User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13684
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Tue May 28, 2019 11:54 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
This happened fairly often on LAX-SIN with the 787-9. They had to cancel the route. The blocked seats were a disaster.


Probably explains why the 787 was not considered for Sunrise, the SQ A350 continues to operate the route.

RJMAZ wrote:
If there is a cyclone in Asia right in the way of the ideal flight path and the flight has to take a route that is 2-3% longer the aircraft may not enough fuel.


There is noting active now.

ABPW10 PGTW 280600
MSGID/GENADMIN/JOINT TYPHOON WRNCEN PEARL HARBOR HI//
SUBJ/SIGNIFICANT TROPICAL WEATHER ADVISORY FOR THE WESTERN AND
/SOUTH PACIFIC OCEANS/280600Z-290600ZMAY2019//
RMKS/
1. WESTERN NORTH PACIFIC AREA (180 TO MALAY PENINSULA):
A. TROPICAL CYCLONE SUMMARY: NONE.
B. TROPICAL DISTURBANCE SUMMARY: NONE.
2. SOUTH PACIFIC AREA (WEST COAST OF SOUTH AMERICA TO 135 EAST):
A. TROPICAL CYCLONE SUMMARY: NONE.
B. TROPICAL DISTURBANCE SUMMARY: NONE.//
NNNN
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6425
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 12:43 am

zeke wrote:
Probably explains why the 787 was not considered for Sunrise, the SQ A350 continues to operate the route.


The 789 doesn't have the legs with a heavy payload that either the 778 or a ULR-variant A350 does, mostly because it doesn't have much if any room for MTOW or fuel capacity growth. No puzzling over flight plans is necessary to see that.

The only way a 787 could compete in this 9500 nm range bracket would be if Boeing made a 787-9 shrink with the 787-8 fuselage length. Even then, fuel capacity would be a challenge.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1437
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 1:40 am

zeke wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
This happened fairly often on LAX-SIN with the 787-9. They had to cancel the route. The blocked seats were a disaster.


Probably explains why the 787 was not considered for Sunrise, the SQ A350 continues to operate the route.

The LAX-SIN route was used to simply explain how blocked seats can kill the economics.

The fact that the A350-900 is still doing LAX-SIN is due to its slightly greater payload/range. The 787-9 is the slightly lighter aircraft with less range. This is a very good comparison to what might happen on the project sunrise route. The A350-1000 is the slightly lighter aircraft with slightly less range and might end up like the 787-9 on the LAX-SIN route.

The 777-8 on Sydney to London might require a fuel stop, blocked seats or bumped bags for 5% of all flights. Even if the A350-1000 had a range only 200nm less the chance of a fuel stop increases exponentially. To bring the A350-1000 down to the same 5% level it might have to have a cabin with 20-30 less seats year round.

So even if the A350-1000 burnt less fuel for the trip if it had to carry 10-15% less passengers to have the same non stop success rate then the 777-8 is the better choice.

A completely standard 787-8 could comfortably fly the project sunrise route with 50 passengers. It has the longest maximum range in the 787 family. If we want to pick the aircraft with the lowest trip fuel burn the 787-8 wins. But the it is fuel burn per passenger that is the most important. All of the data presented so far has shown the 316T A350-1000 will probably have less trip fuel burn but all the data shows it will have significantly worse fuel burn per passenger. The data shows the A350-1000 needs a minimum 10T MTOW bump to carry the same passenger payload. The payload has to be equal for both aircraft if you want them to have the same rate of a fuel stop.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13684
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 2:53 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The fact that the A350-900 is still doing LAX-SIN is due to its slightly greater payload/range.


You may want to review this academic paper comparing the 787-9 to the A350-900 over SIN-SFO-SIN.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ion_detail

They show in the worst case scenario going westbound the A350-900 carries 12% more passengers (290 vs 325 pax) and 65% more cargo (7.9 vs 13.1 tonnes). If both aircraft are loaded with 290 passengers, then the A350-900 would carry 105% more cargo. If both aircraft carry 325 passengers, the A350-900 would lift around 180% more cargo.

I question the basis of your “slightly greater payload/range” statement.

They also confirm the difference between the 787-9 and A350-900 is around 5 tonnes which agrees with the data in the tech ops thread.

RJMAZ wrote:
This is a very good comparison to what might happen on the project sunrise route. The A350-1000 is the slightly lighter aircraft with slightly less range and might end up like the 787-9 on the LAX-SIN route


The difference being the A350-1000 actually has a slightly higher design payload compared to the 777-9 (366 vs 360 pax), unlike the 787-9 vs A350-900 (290 vs 325 pax). It is likely in the next 3 years before the 777-8 makes its first flight the design range of the A350-1000 will increase. Already seen a number of aerodynamic improvements on the A350-900 and an EP version of the Trent XWB. They have already increased the A350-900 design range by 350 nm (4.5%) since EIS.

So by the time 777-8 makes its first flight the A350-1000 design range and payload may well exceed the 777-8.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1641
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 7:37 am

RJMAZ wrote:
How pissed would you be if an airline said they had to block 50 seats and you were one of the unlucky psssengers who could not fly?

How pissed would you be if it had to make a fuel stop and you missed your connecting flight?

This happened fairly often on LAX-SIN with the 787-9. They had to cancel the route. The blocked seats were a disaster.

If there is a cyclone in Asia right in the way of the ideal flight path and the flight has to take a route that is 2-3% longer the aircraft may not enough fuel.



Most people would be upset if you are bumped from a flight. You have made plans and they include the flight timings on either end. This is why airlines would be silly to try and operate a route where they would need to bump 50 passengers for anything more than unforeseen circumstances. If bad weather forces you to regularly bump passengers it stops becoming unforeseen and if you have a plan on sending bags on alternative flights as well you will also be swimming against the tide arguing it is unforeseen when you have a plan in place.

As for the idea of sending the bags on a different route to try and connect with the passengers, there are a few problem with that. The flight time for the SYD-LHR flight will be around 20hrs. If you plan to send the bags on the SYD-PER-LHR route to have the passengers collect their bags you are adding 2h20 or so to the flight time. The flight is 2h40m less travel time from Perth to London, but you have a 5h flight from Sydney to add to that. So that is an extra 2h20 flight time and then the connection time as well. You can mitigate it as you say by departing earlier but they will not know how many bags they need to offload until everyone has checked in. So the earliest the flight can take off to Perth is as you say around 30 minutes or so before.

