QF non-stop MEL & SYD to LHR and SYD to JFK to begin before the end of the year...

[RSD]

Qantas’ plan to ‘revolutionise’ air travel

Seems like Joyce & Co plus either Boeing or Airbus have found a solution

 

[Ansett]

Given that no aircraft have been ordered as yet, never mind being built, and presuming that CASA would need to certify it to fly into and out of Australia along with all the crewing issues I seriously doubt that any passengers will be flying either of the proposed routes by the end of this year.

 

[jb747]

I think the Irish call it blarney.

 

[craven morehead]

Or by the end of next year Uncle Alan just spruiking again for the sake of it.

 

[cjd600]

Apart from the headline of the ‘article’ I find no quotes referencing end of this year...?

 

[Ansett]

From the opening line a quote

Qantas says it will be ready to fly passengers directly from Sydney and Melbourne to London, as well as Sydney to New York non-stop, by the end of the year.

 

[jb747]

The only way that could happen is if there is already an arrangement to get some A350s, as the 777 won’t be anywhere near deliveries. I still can’t see how it could ever be done with regard to fuel, especially to JFK, where the fuel requirements for arrival vary enormously from day to day. It would be a game of wondering just what city they’d divert to....

 

[flyer89]

The only way that could happen is if there is already an arrangement to get some A350s, as the 777 won’t be anywhere near deliveries. I still can’t see how it could ever be done with regard to fuel, especially to JFK, where the fuel requirements for arrival vary enormously from day to day. It would be a game of wondering just what city they’d divert to....

Would operating into EWR provide any relief from this?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

First I had to check the date

But me thinks this might be a bit of poetic licence... the headline is qantas promises sydney to london route by end of year. Yes - they might have planned out a route - which a capable plane could fly once built and delivered. It doesn't say they will actually be operating it.

 

[Himeno]

I highly doubt any 'Project Sunrise' flight could be made before the end of the year.

The proposed aircraft options are the 777-8X and A350-1000ULR. Neither of which are off the design board.
The 777-9 has the first of 4 test frames complete. The 2 -8 test frames aren't out until next year.
The A350 has 17 base -1000 frames in service, but no info on the ULR variant QF would want. The only current 350ULRs are the 7 -900ULRs with SQ.

Neither the 777-8X nor the 350-1000ULR meet all the requirements Qantas has asked for (non stop MEL/SYD-JFK/LHR with 300 pax in 4 classes with baggage/cargo). One has the load, but not quite the range. The other has the range, but not the load.

 

[moa999]

Can only see it being a journo misinterpretation of comments that QF will announce the winner of Sunrise by the end of the year, which has been the plan for sometime

 

[ozfflyer]

my very rough calculations show that SYD/JFK is 10.6% further than PER/LHR & flying west to east with the jetstream means faster, so couldn't a current B787 with a light load of passengers & no freight whatsoever ?

Obviously it could be done, but could it be done simply as a stunt, without a commercially viable passenger load ? Boeing certainly need some good publicity at present.

I mean a B747-400 did LHR/SYD nonstop with no passengers & LHR/SYD is very roughly 17% further than LHR/PER.

 

[jase05]

From the opening line a quote

Qantas says it will be ready to fly passengers directly from Sydney and Melbourne to London, as well as Sydney to New York non-stop, by the end of the year.

Further down in the article

“But Mr Joyce said it would be ready to announce a new plane capable of the journey by the end of the year and have passengers off the ground for the world’s longest flight path in 2022”

 

[33kft]

It's like a movie poster quote

Mr Joyce [....] said that Qantas would be [....] ready to fly [...] Sydney to London [...] by the end of the year.

 

[jb747]

my very rough calculations show that SYD/JFK is 10.6% further than PER/LHR & flying west to east with the jetstream means faster, so couldn't a current B787 with a light load of passengers & no freight whatsoever ?

Obviously it could be done, but could it be done simply as a stunt, without a commercially viable passenger load ? Boeing certainly need some good publicity at present.

I mean a B747-400 did LHR/SYD nonstop with no passengers & LHR/SYD is very roughly 17% further than LHR/PER.

You need to start thinking about US ATC. Holding with over 1,000 miles to go to JFK is not unusual.

 

[RSD]

You need to start thinking about US ATC. Holding with over 1,000 miles to go to JFK is not unusual.

Well that might throw a spanner in the works!

 

[ozfflyer]

You need to start thinking about US ATC. Holding with over 1,000 miles to go to JFK is not unusual.

so they do an emergency landing due to low fuel

 

[jb747]

so they do an emergency landing due to low fuel

That's not how it works. If you say you can't do any more holding, you'll simply be pointed at an airfield that can handle the aircraft, and told to land. I you push until you can no longer accept ATC instructions, then I'd plan on losing the right to fly there pretty quickly.

If you wait until it's an emergency, you're an idiot.

 

[dajop]

You need to start thinking about US ATC. Holding with over 1,000 miles to go to JFK is not unusual.

Question ...and I’m not sure how it all works, just questioning based on logic. If aircraft is capable of doing JFK-SYD non stop, wouldn’t it also, in “typical” conditions, be capable of travelling a couple of hours further than JFK from SYD, thus (if fuel loaded) have the capacity to cope with ATC issues at JFK. Conversely can you can see it struggling with SYD ATC problems? SYD-JFK would be what 17 hrs, whilst JFK-SYD more like 20?

Very different route to SIN-EWR-SIN which either does the whole journey eastbound or does the return via the north pole.

 

[jb747]

Question ...and I’m not sure how it all works, just questioning based on logic. If aircraft is capable of doing JFK-SYD non stop, wouldn’t it also, in “typical” conditions, be capable of travelling a couple of hours further than JFK from SYD, thus (if fuel loaded) have the capacity to cope with ATC issues at JFK. Conversely can you can see it struggling with SYD ATC problems? SYD-JFK would be what 17 hrs, whilst JFK-SYD more like 20?

I expect that the entire thing will be problematic in both directions. Firstly it won't be fully fuelled. It will have the minimum fuel that they think they can get away with. The variation (between the fuel on the flight plan, and what we actually used) I saw, simply in going from LA to JFK, was in the order of 25 tonnes. Now the 747 is a lot more thirsty, but variation in the order of 10-12 tonnes is likely. But, to have that extra 10-12 tonnes in the last couple of hours, you'd need double that at the start. I don't think the weights will be there. I'm sure it will work sometimes, but I have my doubts about any adverse weather (and associated ATC issues).

Even flight time limits are going to be fun. CASA hasn't approved that sort of operation yet. Crews will be knackered at the end of what will be tours well over 20 hours. And toss in the fact that just getting from the gate to the runway at JFK can take hours...and many flights will be 'out of hours' before they even start.

It will be fun to watch from the sidelines anyway.