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

[Melburnian1]

They actually explained this, it's to mitigate congestion delays.

Later in the morning they're more likely to face holding - landing that early they've got the best chance of not being held up.

Holding times vary, but if it's the case QFi is 'worried' (as you said elsewhere) about a possible 20 minute holding pattern approaching London Heathrow, then that underlines what a risky endeavour PS is.. Pushing the envelope a little too close for comfort.

Perhaps unusually given summer, about four days ago there was heavy fog at LHR with 1,000 flights disrupted.

It will be fascinating to see if QF1 or whatever flight number it's allocated ever has to divert, meaning a 24 hour delay given pilots and cabin crew would have to rest overnight.

 

[elanshin]

Holding times vary, but if it's the case QFi is 'worried' (as you said elsewhere) about a possible 20 minute holding pattern approaching London Heathrow, then that underlines what a risky endeavour PS is.. Pushing the envelope a little too close for comfort.

Perhaps unusually given summer, about four days ago there was heavy fog at LHR with 1,000 flights disrupted.

It will be fascinating to see if QF1 or whatever flight number it's allocated ever has to divert, meaning a 24 hour delay given pilots and cabin crew would have to rest overnight.

Wouldn't a "low fuel" call shoot them up the priority list.

 

[justinbrett]

Holding times vary, but if it's the case QFi is 'worried' (as you said elsewhere) about a possible 20 minute holding pattern approaching London Heathrow, then that underlines what a risky endeavour PS is.. Pushing the envelope a little too close for comfort.

Perhaps unusually given summer, about four days ago there was heavy fog at LHR with 1,000 flights disrupted.

It will be fascinating to see if QF1 or whatever flight number it's allocated ever has to divert, meaning a 24 hour delay given pilots and cabin crew would have to rest overnight.

Not worried in terms of safety of flight, worried in terms of chance of diversion. Remember when QF8 was a 747? That happened a lot.

I'm sure there will be diversions. But I'm not sure the chance is any higher than QF9 or QF4. It could even be less. QF9 and QF4 are both crack of dawn arrivals so also mitigate congestion.

Wouldn't a "low fuel" call shoot them up the priority list.

You still need to carry the prescribed holding fuel. You can't just rock up and say "I've come a long way".

Now, they could request some sort of special requirement status (before departure) which grants them priority, but I'm not sure they'd get it.

 

[oz_mark]

You still need to carry the prescribed holding fuel. You can't just rock up and say "I've come a long way".

Now, they could request some sort of special requirement status (before departure) which grants them priority, but I'm not sure they'd get it.

I'm sure they've learnt a few things from the 787 flights, but I imagine that you'd pretty much have to declare an emergency to get up the priority list.

 

[Melburnian1]

Another (hopefully rare) difficulty will be if there's a medical diversion required.

Again, a 24 hour delay is the probable result.

 

[justinbrett]

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 .

(East) Asia works better as you're travelling at similar latitudes - shorter flights that cover more time zones. In winter, it's a 5 hour jump from local time take off to local time arrival to Japan - to Sydney it's 10 hours. So even a 0900 departure (which would rule out connecting arrivals after 0730) would land at SYD at 1900, and at that time of night the only connections left are MEL & BNE (who have their own direct flights).

A day time flight to BNE is probably the most suitable, as in winter it's a hour behind, and it's a slightly shorter flight.

 

[Quickstatus]

Wouldn't a "low fuel" call shoot them up the priority list.

Generally no. You could push the envelope and declare "minimum fuel" but that could open a can of worms in the form of a "please explain" later if you do it routinely. Not sure if the regulators investigate min fuel compared to mayday fuel which they do. Can you imagine the effect on the airline's reputation if it leaked out that they didn't have enough fuel on this particular route?.

The airline will plan to arrive with adequate fuel. They have experience with estimating fuel for various ULH flights including recent PER-LHR and DFW-SYD on the A380 which also require less than full passenger loads. . It is not about how many hours the aircraft can fly for. It is about arriving with adequate fuel no matter the aircraft - whether a Cessna or an A350. So I don't think we should worry that the airline has not properly prepared for this route. It would have done all the calculations and analysed all the scenarios and contingencies.

if by some chance they don't have enough fuel there are many diversion fields en route. They will just go there and the pilots most likely will go to the hotel.