That still leaves around 2h30 or so that the Perth flight will arrive after the direct flight from Sydney. You cannot expect passengers who has just taken a 20hr flight to wait an additional 2 hours in the baggage area for their bags. There is no facilities for them to use once they have arrived but before they go through customs. If they have a onward journey booked already it will mean further delays to this. I think most passengers after such a long flight would rather choose to have their luggage delivered to them wherever they are traveling to.

So the idea of sending bags on a different flight if you need to offload payload will not work. Firstly it is against regulations as already shown to you (I am not talking about delayed luggage here because you are trying to send the luggage on an earlier flight). Secondly you will start tinkering with the times that the flights depart and arrive and that may influence the viability of those flights. Thirdly, there is no facilities for tired passengers to use while they wait for their bags as it will be hard, if not impossible, to have passengers pass customs only to go back to baggage claim 2-3 hours later.

I will give you credit for trying to think outside the box for a solution, but when multiple posters are telling you why it isn't possible and you have nobody backing you up the idea is not feasible. That is the time to back down on the idea, not buckle down.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 7:49 am

zeke wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
The fact that the A350-900 is still doing LAX-SIN is due to its slightly greater payload/range.


You may want to review this academic paper comparing the 787-9 to the A350-900 over SIN-SFO-SIN.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ion_detail

They show in the worst case scenario going westbound the A350-900 carries 12% more passengers (290 vs 325 pax) and 65% more cargo (7.9 vs 13.1 tonnes). If both aircraft are loaded with 290 passengers, then the A350-900 would carry 105% more cargo. If both aircraft carry 325 passengers, the A350-900 would lift around 180% more cargo

Sorry but you are wrong. In the artical you posted there is comparison between SQ and UA configuration which is 253 nad 252 pax respectively. On SIN-SFO-SIN route can A359 carry 5.2-5.7 more cargo with alomost identical pax onboard.

I question the basis of your “slightly greater payload/range” statement.

They also confirm the difference between the 787-9 and A350-900 is around 5 tonnes which agrees with the data in the tech ops thread.


Sorry but you are wrong. In the artical you posted there is comparison between SQ and UA configuration which is 253 nad 252 pax respectively. On SIN-SFO-SIN route can A359 carry 5.2-5.7 more cargo with alomost identical pax onboard.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13684
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 8:07 am

Mrakula wrote:
Sorry but you are wrong. In the artical you posted there is comparison between SQ and UA configuration which is 253 nad 252 pax respectively. On SIN-SFO-SIN route can A359 carry 5.2-5.7 more cargo with alomost identical pax onboard.


I stand corrected, I didn't see the figures you mentioned in the article directly, just the 290 and 325.

For SQ

"Using the typical value of 95 kg per passenger with baggage and a full passenger payload (European Aviation Safety Agency, 2009), the passenger payload is 24.0 tonnes, leaving an excess cargo payload of 13.1 tonnes and 16.9 tonnes for the westbound and eastbound flights, respectively."

For UA

"Using the typical value of 95 kg per passenger with baggage (European Aviation Safety Agency, 2009), the passenger payload is 23.9 tonnes, leaving an excess cargo payload of 7.9 tonnes and 11.4 tonnes for the westbound and eastbound flights, respectively. "

Conclusion

"If we consider the available air cargo capacity when there is the maximum passenger compliment on board, the difference between the A350-900XWB in Singapore Airlines cabin configuration and the United Airlines Boeing 787-9 is 5.3 tonnes (in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB), which increases slightly to 5.4 tonnes in the east bound direction and reduced slightly to 5.2 tonnes in the west bound direct.However, if we utilise the typical load factors of each airline, the difference becomes 5.6 tonnes in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB aircraft, which increases to 5.7 tonnes in the east bound direction (and remains at 5.6 tonnes in the west bound direction). "
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
AirwayBill
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:37 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 8:39 am

enzo011 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
How pissed would you be if an airline said they had to block 50 seats and you were one of the unlucky psssengers who could not fly?

How pissed would you be if it had to make a fuel stop and you missed your connecting flight?

This happened fairly often on LAX-SIN with the 787-9. They had to cancel the route. The blocked seats were a disaster.

If there is a cyclone in Asia right in the way of the ideal flight path and the flight has to take a route that is 2-3% longer the aircraft may not enough fuel.



Most people would be upset if you are bumped from a flight. You have made plans and they include the flight timings on either end. This is why airlines would be silly to try and operate a route where they would need to bump 50 passengers for anything more than unforeseen circumstances. If bad weather forces you to regularly bump passengers it stops becoming unforeseen and if you have a plan on sending bags on alternative flights as well you will also be swimming against the tide arguing it is unforeseen when you have a plan in place.

As for the idea of sending the bags on a different route to try and connect with the passengers, there are a few problem with that. The flight time for the SYD-LHR flight will be around 20hrs. If you plan to send the bags on the SYD-PER-LHR route to have the passengers collect their bags you are adding 2h20 or so to the flight time. The flight is 2h40m less travel time from Perth to London, but you have a 5h flight from Sydney to add to that. So that is an extra 2h20 flight time and then the connection time as well. You can mitigate it as you say by departing earlier but they will not know how many bags they need to offload until everyone has checked in. So the earliest the flight can take off to Perth is as you say around 30 minutes or so before.

That still leaves around 2h30 or so that the Perth flight will arrive after the direct flight from Sydney. You cannot expect passengers who has just taken a 20hr flight to wait an additional 2 hours in the baggage area for their bags. There is no facilities for them to use once they have arrived but before they go through customs. If they have a onward journey booked already it will mean further delays to this. I think most passengers after such a long flight would rather choose to have their luggage delivered to them wherever they are traveling to.

So the idea of sending bags on a different flight if you need to offload payload will not work. Firstly it is against regulations as already shown to you (I am not talking about delayed luggage here because you are trying to send the luggage on an earlier flight). Secondly you will start tinkering with the times that the flights depart and arrive and that may influence the viability of those flights. Thirdly, there is no facilities for tired passengers to use while they wait for their bags as it will be hard, if not impossible, to have passengers pass customs only to go back to baggage claim 2-3 hours later.

I will give you credit for trying to think outside the box for a solution, but when multiple posters are telling you why it isn't possible and you have nobody backing you up the idea is not feasible. That is the time to back down on the idea, not buckle down.


