Airbus have done alright with QF switching from 737s to A32X - which was part of the deal.

 

[elanshin]

SQ is currently looking at an order for new aircraft. Interesting to see if they order a few

SQ would likely want a 1-1 replacement on the 350-900 ULR on their EWR and JFK routes as well as open routes. I wouldn't be surprised if ME3 are also eyeing this for some of their longest routes

Yeah, Simple Flying was the source, but I think they've actually got it wrong; I believe TK has said they will config these 8 aircraft for ULR - in terms of seating and layout, not specifically order the ULR variant. They don't need the ULR for their proposed routes.

SYD - IST is slightly longer than PER-LHR iirc. For TK to use anything else, they'd also have to be massively payload restricted wnd subject to problems that develop enroute. This would eliminate that problem altogether. It may be that previously TK was going to go for a low density configuration but may now be eyeing this plane instead.

 

[moa999]

Never say never but as you say IST-SYD is likely achievable with current equipment, being pretty close to PER-LHR and ME-AKL.

Plus you've got the new iMTOW 789 and 78X variants which can reportedly add 300-400mi over prior variants.

Now of course IST-AKL might be different.

 

[justinbrett]

SYD - IST is slightly longer than PER-LHR iirc. For TK to use anything else, they'd also have to be massively payload restricted wnd subject to problems that develop enroute. This would eliminate that problem altogether. It may be that previously TK was going to fo for a low density configuration but may now be eyeing this plane instead.

It's not just raw distance - it's the route, PER-LHR has to deal with airspace issues frequently - less of a problem for TK.

 

[Quickstatus]

I suppose the real litmus test is whether QF will find there is a market for people willing to travel with no stopover between Australia and the destination. Moreso for those in Y. And for a premium.

I think they have decided that there is basically a premium heavy niche market prepared to pay the tax.

IMHO. Majority of Australians are price value driven, not by flight times.

And don't care about "safest airline in the world" either. The target market is not going to this segment

more fuel efficient and will save on transit costs,

Definitely not more fuel efficient the basis of fuel per seat km. It is already carrying 100 pax less that what the aircraft could fit. Some of the route premium, brand premium or whatever we would like to call it will be used to pay this

They can't carry as much freight. Maybe no freight at all depending on numbers

Mitigated by reduced Transit costs - landing and handling charges , crew hotels etc at an intermediate airport yes.

Most of "excess" revenue will come from the premium pax and they will also manage to squeeze some out of the Y pax with the 34in seats.