Edge cases may involve reducing passenger payload. Or in extreme cases - land in Singapore with prepositioned crew to take over from there.

I'm not worried about fuel for Ps
I'm not worried about having to divert - it would be an adventure. Lots of airports 120minutes away
The airline is not going to stretch the calculations to make it fit.
I'm more worried about flights like SYD-SCL where there in nothing between the 2 destinations on a 2 engine except ocean

 

[offshore171]

if by some chance they don't have enough fuel there are many diversion fields en route. They will just go there and

It certainly is a thing. I recall the Qantas A380 from Dallas to Syd has diverted to Brisbane in the past, if they encountered strong headwinds and chewing through too much fuel.

For Syd to LHR, on the upwind sector there's plenty of "friendly" airports they could potentially divert to in a low fuel state occurs.

Coming back, the last couple of hours will be over Australian territory and the prevailing wind is a tailwind so this is less of a concern.

 

[Quickstatus]

has diverted to Brisbane

And NOU and AKL
Fuel planning is basic pilot skill and with the airlines is augmented by sophisticated system.s.

 

[flydoc2]

"Cabin lighting to combat jet lag"? As if they actually care.

I think the reality will be - lights are out, shut up, sleep and don't bother us for the next 22 hours. Well feed you when we feel like it.

Quote from VH, in this months QF Travel Insider magazine - “ the cabin lighting will shift with your destination timezone and menus will be built around sleep and wake cycles”

Ostensibly the statement for cabin lighting is quite objective, implying the intent is for it to be actively managed inflight to help align pax with the destination time-zone.
The comment on the timings of the inflight meals service has far more wriggle room. IMO.

 

[justinbrett]

Another (hopefully rare) difficulty will be if there's a medical diversion required.

Again, a 24 hour delay is the probable result.

How is that any different to the current QF1 or QF9? or most long haul flights for that matter?

 

[lovestotravel]

Quote from VH, in this months QF Travel Insider magazine - “ the cabin lighting will shift with your destination timezone and menus will be built around sleep and wake cycles”

Ostensibly the statement for cabin lighting is quite objective, implying the intent is for it to be actively managed inflight to help align pax with the destination time-zone.
The comment on the timings of the inflight meals service has far more wriggle room. IMO.

I hope the lighting is actually used properly. I've lost track of flights where the mood lighting is used rarely/incorrectly or hardly at all.

 

[Quickstatus]

then that underlines what a risky endeavour PS is.. Pushing the envelope a little too close for comfort.

That is not how it works. They would have factored all that at the point of origin before takeoff

There are different types of "fuel"
1) Taxi fuel - fuel used prior to take off getting to the runway - which may need to be increased depending on local ground delays
2) Trip fuel - takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach, landing, and taxi to gate.
3) Alternate fuel - after trying to land, fuel required from the missed approach point at destination, climb, cruise, approach to landing at the alternate
4) Contingency fuel - fuel required for additional fuel consumption due to route changes, headwinds. I understand there is a minimum +5% on top of trip fuel
5) Final reserve fuel - the legally required minimum fuel required to fly for 30 minutes at the destination or alternate. Aircraft should have this fuel after landing and taxxiing to gate.
6) Centre of Gravity fuel - fuel may be necessary to maintain CoG and usually cannot be burned during flight depending on CoG envelope.
7) Additional fuel - the pilot can add extra on top of all that - such as for holding at an airport known to make aircraft hold.

Then add it all up and see whether it will fit in the fuel tanks and not exceed max take off weight. If take off weight is = MTOW but more fuel is required, then payload including passengers will need to be offloaded. Or plan to land at an intermediate airport to uplift more fuel. The problem when PS is that any landing at an intermediate before the destination will likely also mean the pilots will be going to a hotel.

 

[Quickstatus]

“ the cabin lighting will shift with your destination timezone and menus will be built around sleep and wake cycles”

I hope the lighting is actually used properly.