Agreed, with all due respect the whole bumped luggage/pax in case of weather disturbance is utter nonsense, especially for a flight which main business case is to be direct, premium, and faster than current alternatives. High yield passengers, which are the ones QF are targetting first, will never accept such an inconvenience. It is a dead end.
 
jfk777
Posts: 6953
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 11:40 am

Whichever airplane Qantas uses on the nonstop to LHR from Sydney flying 300 passengers is fantasy. They should be going for 200 in a J and Y+ configuration. The budget passenger and First Class snobs can take the A380 or future 777-9 stopping in Singapore. Nonstops to London can't be burdened by low yield and the weight of First Class suites.
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 4687
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 5:32 pm

jfk777 wrote:
Whichever airplane Qantas uses on the nonstop to LHR from Sydney flying 300 passengers is fantasy. They should be going for 200 in a J and Y+ configuration. The budget passenger and First Class snobs can take the A380 or future 777-9 stopping in Singapore. Nonstops to London can't be burdened by low yield and the weight of First Class suites.


Instead, just give first class a premium economy style recliner. Above them, have a pull down 200cm bed. In the space where the rest of the suite would have been, put a locker for hanging coats and storing bags. Boom, weight problem solved :P In case it's a runner, this idea is all mine and copyrighted :) haha
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!
 
oschkosch
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 6:04 pm

ClassicLover wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
Whichever airplane Qantas uses on the nonstop to LHR from Sydney flying 300 passengers is fantasy. They should be going for 200 in a J and Y+ configuration. The budget passenger and First Class snobs can take the A380 or future 777-9 stopping in Singapore. Nonstops to London can't be burdened by low yield and the weight of First Class suites.


Instead, just give first class a premium economy style recliner. Above them, have a pull down 200cm bed. In the space where the rest of the suite would have been, put a locker for hanging coats and storing bags. Boom, weight problem solved In case it's a runner, this idea is all mine and copyrighted :) haha
no no. They need to fly the coats and all other stuff via PER lol! :D

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
 
tomcat
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 7:07 pm

zeke wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
Sorry but you are wrong. In the artical you posted there is comparison between SQ and UA configuration which is 253 nad 252 pax respectively. On SIN-SFO-SIN route can A359 carry 5.2-5.7 more cargo with alomost identical pax onboard.


I stand corrected, I didn't see the figures you mentioned in the article directly, just the 290 and 325.

For SQ

"Using the typical value of 95 kg per passenger with baggage and a full passenger payload (European Aviation Safety Agency, 2009), the passenger payload is 24.0 tonnes, leaving an excess cargo payload of 13.1 tonnes and 16.9 tonnes for the westbound and eastbound flights, respectively."

For UA

"Using the typical value of 95 kg per passenger with baggage (European Aviation Safety Agency, 2009), the passenger payload is 23.9 tonnes, leaving an excess cargo payload of 7.9 tonnes and 11.4 tonnes for the westbound and eastbound flights, respectively. "

Conclusion

"If we consider the available air cargo capacity when there is the maximum passenger compliment on board, the difference between the A350-900XWB in Singapore Airlines cabin configuration and the United Airlines Boeing 787-9 is 5.3 tonnes (in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB), which increases slightly to 5.4 tonnes in the east bound direction and reduced slightly to 5.2 tonnes in the west bound direct.However, if we utilise the typical load factors of each airline, the difference becomes 5.6 tonnes in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB aircraft, which increases to 5.7 tonnes in the east bound direction (and remains at 5.6 tonnes in the west bound direction). "


It's worth pointing that the study has considered 275 tonnes for the A359 MTOW:
"The key parameters for the case aircraft which were utilized in the simulation are given in Table 4. "

Table 4 shows a MTOW of 275 tonnes for the A359 and 254 tonnes for the 789. The payload advantage of a 280t A359 would therefore be closer to 10 tonnes. On average, a 280t A359 would fly a 44 tonnes payload vs 34 tonnes payload for the 789. This is a 30% greater capacity.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1437
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 10:20 pm

enzo011 wrote:
The flight time for the SYD-LHR flight will be around 20hrs. If you plan to send the bags on the SYD-PER-LHR route to have the passengers collect their bags you are adding 2h20 or so to the flight time. The flight is 2h40m less travel time from Perth to London, but you have a 5h flight from Sydney to add to that. So that is an extra 2h20 flight time

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Syd-lhr%2C ... =wls&DU=mi

Stopping at Perth is only an extra 477 miles. That is 50 minutes of extra flight time at cruising speed or one hour if you take into account climb and decent.

I would never have suggested this if the flight time was 2h40m.

Aircraft also have a maximum cruising speed, optimal cruising speed and a cruising speed for maximum range. The speed difference is only a few percent but over 20 hours that would be a saving of 30-40 minutes. The project sunrise flight will be flying at a speed to get maximum range.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... _05_2.html

A 777-8 taking off from Perth to London would have plenty of fuel to fly at max cruise speed. So the bags would arrive only 30-40 minutes late even including a 15 minute transit in Perth. That is with the bags leaving Sydney 2 minutes after which is perfectly legal.

If the rule was changed to allow the bags to leave 15 minutes early, the wait for the bags would be under 30 minutes.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 10:50 pm

What RJMAZ fails to appreciate in my view is that after a 20-hour or whatever flight it will be a huge ask for pax to have to wait an extra half hour for their bags. Forget the logic of his argument; it will come down to the emotional state of pax (likely very fragile after such a long flight) and what those pax are going to tell friends and colleagues about their experience. And if the last thing that happens is a long wait for bags, don't expect pax (or reviewers) to wax lyrical about the flight. It's in my view a completely avoidable PR disaster in waiting. I can't see any airline adopting that course of action as a commercial strategy, even less an airline flykng ULH routes.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13684
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 11:15 pm

Where is that Emoji for flogging a dead horse gone ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1641
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Wed May 29, 2019 11:49 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Syd-lhr%2C+syd-per-lhr&MS=wls&DU=mi

Stopping at Perth is only an extra 477 miles. That is 50 minutes of extra flight time at cruising speed or one hour if you take into account climb and decent.

I would never have suggested this if the flight time was 2h40m.

Aircraft also have a maximum cruising speed, optimal cruising speed and a cruising speed for maximum range. The speed difference is only a few percent but over 20 hours that would be a saving of 30-40 minutes. The project sunrise flight will be flying at a speed to get maximum range.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... _05_2.html

A 777-8 taking off from Perth to London would have plenty of fuel to fly at max cruise speed. So the bags would arrive only 30-40 minutes late even including a 15 minute transit in Perth. That is with the bags leaving Sydney 2 minutes after which is perfectly legal.

If the rule was changed to allow the bags to leave 15 minutes early, the wait for the bags would be under 30 minutes.


