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

[dajop]

One of the biggest issues flying east from EU to AU is that the stopover always seems to interrupt the optimal time to be asleep to minimise jetlag.

It's not so bad on the flights that depart EU mid-late morning and transit SE Asia/HKG, continuing on to Australia arriving in the evening. But QF2 timing agree totally.

 

[justinbrett]

We’ll probably never know the commercial arrangements between Airbus and QF (nor Boeing if they’d got the gig) for the non-recurring engineering (NRE) to adapt the A350-1000 to meet the PS requirements. It would make sense if Airbus sprinkled some of those costs across the total QF order but they probably wore some of it to be free to sell the end result.

But again, that's literally how it works, the Airbus spends the money on development, they get it back in unit sales. They aren't selling the aircraft at cost price.

The cost to develop the A350 program was reported to be 15 billion Euro - which means to date, the first 10 million euro for every A350 sold funds the development, before any profit is made (in addition to the actual costs of building the aircraft).

Even if the cost spread over the 12 aircraft was 50 million each, that largely gets lost in the noise of bulk customer discounts - QF switching from Boeing to Airbus for not only PS but the 737s was quite a win for Airbus.

 

[Quickstatus]

QF10 had to call in at remote KTA for a top up in fuel as the flight had encountered headwinds and lacked sufficient to make it nonstop from LHR to PER

I've twice been on an A380 LAX-MEL when it had to drop into SYD for a splash and dash and the A380 has been known to drop into NOU for similar too on a DFW-SYD. These occurrences were IMO good fuel management compared to emergency low fuel situations which would be poor fuel management. It is just the cost of doing business on ultra long routes.

 

[DC3]

While unusual and not something I can recall previously occurring, today QF10 had to call in at remote KTA for a top up in fuel ….

Apparently, weather conditions changed during the flight so the plane's route had to alter.

 

[leesionn]

The recent announcements suggested PER-LHR and MEL-DFW could be candidates for PS aircraft to free up B787s for new services. But that does also beg the question where they rotate to/from rather than just back and fourth.

Surely MEL-DFW could be a candidate for a standard A35K when they take delivery of them? That way 1 or 2 PS aircraft don't need to be taken up at any given time? PER-LHR makes sense for the PS ones, as that can be used to do a LHR-SYD leg too.

It’s possibly a limited market for these type of aircraft? But SQ would be obvious, TK may or may not have ordered some (or just pinched the numbers on weight saving on a premium heavy config to stretch the range of a regular A351?). BA could well give it go? Not sure about other Euro airlines? The American airlines probably won’t touch it but the ME could while they still have cheaper fuel!

I found the reporting on TK's order confusing - they kept talking about ULR but that could also just be a way of how they talk about differently configured aircraft (e.g. when Emirates ordered the A350-900, they called the ones with the crew rest area "ULR".

They've got 15 A35K on order, with 8 being earmarked as "ULR" (this could just be those with the larger business class cabin). However, they also want to do IST-AKL nonstop, and this is a touch longer than SYD-LHR, so they may inevitably have to purchase the ULR variants for this.

Other airlines I read that have expressed interest in the A35K-ULR are BA and SQ, but nothing firm. So I think TK are the most likely one to actually order them.

 

[justinbrett]

The recent announcements suggested PER-LHR and MEL-DFW could be candidates for PS aircraft to free up B787s for new services. But that does also beg the question where they rotate to/from rather than just back and fourth.

From what I've seen it's PER-LHR & AKL-JFK

I imagine ability to sell F is a major factor in the decision.

 

[elanshin]

What if its a schedule thing as well?

Is there any new scheduling possible if we consider say SYD-LHR-PER-LHR -SYD -JFK etc

 

[justinbrett]

What if its a schedule thing as well?

Is there any new scheduling possible if we consider say SYD-LHR-PER-LHR -SYD -JFK etc

I think it's definitely possible for JFK - that sunrise line doesn't continue from AKL to SYD.

 

[elanshin]

I think it's definitely possible for JFK - that sunrise line doesn't continue from AKL to SYD.

I meant also on the timings at LHR this could alleviate the tight window to operate SYD-LHR from the curfews if PER - LHR frames are also incorporated into scheduling.

 

[TeaKozy]

I think it's definitely possible for JFK - that sunrise line doesn't continue from AKL to SYD.