I think The airlines already do this to some extent and it will also revolve around cabin service times.
Of course the menus will be built around sleep and wake cycles - that is why meals are often called lunch in the middle of the night when your body thinks its should be dinner.
The lighting schedule are also different between cabins. Often Y is lit up but J is not due to in flight service requirements

Without a comparison with a 1 stop service, it is difficult to say whether the QF schdule is significantly different. Just because the CEO says it is special does not mean it is.
I think the best comparison will be with the SQ A350 service between SYD-SIN-LHR (SQ 242/306 and SQ 241/309) which is 23hrs going west and 21.5 hrs going east and 50 minutes on ground at SIN.


For the westward journey, it makes sense to me for cabin lights to be on for the first half of the flight and then dark for the second half - so lights on for both the first and second meal service. Lights out after that until the 3rd meal service. The LED lighting colours will be adjusted as the hours pass.

 

[Melburnian1]

For the westward journey, it makes sense to me for cabin lights to be on for the first half of the flight and then dark for the second half - so lights on for both the first and second meal service. Lights out after that until the 3rd meal service. The LED lighting colours will be adjusted as the hours pass.

That wouldn't 'make sense' to many patrons, who after having the initial meal - which may be cleared from tables by say 2.5 hours after pushback - will want to sleep. LED lighting remaining on, whatever the hue, would be an irritant.

 

[Quickstatus]

That wouldn't 'make sense' to many patrons

Thats my point. It is irrelevant what qantas says.

 

[RooFlyer]

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).

I wasn’t implying that Qantas contributed financially to the development, ("And re profit, there is the capital cost/depreciation of a new, custom built airframe", but that the development and manufacture of the major changes, including all the systems modifications, testing and certification will be factored in to pricing. But if you say that’s still not correct then I’ll accept that, but I’d ask you to substantiate it.

Although other airlines will be able to buy the ULR, its application is really limited versus the regular version so I don’t think Airbus would factor in anticipating selling a lot of them in its pricing. Maybe the Qantas contract has a claw-back provision where they get some of their spend back proportional to the number of other frames of the type Airbus sells.

So I believe so far, that the air frames are priced at a premium over the regular version of A350-1000, and therefore would impact depreciation costs and therefore impact profit a bit, which was the point I was making. Also, as I mentioned the fact that they need a complete spare will certainly be making a dent in capital cost and depreciation, affecting profit. Given that airlines like to use their aircraft close to 24/7 as much as practical, having a brand-new one sitting on the ground every cycle will be a drag on profit. But I’m certain Qantas will still make a great net profit out of these birds!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That wouldn't 'make sense' to many patrons, who after having the initial meal - which may be cleared from tables by say 2.5 hours after pushback - will want to sleep. LED lighting remaining on, whatever the hue, would be an irritant.

Exactly!

Of course the menus will be built around sleep and wake cycles - that is why meals are often called lunch in the middle of the night when your body thinks its should be dinner.

My body isnt that smart! My stomach literally can’t tell the difference between a sausage muffin and hash brown (breakfast) and a hamburger and chips (dinner).

Food is food?

 

[justinbrett]

So I believe so far, that the air frames are priced at a premium over the regular version of A350-1000

And I'll likewise ask you to substantiate that.

Most of the R&D for the ULR is being rolled out to the standard A350 fleet (source, Richard Quest interview with Airbus CEO last week). He was directly asked what was in it for Airbus to create this bespoke aircraft, and the answer were basically he hopes to sell it to other airlines.

Remember, Airbus was competing with Boeing for this sale.

 

[mviy]

Also, as I mentioned the fact that they need a complete spare will certainly be making a dent in capital cost and depreciation, affecting profit. Given that airlines like to use their aircraft close to 24/7 as much as practical, having a brand-new one sitting on the ground every cycle will be a drag on profit. But I’m certain Qantas will still make a great net profit out of these birds!

If they have multiple daily flights on the Sunrise aircraft going to the same overseas destination they can improve aircraft utilisation. So whilst initially utilisation will not be great, it should improve.