Just think about what you are advocating here for the times you have to block seats or leave luggage. You are saying that the regulations will have to be changed so passenger bags doesn't travel with the passenger. Then you need to ensure you have slots to accommodate both flights arriving after the other leaving enough time for the bags to make the connection and ensuring the passengers wait the least amount of time for their bags in London. At the same time you have to ensure that there is a flight between Sydney and Perth that departs 30 minutes earlier to try and make up the extra travelling time.

Finally you have to put in a higher capacity aircraft on the PER-LHR route when it could be that the direct Sydney flight actually means demand eases a little for the direct flight from Perth. This all for the few times that the aircraft cannot make the direct flight with full bags. Instead of just making a technical stop on the way the few times, you want them to have these arrangements ready year round. Does that make any economical sense?

At the moment there seems to be a Sydney to Perth flight that would depart about 20 minutes before the Sydney to London flight (I think, if my calculations are correct in my head), but it is only a 4 times a week flight. If there was demand for a daily flight it would have been flying daily so for 3 days a week you will have an aircraft that will have very little demand flying possible passenger bags only between the airports.

And what happens if there is a delay with the sunrise flight or a passenger demands to be taken off the flight? What if their plans have changed and they are now going to a different city or even going home in Sydney, they will then have to wait 12 hours or longer to get their bags when they saw their bags only an hour before.

As I said I admire your out of the box thinking here, but there are practical reasons why making something like this work will not be worth the effort. If either aircraft will need to leave passenger bags behind with enough frequency to have plans like this in place then you shouldn't order the aircraft. If none of the two can make it work with 300 passengers then you have to adjust your capacity. You don't go changing regulations and adding flights for the few times you may need to leave payload behind.

You may the trying too hard to make the square peg fit into the round hole by adding more complexity to the problem. Remember the more stages you add to the journey, whether for passengers or their bags, the bigger the chance that a delay may happen. So adding an extra flight to send the bags on may create more problems than you want to deal with.
 
aryonoco
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 1:36 am

RJMAZ wrote:
If the rule was changed to allow the bags to leave 15 minutes early, the wait for the bags would be under 30 minutes.



Let it go mate. You've flogged this horse to death and no one is interested in picking up the corpse anymore.
 
DeltaB717
Posts: 1649
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 2:32 am

I think most of you are forgetting QF is the airline that used >12 months of weather and other data to model sector times, routing, fuel burn, alternates, etc. for the PER-LHR-PER operation.

Their modelling lead to not-insignificant weight savings on the aircraft itself, developed the block time and schedule information, and informed every other aspect of the operation.

Now, well over 12 months on from inaugural, QF9 / QF10 has proven very highly reliable (only a handful of flights cancelled or significantly delayed, zero diversions (other than that return to PER necessitated by a disruptive passenger)), and QF claims it to be one of the most, if not the most, profitable route in the network.

The same airline operated A330s between AKL and LAX for a time. My point is they are not unfamiliar with operating at the edge of an aircraft's performance envelope, nor are they unfamiliar with ultra-long haul. To suggest that Project Sunrise is somehow fanciful and will be hideously unreliable with regular diversions, is frankly insulting not only to QF, but also to the OEMs who are also not unfamiliar with building the types of aircraft that permit QF to do the things they've done. If you ask me... if QF, Airbus and Boeing say Project Sunrise is doable, then it's doable.

Oh, and to answer the inevitable "but can they do it profitably", do you really think QF is going to commit to 20+ years of operating non-stop to LON and NYC at a loss? Wouldn't really tick the 'responsible management' box on the CEO's KPIs, would it...
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 4:35 am

enzo011 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Syd-lhr%2C+syd-per-lhr&MS=wls&DU=mi

Stopping at Perth is only an extra 477 miles. That is 50 minutes of extra flight time at cruising speed or one hour if you take into account climb and decent.

I would never have suggested this if the flight time was 2h40m.

Aircraft also have a maximum cruising speed, optimal cruising speed and a cruising speed for maximum range. The speed difference is only a few percent but over 20 hours that would be a saving of 30-40 minutes. The project sunrise flight will be flying at a speed to get maximum range.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... _05_2.html

A 777-8 taking off from Perth to London would have plenty of fuel to fly at max cruise speed. So the bags would arrive only 30-40 minutes late even including a 15 minute transit in Perth. That is with the bags leaving Sydney 2 minutes after which is perfectly legal.

If the rule was changed to allow the bags to leave 15 minutes early, the wait for the bags would be under 30 minutes.


Just think about what you are advocating here for the times you have to block seats or leave luggage. You are saying that the regulations will have to be changed so passenger bags doesn't travel with the passenger. Then you need to ensure you have slots to accommodate both flights arriving after the other leaving enough time for the bags to make the connection and ensuring the passengers wait the least amount of time for their bags in London. At the same time you have to ensure that there is a flight between Sydney and Perth that departs 30 minutes earlier to try and make up the extra travelling time.

Finally you have to put in a higher capacity aircraft on the PER-LHR route when it could be that the direct Sydney flight actually means demand eases a little for the direct flight from Perth. This all for the few times that the aircraft cannot make the direct flight with full bags. Instead of just making a technical stop on the way the few times, you want them to have these arrangements ready year round. Does that make any economical sense?

At the moment there seems to be a Sydney to Perth flight that would depart about 20 minutes before the Sydney to London flight (I think, if my calculations are correct in my head), but it is only a 4 times a week flight. If there was demand for a daily flight it would have been flying daily so for 3 days a week you will have an aircraft that will have very little demand flying possible passenger bags only between the airports.

And what happens if there is a delay with the sunrise flight or a passenger demands to be taken off the flight? What if their plans have changed and they are now going to a different city or even going home in Sydney, they will then have to wait 12 hours or longer to get their bags when they saw their bags only an hour before.

As I said I admire your out of the box thinking here, but there are practical reasons why making something like this work will not be worth the effort. If either aircraft will need to leave passenger bags behind with enough frequency to have plans like this in place then you shouldn't order the aircraft. If none of the two can make it work with 300 passengers then you have to adjust your capacity. You don't go changing regulations and adding flights for the few times you may need to leave payload behind.

You may the trying too hard to make the square peg fit into the round hole by adding more complexity to the problem. Remember the more stages you add to the journey, whether for passengers or their bags, the bigger the chance that a delay may happen. So adding an extra flight to send the bags on may create more problems than you want to deal with.