I doubt QF would run a seperate widebody to connect SYD-AKL, unless they could somehow leverage it for reduced staffing (i.e. AKL-BNE-LAX). And I also very much doubt they'd expect ex-SYD passengers to connect on a narrowbody.

I also completely missed the 'SYD terminal development' remark in that slide - can't wait for those seamless connections in 2045, just in time for the First lounge in LHR.

 

[justinbrett]

I doubt QF would run a seperate widebody to connect SYD-AKL, unless they could somehow leverage it for reduced staffing (i.e. AKL-BNE-LAX). And I also very much doubt they'd expect ex-SYD passengers to connect on a narrowbody.

I also completely missed the 'SYD terminal development' remark in that slide - can't wait for those seamless connections in 2045, just in time for the First lounge in LHR.

We don't even know if AKL-JFK will originate in SYD (aircraft aside, we can assume the flight number will originate in Australia).

Once PS SYD-JFK starts, I wouldn't be surprised if the AKL service starts in MEL. No point in accommodating SYD pax who have their own service. Or yes, maybe it will just originate in BNE, to link up with other services like LAX.

 

[dajop]

I meant also on the timings at LHR this could alleviate the tight window to operate SYD-LHR from the curfews if PER - LHR frames are also incorporated into scheduling.

If it's a 5am arrival into LHR, they could turn around the plane at 8am and be back in SYD by around 12-1pm in winter and 2-3pm in summer, so there's plenty of time before curfew kicks. You can do SYD-LHR turn with two planes (but need one spare for maintenance) as out of 48 hrs the flying time is probably only 41-42 hrs.

Turning around to PER would get to PER at 8am then back to LHR at perhaps 9pm and then that wouldn't be able to turn around to SYD either beat curfew or arrive after curfew.

If on the other hand they did second SYD service, departing at 7-9am and arriving at 8pm into LHR (great way to do it IMHO!) that would make sense to turn back to PER. ( turns around at 10pm say, back in PER at around 9-10pm, departs PER at midnight, back in LHR around 10-11am. Then a SYD service leaving early afternoon back to SYD around 6-9pm.)

 

[exceladdict]

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.

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.

This might not be the place to discuss it, but At some stage, wouldn't pilot shift 2 come in? i imagine there'll be some sort of system where
team A does pre-departure checks, takes off, gets to cruise (say to 6h flight time) - team B goes straight to bed
team B takes the mid-flight (say 6-14h flight time) - 8h shift - team A rests
Team A takes the remainder of flight through to landing - 8h shift through to 22 hours

And I assume something similar would take place with the FAs, they surely won't be pulling 22 hour shifts - so if diversion was required, team B has just had a full nights' sleep and could take the reins?

 

[chitown_boy]

Was on QF35 J, now at SIN F lounge and pondering just how luxurious it is to have a stopover in SIN before QF 1 to LHR. So much so, I was a little annoyed at us having to be in a hold pattern for almost an hour before landing due to bad weather in SIN (I was worried we'd run out of fuel and have to divert it was that long!). But even being in J wasn't enough to assuage my desires to be on the ground, in this lounge, showered and a la carte dining. I just can't see the value-add of a non-stop, even for business people that are time poor as you're effectively still landing around the same ballpark time in the morning, no? And having decent wifi in the lounge (to work) totally trumps whatever work you can try to get done with the slow onboard wifi...a stopover allows you to enjoy the journey even in Y (even more so in Y!) rather than dreading the whole ordeal IMO...

But maybe it's all down to personal taste. And maybe some opinions will change once people experience a non-stop first-hand lol

Come to think of it, I’m surprised there’s no F showers for PS. Flight length def long enough to warrant an EK-like pod IMO

I actually have been on a similarly PS length flight. NZ 1 jfk-akl that had to divert to Nadi and was 3-4 hours late into AKL as a result. Even when the Y cabin is half empty didn’t compensate for the horror of hearing we’ll be diverting and the first hand feeling of having to be in this seat for hours more…

 

[Siebert]

If they really manage to offer noticeably more space in every cabin, that could be a bigger selling point than the nonstop aspect itself. A slightly longer journey with more comfort often beats the fastest option for me.

 

[exceladdict]

But maybe it's all down to personal taste. And maybe some opinions will change once people experience a non-stop first-hand lol

Come to think of it, I’m surprised there’s no F showers for PS. Flight length def long enough to warrant an EK-like pod IMO

Perhaps the weight requirements for water would shift the numbers too much. 9 LPM * 10 minutes * even 5 pax is almost half a tonne.