You raise some excellent points, so I'll only add one: with the baggage being transferred at one more airport, that's one more chance for the baggage to get mishandled/ sent to the wrong destination/ left behind/ lost etc.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1437
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 4:55 am

DeltaB717 wrote:
My point is they are not unfamiliar with operating at the edge of an aircraft's performance envelope, nor are they unfamiliar with ultra-long haul. To suggest that Project Sunrise is somehow fanciful and will be hideously unreliable with regular diversions, is frankly insulting not only to QF, but also to the OEMs who are also not unfamiliar with building the types of aircraft that permit QF to do the things they've done.

Neither the 777-8 or A350-1000ULR are flying. So QF IS unfamiliar with operating both types.

If fuel burn of the GE9x engines is down by even 0.5% it will result in a range reduction on the 777-8. A range reduction of only 200nm means the aircraft might need 3000kg of extra fuel to make it to London. 3000kg less payload means 30 less seats fitted to the aircraft.

The 777-8 is on the limit, the A350-1000 even moreso.

No doubt Qantas has accurate fuel burn estimates but they are not 100% accurate. The 777-8 fuel burn data might be 98% accurate right now. Once the 777-9 flies the data might then be 99% accurate. The fuel burn data only becomes 100% accurate once the 777-8 is flying and they know exactly how much their cabin fitout weighs.

As both aircraft will be operating at the absolute extreme limit of their range it is reasonable for us debate if they will hit their targets. If the aircraft can only carry 200 passengers the economics will be questionable.

Floating ideas to shed weight to allow more passengers is not crazy. How many crew would be onboard the sunrise flight?
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 8393
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 5:52 am

RJMAZ wrote:

A 777-8 taking off from Perth to London would have plenty of fuel to fly at max cruise speed. So the bags would arrive only 30-40 minutes late even including a 15 minute transit in Perth. That is with the bags leaving Sydney 2 minutes after which is perfectly legal.

If the rule was changed to allow the bags to leave 15 minutes early, the wait for the bags would be under 30 minutes.


You are living in la-la land if you think a 15 minute transit can be done. One thing you have failed to realise (btw I am banging my head against the wall asking why I have to explain this to someone from Perth) is that Qantas does not have a flight operating SYD-PER with close connections to QF9. QF577 arrives at 1525 then turns to operate QF566 back to SYD, this flight cant be delayed otherwise it will either be canned or diverted due to curfew in SYD. The next flight arrives at 1940 being QF563 an hour after QF9 departs. On top of that QF563 is operated by a 737 so the argument that you can just redirect the bags via PER is nothing more than a bad joke. By the time you have the 168 passengers bags onboard QF563 onboard there isn't much room for anything else. Add into that for any flight flying to PER, due to its isolation and lack of alternates flights from the east coast to PER uplift more fuel than what would typically be needed if there was a close alternate in case they need to divert back if PER would suddenly close

Finally as others have mentioned its time to move on, so just drop it, you have made a very interesting thread quite boring to read
Forum Moderator
 
YYZatcboy
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 6:42 am

zeke wrote:
ClassicLover wrote:
At the same time, there is a separate procedure for bags travelling alone. I've had my bag go missing four times and each time it has been put on another flight, or indeed, another set of flights (judging from the new bag tag), to catch up with me. When it arrives where I am, it's then couriered out to me.

Therefore, it's also entirely possible for the bags to go without the passengers, and it happens every day. I think this is the point being made here.


I covered this on the previous page. What is being advocated is bags are planned, loaded and depart on a SYD-PER flight before the SYD-LHR flight has left. That will never happen as the passenger can no show Oor be offloaded for SYD-LHR flight.

zeke wrote:
TaniTaniwha wrote:
I understand this, however, I'm not sure how this works when a customer's bags miss the flight and then arrive on another, later flight.


That is ok, it is not pre-planned. The plan was for the bags to go with you the whole way. You should not be made aware of this until after you arrived at your destination where the bags were checked to.



YYZatcboy wrote:

There are airlines with policies that allow for bags to fly without passengers so long as the passengers don't know that their bags aren't on the plane with them. Its very common when weight restricted to bump bags but let the people fly. The bags then connect via a later flight or an other airline as rush bags.

Not saying that is what would ever be planned, but its certainly possible and done regularly.

Where the bag match rule comes into play is when a passenger voluntarily or medically offloads. If the passenger flies then the bags can be bumped and go later.


Not where I work, bags are planned to always travel with the passenger. We would flight plan an inflight refile, if we ended up not having enough fuel close to the end of the flight we would make a short technical stop for fuel and compete the journey. Like I said on the previous page, QF would plan SYd-LHR, on paper their destination would be CPH, once they were abeam CPH they would make a decision to continue to LHR or land and get fuel.

As the captain I would limit the ZFW so the flight will meet the flight planning requirements. Load control will offload staff, then cargo, and then passengers in that order to meet the limited ZFW.


In my scenario, I mean I've just sent the flight plan and I know payload will need to be bumped. Not that we planned the route to expect to bump bags every day. I know you know that Zeke, but I am saying it just so I am 100% understood. And yes, the bags depart after the passenger, and the passenger has no way of knowing prior that their bags won't travel with them.
DH1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30/50/80 717 727 735/6/7/8/9 744 762/3 77E/W E40/75/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150
J/S DH8D 736/7/8 763
 
User avatar
vhqpa
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:21 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 7:52 am

The other thing is what happens if the PER-LHR flight gets cancelled at short notice for whatever reason. How do you explain to the pax at LHR that their bags are stuck in PER. Sounds like a PR disaster waiting to happen.
"There you go ladies and gentleman we're through Mach 1 the speed of sound no bumps no bangs... CONCORDE"
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2747
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 8:31 am

RJMAZ wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
The flight time for the SYD-LHR flight will be around 20hrs. If you plan to send the bags on the SYD-PER-LHR route to have the passengers collect their bags you are adding 2h20 or so to the flight time. The flight is 2h40m less travel time from Perth to London, but you have a 5h flight from Sydney to add to that. So that is an extra 2h20 flight time

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Syd-lhr%2C ... =wls&DU=mi

Stopping at Perth is only an extra 477 miles. That is 50 minutes of extra flight time at cruising speed or one hour if you take into account climb and decent.

The scheduled time for LHR-ABZ, a distance of 402mi is 1:30. that flight is a taxi out, a climb, a cruise, a landing and a taxi in. almost exactly what you are adding here. 1.5hrs is a much more reasonable estimate.
RJMAZ wrote:

I would never have suggested this if the flight time was 2h40m.

Aircraft also have a maximum cruising speed, optimal cruising speed and a cruising speed for maximum range. The speed difference is only a few percent but over 20 hours that would be a saving of 30-40 minutes. The project sunrise flight will be flying at a speed to get maximum range.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... _05_2.html
Whilst flying in to a head wind it is more efficient (less fuel use per ground distance traveled) to fly at a faster airspeed. Assuming of course that the exceptional circumstances that we are talking about are weather related and for some reason the flight time of the PER-LHR flight isnt affected.
RJMAZ wrote:

A 777-8 taking off from Perth to London would have plenty of fuel to fly at max cruise speed. So the bags would arrive only 30-40 minutes late even including a 15 minute transit in Perth. That is with the bags leaving Sydney 2 minutes after which is perfectly legal.

If the rule was changed to allow the bags to leave 15 minutes early, the wait for the bags would be under 30 minutes.

And if the rule said you could takeoff over MTOW in exceptional circumstances we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So assuming that each piece of luggage unloaded is 20kg and there is one bag per person then if we need to remove 2t of weight from the plane then we have to remove 100bags and make 100 people wait at LHR for 2 extra hours or... if each person and their bags are assumed to weigh 100kg each then you only need to offload 20 of them and their bags and make them spend the extra 2 hrs with a connection.

aryonoco wrote:
Let it go mate. You've flogged this horse to death and no one is interested in picking up the corpse anymore.

Where I work (and I'm sure in many other places too) this is known as the "ugly baby syndrome" just as no-one thinks their baby is ugly, no-one thinks their idea is a bad one and cannot see its faults.

Fred
Last edited by flipdewaf on Thu May 30, 2019 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1437
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 8:38 am

vhqpa wrote:
The other thing is what happens if the PER-LHR flight gets cancelled at short notice for whatever reason. How do you explain to the pax at LHR that their bags are stuck in PER. Sounds like a PR disaster waiting to happen.

If the bags have to go via Perth 5% of the time and the PER-LHR flight gets cancelled 1% of the time it is highly unlikely the bags will get stuck in Perth. That is less than 0.01% chance of happening. Well worth the risk it if it means 20 extra passengers on every Sydney to London flight.

The reason I brought up the idea was that Qantas required 1-2 spare 777-8's that must be used somewhere else on their network. These spare 777-8's are to cover maintenance or tech issues with the project sunrise routes. So using them on PER-LHR makes sense and provides lots of available cargo. Any freight that currently goes via Singapore on the A380's could then go via Perth.

If a 777-8 flying SYD-LHR non stop gets cancelled or has a technical problem they can take the 777-8 from PER-LHR. The PER-LHR then gets swapped to a 787-9 as it does now. It is a very flexible solution and with enough notice would give minimal delays.

In 3 years time we may see schedule changes to reflect the following:
SYD-PER leaves within 15 minutes of SYD-LHR
PER-LHR leaves within 30 minutes after SYD-PER lands.

I will then remind everyone here that this was done to allow for bumped bags to maximise profit on the route.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17111
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 8:49 am

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1437
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 8:49 am

flipdewaf wrote:
So assuming that each piece of luggage unloaded is 20kg and there is one bag per person then if we need to remove 2t of weight from the plane then we have to remove 100bags and make 100 people wait at LHR for 2 extra hours or... if each person and their bags are assumed to weigh 100kg each then you only need to offload 20 of them and their bags and make them spend the extra 2 hrs with a connection.

But where will you put the 20 passengers that got bumped off the non stop flight?

The A380 flying the kangaroo route would have to keep 20 seats empty for 360 days a year to cover the 5 days where the non stop flight has bad weather.

It is much easier to just remove the bags and put them the cargo hold of the A380 on the Kangaroo route or use my solution using a 777-8 from Perth. My solution would be an hour or two quicker than the Kangaroo route as Qantas has control over Perth slots and gates.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2747
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 8:54 am

RJMAZ wrote:
vhqpa wrote:
The other thing is what happens if the PER-LHR flight gets cancelled at short notice for whatever reason. How do you explain to the pax at LHR that their bags are stuck in PER. Sounds like a PR disaster waiting to happen.

If the bags have to go via Perth 5% of the time and the PER-LHR flight gets cancelled 1% of the time it is highly unlikely the bags will get stuck in Perth. That is less than 0.01% chance of happening. Well worth the risk it if it means 20 extra passengers on every Sydney to London flight.

The reason I brought up the idea was that Qantas required 1-2 spare 777-8's that must be used somewhere else on their network. These spare 777-8's are to cover maintenance or tech issues with the project sunrise routes. So using them on PER-LHR makes sense and provides lots of available cargo. Any freight that currently goes via Singapore on the A380's could then go via Perth.

If a 777-8 flying SYD-LHR non stop gets cancelled or has a technical problem they can take the 777-8 from PER-LHR. The PER-LHR then gets swapped to a 787-9 as it does now. It is a very flexible solution and with enough notice would give minimal delays.

Does an A330 then operate the route the 787-9 was due to fly and an A321 operate the route the A330 was due on and a Dash 8 operate the route the A321 was due on and A C172 operate the Dash8 flight? at what point does Qantas provide an electric scooter?
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly :wink2:
RJMAZ wrote:

In 3 years time we may see schedule changes to reflect the following:
SYD-PER leaves within 15 minutes of SYD-LHR
PER-LHR leaves within 30 minutes after SYD-PER lands.

I will then remind everyone here that this was done to allow for bumped bags to maximise profit on the route.
What QF should do to maximize profit is exactly what they did for the PER-LHR route and understand the practical limitations of operating the route and do so within those limitations and if someone has to be bumped then it will be the same as the rest of the world when people get bumped. Do you think people down the back end of the plane will be paying a premium or will they accept pretty much all their money back to fly at a later date or fly via SIN or PER and endure 12hrs delay for 1k in their pocket? This isn't a new phenomenon you are talking about here, this happens on a daily basis and seems to always have the same result.

Fred
Image
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2747
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 9:08 am

RJMAZ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
So assuming that each piece of luggage unloaded is 20kg and there is one bag per person then if we need to remove 2t of weight from the plane then we have to remove 100bags and make 100 people wait at LHR for 2 extra hours or... if each person and their bags are assumed to weigh 100kg each then you only need to offload 20 of them and their bags and make them spend the extra 2 hrs with a connection.

But where will you put the 20 passengers that got bumped off the non stop flight?

The A380 flying the kangaroo route would have to keep 20 seats empty for 360 days a year to cover the 5 days where the non stop flight has bad weather.

It is much easier to just remove the bags and put them the cargo hold of the A380 on the Kangaroo route or use my solution using a 777-8 from Perth. My solution would be an hour or two quicker than the Kangaroo route as Qantas has control over Perth slots and gates.
Why on earth would you think QF would only put the bags on a QF flight. They could pay for it to go as Cargo on BA as they could with the pax. There are more than 20 1-stop routes SYD-LHR and to think that QF couldn't Find 1 seat on each of them whilst giving some compo to those that they have had to bump, there are probably 10 people who would love a wodge of cash in their pocket for arriving 6hrs later. For the 10 days a year when this is an issue this will be less than having a 200million jet waiting idle.

10 times a year x 20 pax x 1000 compo and 2000 ticket and 500 spending money = 700k spend. What is the increase in cost in having the 778X fly PER-LHR rather than the 789?

If you like I can see if I can get you a rental cost on a JCB so you can dig faster?

Fred
Image
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1437
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 9:43 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Does an A330 then operate the route the 787-9 was due to fly and an A321 operate the route the A330 was due on and a Dash 8 operate the route the A321 was due on and A C172 operate the Dash8 flight? at what point does Qantas provide an electric scooter?

Someone needs to explain to you how fleet management and equipment swapping works. An airline can spread the delays through the network so nothing gets cancelled.

It is hard to write down in words, I am sure airlines have a software program that will provide the quickest solution for when an aircraft goes tech. The program would show what aircraft get swapped around and which flights get delayed and by how much. They can use the ground time of the aircraft and turn it around quicker. They would have airport curfews, minimum turnaround times, slot restrictions, and downgauge or upgauge limits etc. Refunding passengers would be a last resort.

For instance a simplified example take a straight two track train line that has trains 5 minutes apart. Each train sit at the end of the line for 2 minutes before turning around. If a train breaks down they can reduce the turnaround time to 1 minute. So the trains are 4 minutes late, 3 minutes late, 2 minutes late, 1 minute late and then the whole network is back on track. The trains then go back to a 2 minute turnaround.

flipdewaf wrote:
Do you think people down the back end of the plane will be paying a premium or will they accept pretty much all their money back to fly at a later date or fly via SIN or PER and endure 12hrs delay for 1k in their pocket? This isn't a new phenomenon you are talking about here, this happens on a daily basis and seems to always have the same result.
Giving people a free trip is a costly solution.

Yes it does happen daily but bumping passengers can result in people being dragged off the plane and lawsuits..
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 7728
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 10:05 am

Pretty much everyone has a price.

Dao is a misnomer as the most that United's policy allowed the gate staff to offer was $500 travel credit, and for that there were no takers. Had they been able to offer $1000 cash then I can pretty much guarantee that they would have had at least one volunteer and that situation would never have eventuated the way it did. Needless to say United have revised their voluntary denied boarding compensation policy.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 7728
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 10:16 am

This entire discussion is a bit of a misnomer. To the best of my knowledge Qantas haven't bumped a single passenger from PER-LHR, which suggests that there modelling was pretty accurate. Moreover, past practice with DFW shows that Qantas will take the diversion to AKL/BNE rather than offload, so I don't see why their approach to LHR would be any different.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2747
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 10:26 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
This entire discussion is a bit of a misnomer. To the best of my knowledge Qantas haven't bumped a single passenger from PER-LHR, which suggests that there modelling was pretty accurate. Moreover, past practice with DFW shows that Qantas will take the diversion to AKL/BNE rather than offload, so I don't see why their approach to LHR would be any different.

That seems like a reasonable statement, seems like there are probably more route options SYD-LHR than there is PER-LHR anyway.

RJMAZ: Maybe the problem is you keep talking about the 778X having to make concessions due to headwinds, maybe the problem could be overcome in a different way... :duck:
Image
 
travelasia
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun May 19, 2019 10:30 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 11:16 am

I think the whole blocking of seats discussion is a bit astray. (Everything about the bumped bags has been said already).
Let’s start with the 300 pax remark. I think it looks to rounded to the nearest hundred to be used as a figure that is carved in stone.
I am pretty sure the guys at QF have significantly more experience in both yield management and modeling wind patterns over the year.
Assuming either blocking a given amount of seats year round, or offloading on short notice will be too blunt in that context.
Calculating project Sunrise will involve maximizing profit, and checking the trade-offs. Since we all do not know what enhancements A and B will offer QF for 2022 or 2023 delivery, I will not speculate on the airplane. So the discussion may become obsolete anyway.
If it turns out they need to block seats, then they will do so because the trade-off is worth it. And they can use their yield management system to fine-tune this. Winter winds do not come by surprise, you can factor this in, and QF will have years of experience with their new flight planning tool. So they can use several options:
Sell a guaranteed middles seat - someone pays for solving part of your problem. Or even create an EconomyPlus zone with a few perks.
Auction the middle seat - if you cannot sell the seat for whatever reason, well.... you at least get some money
Possibly burrow the sky couch idea from ANZ
Block an amount of seats, and the closer the actual date gets, the more you can or can’t release.
Since it is a premium heavy flight, and business travelers tend to make changes, you can block seats from being re-sold once someone rebooks, in case your historic wind trending was too optimistic.
And of course, you can call people in advance and buy them off the plane, if all else fails. With the above, you will rarely need to do this.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 1:47 pm

travelasia wrote:

Let’s start with the 300 pax remark. I think it looks to rounded to the nearest hundred



That I agree with.

Let’s not forget that QF 789 has 238 seats even without the F class. That’s 82% of the 789 default 290 seats. If we assume they would use the same seating density on the Sunshine Project frames, then they would not be able to seat more than 295 seats on either the 778 or the A35K. This has nothing to do with payload, this is based on the available cabin area.

Now, I think the seating density on SYD-LHR will be even lower than PER-LHR. First, they might add F class seats. Then, all the news about a possible gym onboard hints at QF not intending on going sardine can mode here. I wouldn’t be surprised if this plane ends up having 260-270 seats maximum.

It will be more premium heavy than PER-LHR for sure.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1340
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 4:15 pm

I have not seen reference to a gym onboard - I guess on the lower deck, maybe along with the lavs?
 
oschkosch
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 4:50 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
I have not seen reference to a gym onboard - I guess on the lower deck, maybe along with the lavs?
Nope, not coming. They will bump the gym onto the PER - LHR route via a SYD - PER flight hahaha! :D

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
 
Etheereal
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:44 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 5:13 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
If fuel burn of the GE9x engines is down by even 0.5% it will result in a range reduction on the 777-8.

Isnt this quite the opposite instead? Lower fuel burn means more range, no?
JetBuddy wrote:
"737 slides off the runway" is the new "Florida man"..

:lol:
 
aryonoco
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu May 30, 2019 11:37 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
Now, I think the seating density on SYD-LHR will be even lower than PER-LHR. First, they might add F class seats. Then, all the news about a possible gym onboard hints at QF not intending on going sardine can mode here. I wouldn’t be surprised if this plane ends up having 260-270 seats maximum.

It will be more premium heavy than PER-LHR for sure.


This is bang on the money. I think a number around 260 is what we are looking at for either aircraft.

It's interesting to ponder about F though. QF's A380s that fly from SYD/MEL to LHR/LAX have F of course. But these planes don't do Asian routes in between. If QF is really serious about the Sunrise aircraft also doing shorter flights, will it make sense to configure the plane with F? On the other hand, LHR and JFK would both have some demand for F, it also doesn't make sense to leave that money on the table.

I personally think whichever aircraft is chosen will be configured in ULH mode, and won't do any shorter distances regularly. I think QF just wants to know that should the whole Sunrise project fail, they can reconfigure the airplane and it can do shorter distances economically then.

Zeke also pointed out an interesting thought that I think hasn't been explored fully. What about QF operating LHR-JFK to increase aircraft utilisation? Sure it's a very overcrowded market, but we're talking about one or two flights a day, which would be almost negligible capacity in the grand scheme of transatlantic flying. And I'd say QF probably has enough loyal customers and nostalgic Aussie expats living in London and New York that might just make that flight viable.

If they have the rights to fly, and they already have crew bases in both locations, and it would help with aircraft utilisation, then why not?

Or is that LHR-JFK the shorter flight that AJ mentioned the Sunrise aircraft should do? :D
 
pabloeing
Posts: 576
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 31, 2019 3:14 pm

¿Boeing near to win the Qantas Project Sunrise deal?
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... tas-deals/
 
texl1649
Posts: 964
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 31, 2019 3:31 pm

oschkosch wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
I have not seen reference to a gym onboard - I guess on the lower deck, maybe along with the lavs?
Nope, not coming. They will bump the gym onto the PER - LHR route via a SYD - PER flight hahaha! :D

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


No, no, the gym will be on the sister flight with all the bags. Just kidding...
 
mcg
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 31, 2019 5:50 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
Pretty much everyone has a price.

Dao is a misnomer as the most that United's policy allowed the gate staff to offer was $500 travel credit, and for that there were no takers. Had they been able to offer $1000 cash then I can pretty much guarantee that they would have had at least one volunteer and that situation would never have eventuated the way it did. Needless to say United have revised their voluntary denied boarding compensation policy.


That's exactly solution to unanticipated passenger bumps, simply run an auction that determines the price needed to get the required number of passengers off the plane. Work to find good alternatives ("oh, I can go first class thru SIN, pass to the SIN lounge and get $5,000 travel credit, I'll take it") and everyone is happy. It's not that hard really, it will be slightly expensive, but it will work.
 
mcg
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 31, 2019 5:56 pm

Zeke's map of the route of SYD - LHR on the previous page is sort of breathtaking. The distance covered is astounding to me. I recall that in the 60's my Dad had to travel to Australia and his route was ORD - LAX - HNL - NAN - SYD. He actually thought that was pretty miraculous as just a few years prior there wasn't really a realistic way to make the trip. Air travel has come a long way.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 31, 2019 8:39 pm

pabloeing wrote:
¿Boeing near to win the Qantas Project Sunrise deal?
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... tas-deals/


Does this reference a 260 ton 78K? What improvement does it mention for a 778?

Ivan
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 5924
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 31, 2019 8:50 pm

pabloeing wrote:
¿Boeing near to win the Qantas Project Sunrise deal?
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... tas-deals/


The only winner is the back button on my browser as that article requests me to subscribe in order to read anything of substance.

What I could read gave nothing much of note, just speculation.

mcg wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
Pretty much everyone has a price.

Dao is a misnomer as the most that United's policy allowed the gate staff to offer was $500 travel credit, and for that there were no takers. Had they been able to offer $1000 cash then I can pretty much guarantee that they would have had at least one volunteer and that situation would never have eventuated the way it did. Needless to say United have revised their voluntary denied boarding compensation policy.


That's exactly solution to unanticipated passenger bumps, simply run an auction that determines the price needed to get the required number of passengers off the plane. Work to find good alternatives ("oh, I can go first class thru SIN, pass to the SIN lounge and get $5,000 travel credit, I'll take it") and everyone is happy. It's not that hard really, it will be slightly expensive, but it will work.


What about a surcharge that you can pay in order not to be bumped from the flight?
 
pabloeing
Posts: 576
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:31 am

justloveplanes wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
¿Boeing near to win the Qantas Project Sunrise deal?
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... tas-deals/


Does this reference a 260 ton 78K? What improvement does it mention for a 778?

Ivan

More than 9500nm in the new B778 range......
 
User avatar
AirCal737
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:18 am

pabloeing wrote:
justloveplanes wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
¿Boeing near to win the Qantas Project Sunrise deal?
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... tas-deals/


Does this reference a 260 ton 78K? What improvement does it mention for a 778?

Ivan

More than 9500nm in the new B778 range......

Can't get pass that paywall. And the Boeing website still shows the old figures (as of this post is made). Anyone have more information on this?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20577
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:53 pm

AirCal737 wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
justloveplanes wrote:
Does this reference a 260 ton 78K? What improvement does it mention for a 778?

Ivan

More than 9500nm in the new B778 range......

Can't get pass that paywall. And the Boeing website still shows the old figures (as of this post is made). Anyone have more information on this?

Jon tweeted:

SCOOP: Boeing has quietly updated the specifications on the ultra long range 777-8, advancing the baseline design as it vies to win Qantas’ Project Sunrise challenge to connect Sydney and London non-stop.

Ref: https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 6573355009

As per the tweet, he's saying that the configuration that Boeing will pitch for Project Sunrise will now become the baseline configuration for the -8.

That makes sense as it will also become the freighter at some point, and the extra payload/range will be valuable.

QF will have two fine aircraft to chose from for Project Sunrise.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:09 pm

cpd wrote:
What about a surcharge that you can pay in order not to be bumped from the flight?

What about a surcharge that you can pay in order not to get punched in the face?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17111
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:16 pm

mxaxai wrote:
What about a surcharge that you can pay in order not to get punched in the face?


That should be available on United! :duck:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos