RyanairGuru wrote:

vhtje wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Alan Joyce has made it clear that the domestic fleet renewal is an entirely separate project and that the two aren't linked in any way (from Qantas' perspective).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was the current hold up: Airbus/Boeing are prepared to sharpen their pencil on this marquee order in return for 100 neo/MAX and 30 of whatever they're pitching to replace the A330s. Qantas are saying we'll take the revised pricing on the PS aircraft but won't commit to the others. The OEMs are saying it's a package deal, take it or leave it. Just my speculation of course.

Well, of course AJ would say that publicly because he is trying to put pressure on each manufacturer.

But he would be a very poor negotiator (let alone CEO) if he didn’t use the domestic fleet renewal to wrangle a better Sunrise deal, and, of course, vice versa.

His public statement of “the two are not linked” simply doesn’t past the smell test.

Of course, if QF end up its B777s for long-haul and A320s for domestic duty (or A350s long-haul /B737-8s domestically) then we can conclude QF overplayed their hand at the negotiation tables. But I bet QF do not (they are far too savvy for that) and that the orders are, indeed, linked in the end.

Unless you are accusing Alan Joyce of deliberately miselading the ASX I suggest you retract your statement. Qantas have made it very clear, on multiple occasions, that they have not even begun the process of considering the domestic fleet replacement, a project they intend to start in 2020.

Of course I should know better than to allow reality to get in the way of an Anet conspiracy theory.

Oh, don’t be absurd. ASX rules around publicly traded companies are designed primarily to protect investors. That does not mean ASX rules behove companies to fully disclose details of confidential and ongoing negotiations in public statements. Ever heard of ‘commercial-in-confidence’?. If asked a question directly by a journalist regarding a deal that is currently in the negotiation stage, a company, in reply, will obviously move to protect its sensitive position. Non-disclosure to journalists of sensitive commercial information doesn’t put a company foul of ASX reporting rules, unless by doing so they are found by a court to be attempting to manipulate the share price. There is no suggestion in this instance this is the case.

VHOZ wrote:

What sould have been the other options Airbus might have offered to make the deal attractive ? A380 buybacks or some attractive 320 NEO options ?

Doubt much of that.
QF is refurbing it's A380s now and will likely fly them to 20yrs then scrap.
They've already got confirmed orders (as a group) for 50+ 321neoLR and 321XLR through 2026/7 and more unconfirmed slots.

Not too surprised. The A350 was the smaller, lighter craft anyway and had the wider, more luxurious seats for Y and J. And the A350 NEO program is an open secret. Now the only question is if PS goes for 2023 or if it's pushed back to 2027 for the Trent Ultrafan while standard A350s get brought in.

Such great news. Congratulations to Airbus and Qantas and hail the mighty A350!

Personally prefer the 2023 option.
Then you repeat the order with the 350neo in 2027/8/9 for a better aircraft for Sunrise, with the original 350s cascaded to Asian routes to replaces the 333s

VHOZ wrote:

What sould have been the other options Airbus might have offered to make the deal attractive ? A380 buybacks or some attractive 320 NEO options for the upcoming domestic fleet renewal ?

Being able to deliver the aircraft in the preferred year would have made the deal the only choice.

Certification of new aircraft will be much slower moving forward. There is risk the 777-9 schedule could slip making it very hard to select the 777-8. Having to use a temporary aircraft for a few years if the 777-8 was selected made no sense. The 777-8 might have burnt 1% less fuel per person hardly worth the hastle.

flipdewaf wrote:

afterburner33 wrote:

It's the A350-1000.

https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/1205252815536500738

Great news for Airbus, and fantastic to see that sunrise is in fact still going ahead. I’m very curious to find out what the specs/weights of the A350-1000 will be for this.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The aircraft will have an additional fuel tank and a slight increase in MTOW.

I'd guess that MTOW will be increased from 319 to 321 metric tonnes.

After detailed evaluation of the Boeing 777X and Airbus A350, Qantas has selected the A350-1000 as the preferred aircraft if Sunrise proceeds. This aircraft uses the Rolls Royce Trent XWB engine, which has a strong reliability record after being in service with airlines for more than two years. Airbus will add an additional fuel tank and slightly increase the maximum takeoff weight to deliver the performance required for Sunrise routes.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-update-on-project-sunrise/

So let me reiterate the question. Qantas said

"Airbus will add an additional fuel tank and slightly increase the maximum takeoff weight to deliver the performance required for Sunrise routes."

Does this mean the recent increase of MTOW to 319t, or will they further increase it, let's say, to 321-322t?

As a passenger who cares about the comfort levels of the flights I take, and who chooses my flights accordingly, I'm thrilled with this announcement.

And more than a little relieved.

Now I need to start saving up for the premium price that Qantas is talking about charging. Fortunately, it seems as though I will have quite a few years to do so.

VHOZ wrote:

Would Airbus have offered buyback deals to QF on their 380's similar to Lufthansa to make their offer more attractive? Or QF will use their 380's to EOL similar to what they do with other aircraft as part of OPEX?

I don't know if Airbus will buy them back, but I wouldn't bet against some flavor of the A350 replacing the A380s prematurely before the end of their economic lives.

Baldr wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

afterburner33 wrote:

It's the A350-1000.

https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/1205252815536500738

Great news for Airbus, and fantastic to see that sunrise is in fact still going ahead. I’m very curious to find out what the specs/weights of the A350-1000 will be for this.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The aircraft will have an additional fuel tank and a slight increase in MTOW.

I'd guess that MTOW will be increased from 319 to 321 metric tonnes.

Looks like Airbus is doing what I always figured they would, some sort of supersized XLR modification. Always made sense if you could increase the MTOW enough. Cargo is going to be minimal if any so putting an extra tank in the hold won't affect much. My question is if this is indeed what they are doing would it need to go through an additional flight certification?

Dalavia wrote:

As a passenger who cares about the comfort levels of the flights I take, and who chooses my flights accordingly, I'm thrilled with this announcement.

Versus which other option? All the airplanes in the running offer the latest tech with minimal comfort differences.

Is that the death of the 778 now?

This is a strong public negotiation from the CEO and team. Crank up the heat for the next month.

redroo wrote:

Is that the death of the 778 now?

This order was not going to make of break the 778. Up to 12 frames from Mr. Joyce is not a program maker.

redroo wrote:

Is that the death of the 778 now?

Combined with what's speculated to be an EK cancellation I'd say yes.

Greeting to Airbus., a good choice by Qantas.

airzona11 wrote:

This order was not going to make of break the 778. Up to 12 frames from Mr. Joyce is not a program maker.

But if this loss is combined with EK cancelling its 778s and QR transferring its 778s to 787s, it probably is the death knell. We now wait to hear exactly what EK cancelled when they reduced their 777X order.

A think the safest choice. The A350 is a proven aircraft and engine. The 778 is not yet proven for either.

MSPNWA wrote:

Dalavia wrote:

As a passenger who cares about the comfort levels of the flights I take, and who chooses my flights accordingly, I'm thrilled with this announcement.

Versus which other option? All the airplanes in the running offer the latest tech with minimal comfort differences.

Versus the 777X.

Every 777 I have flown in seems to have been louder inside the cabin than any other type of jet I've experienced, and I'm including the all the old Soviet types I've flown in (a list that includes Tu-134s, Tu-154s, Yak-42s and Il-62s), old Tridents and DC-8s when I say this.

You may say that the 777X will have different engines. Of course this is is true. However, I understand Boeing is also making the cabin sidewalls thinner in the 777X, which is unlikely to improve the sound-proofing of the cabin.

Then there is the issue of the 3-4-3 layout of the 777X in Y compared with 3-3-3 in the A350. I have experienced both, and while the seat width difference may not seem like much, the difference seems to be significant at shoulder height, which is where the real difference is felt in my opinion. On the other hand, I acknowledge that in J, the difference in space depends more on the individual airline than the aircraft type.

Overall, having experienced current 777s and A350s, and having read about the changes proposed for the 777X, I'm really pleased that the QF decision has gone to the A350 (although I suspect that Qantas' accountants made the decision based on factors that were totally unrelated to my comfort preferences).

Agree the 777 is loud - but it's got the biggest engine closest to the cabin of its generation so no surprise - a mid-90s design with older engines, the 4-engined aircraft have the 2nd engines much further away

The 777X will undoubtedly be quieter both in engines and soundproofing materials.

777-8 looks even more shaky now. And yet again QANTAS dodges the 777. This means the A350 will be the largest plane in the QANTAS fleet.

RickNRoll wrote:

777-8 looks even more shaky now.

I do not think it is any more shaky than before.

The aircraft will be developed and built, but we all know there would not be much demand for this version.
I estimated there would be around 200-300 units produced from its EIS to the end of the program, including the freighter version.

Boeing needs takeoff again...

VV wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

VV wrote:

Qantas needs to say something between now and the end of next week.

Options:
1. Announce another delay for the decision on widebody order
2. Announce to go ahead with Project Sunrise and announce an aircraft selection
3. Announce a no-go (for now) decision for Project Sunrise but announce order for 10-18 widebodies.

I think the third one is the most likely. It's my gut feel.ion for Project Sunrise but announce a 20-28 widebody orders for general use.

Why on earth do they need to say something before next week when Joyce has already said it will be February?!?

Because I told you so.

I think the A350 will have 345 seats....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pathetic...oh well.

Boeing is thoroughly getting its ass kicked this year...

redroo wrote:

Is that the death of the 778 now?

Depends on whether or not Emirates sticks with the type. If not, then as a passenger plane, yes. But the airframe will eventually see the light of day as a freighter down the road.

RickNRoll wrote:

777-8 looks even more shaky now. And yet again QANTAS dodges the 777. This means the A350 will be the largest plane in the QANTAS fleet.

Unless they decide to add the 777-9 down the road, of course.

flipdewaf wrote:

VV wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Why on earth do they need to say something before next week when Joyce has already said it will be February?!?

Because I told you so.

I think the A350 will have 345 seats....

No. Not on SYD-LHR. It is simply impossible.

Stitch wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

777-8 looks even more shaky now. And yet again QANTAS dodges the 777. This means the A350 will be the largest plane in the QANTAS fleet.

Unless they decide to add the 777-9 down the road, of course.

Not likely. For fleet simplicity you'd think QF will move to a LH fleet built around the 789 and A350. The A380 will last for in the fleet for up to another 10 years by which time Airbus may have stretched the A350 to the 1100.

Dalavia wrote:

As a passenger who cares about the comfort levels of the flights I take, and who chooses my flights accordingly, I'm thrilled with this announcement.

And more than a little relieved.

Now I need to start saving up for the premium price that Qantas is talking about charging. Fortunately, it seems as though I will have quite a few years to do so.

To be fair, Qantas could have configured the 777X at 9 abreast just like the original 777-300ER.

moa999 wrote:

VHOZ wrote:

What sould have been the other options Airbus might have offered to make the deal attractive ? A380 buybacks or some attractive 320 NEO options ?

Doubt much of that.
QF is refurbing it's A380s now and will likely fly them to 20yrs then scrap.
They've already got confirmed orders (as a group) for 50+ 321neoLR and 321XLR through 2026/7 and more unconfirmed slots.

Buybacks are not free. Assuming good negotiators on both sides, buybacks remove hassle (old aircraft retirement) and create certainty (fixed price based on age, hours, cycles and condition), but the buyback value reduces the maximum discount / retrospective payments negotiable for the current acquisition, usually on a dollar for dollar basis.

Different for EK, as it underpins a lower cradle to grave lease deal.

VV wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

777-8 looks even more shaky now.

I do not think it is any more shaky than before.

The aircraft will be developed and built, but we all know there would not be much demand for this version.
I estimated there would be around 200-300 units produced from its EIS to the end of the program, including the freighter version.

Boeing massively underestimated the A350-1000 when they launched the 777X in November 2013 -- as this video from Boeing in the link below demonstrates:

..one airplane to go as far as its competition more efficiently, while carrying tons more cargo, literally; or with just passengers and luggage go the distance, significantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fop6Qu2CN0E&t=1m34s

tullamarine wrote:

Stitch wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

777-8 looks even more shaky now. And yet again QANTAS dodges the 777. This means the A350 will be the largest plane in the QANTAS fleet.

Unless they decide to add the 777-9 down the road, of course.

Not likely. For fleet simplicity you'd think QF will move to a LH fleet built around the 789 and A350. The A380 will last for in the fleet for up to another 10 years by which time Airbus may have stretched the A350 to the 1100.

And depending on overall fleet needs and economics, the JFK routes may all simply be run by the A350-1000 classic, which fits in perfectly well on PER-LHR as well. It frees up the 789s to be reconfigured for AU-LAX/SFO traffic, meaning higher density without necessarily breaking the bank on overcapacity. Or the aging A330 CEOs could be retired and replaced by the 787s since those fliers are more premium-centric even in economy class, whereas the A350-1000 can suit the LAX/SFO traffic perfectly well in a more classic configuration.

Baldr wrote:

VV wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

777-8 looks even more shaky now.

I do not think it is any more shaky than before.

The aircraft will be developed and built, but we all know there would not be much demand for this version.
I estimated there would be around 200-300 units produced from its EIS to the end of the program, including the freighter version.

Boeing massively underestimated the A350-1000 when they launched the 777X in November 2013 -- as this video from Boeing in the link below demonstrates:

..one airplane to go as far as its competition more efficiently, while carrying tons more cargo, literally; or with just passengers and luggage go the distance, significantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fop6Qu2CN0E&t=1m34s

It's not underestimation really. The MAX crisis has thrown a spanner into Boeing's works in ways that make the A350 the only logical choice for risk-averse boards of directors. That, and Qantas probably needed to extend an olive branch to Europe after the big shift to 787s for their mainline long haul. If the A321 XLRs do all go to Jet Star and largely replace their 788 routes, then QF can take back the 788 for runs between Perth and the Eastern capitals or for the flights out to China. Depending on how the load factors shift, maybe even replace the flights for BNE/SYD/MEL to LAX.

redroo wrote:

Is that the death of the 778 now?

No.

According to flightglobal Emirates still retains 25 777-8 in their order.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/e ... 57.article

The total order for 777-9/-8 is now at about 300 units.

patrickjp93 wrote:

Baldr wrote:

VV wrote:

I do not think it is any more shaky than before.

The aircraft will be developed and built, but we all know there would not be much demand for this version.
I estimated there would be around 200-300 units produced from its EIS to the end of the program, including the freighter version.

Boeing massively underestimated the A350-1000 when they launched the 777X in November 2013 -- as this video from Boeing in the link below demonstrates:

..one airplane to go as far as its competition more efficiently, while carrying tons more cargo, literally; or with just passengers and luggage go the distance, significantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fop6Qu2CN0E&t=1m34s

It's not underestimation really. The MAX crisis has thrown a spanner into Boeing's works in ways that make the A350 the only logical choice for risk-averse boards of directors. That, and Qantas probably needed to extend an olive branch to Europe after the big shift to 787s for their mainline long haul. If the A321 XLRs do all go to Jet Star and largely replace their 788 routes, then QF can take back the 788 for runs between Perth and the Eastern capitals or for the flights out to China. Depending on how the load factors shift, maybe even replace the flights for BNE/SYD/MEL to LAX.

Again, just watch the video that I linked.

The narrator of the video (with an annoying voice) is claiming that the 777-8 will be flying significantly further than the A350-1000.

That says it all, really.

VV wrote:

redroo wrote:

Is that the death of the 778 now?

No.

According to flightglobal Emirates still retains 25 777-8 on the order.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/e ... 57.article

Emirates originally ordered 35 778s but it is unclear if this mix has changed as Boeing don't clearly show the split between 779s and 778s. By coincidence, Emirates just cancelled 35 777X and lots of people think that will be 778s. The only other customer is QR who have already indicated they are looking at swapping their 778 orders to 787s. If these things happen, the pax 778 will be cancelled.

VV wrote:

redroo wrote:

Is that the death of the 778 now?

No.

According to flightglobal Emirates still retains 25 777-8 in their order.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/e ... 57.article

Well, that's a smart move by Emirates.

When Boeing finally will be canceling the 777-8, Emirates will very likely not have to pay any cancellation fees for the 25 777-8s that is still on order. Thus, Emirates reducing their 150 777X orders to just 101 777-9 orders, would not cost the airline much, if anything at all.

patrickjp93 wrote:

That, and Qantas probably needed to extend an olive branch to Europe after the big shift to 787s for their mainline long haul.

Why would Qantas need to "extend an olive branch to Europe"? They owe "Europe" nothing. They operate A380s and A330s and have A320s on order.

Stitch wrote:

redroo wrote:

Is that the death of the 778 now?

Depends on whether or not Emirates sticks with the type. If not, then as a passenger plane, yes. But the airframe will eventually see the light of day as a freighter down the road.

Will it though? I am very doubtful.

The larger wing and higher empty only creates an advantage on very long flights. It makes a great ultra long haul passenger aircraft with low payload. Pretty much perfect for project sunrise if it wouldn't be 2 years late.

But as a freighter up until about 5000nm the current 777F burns less fuel per kg of payload than a potential 777-8F. At that 5000nm point the 777F has burnt roughly 15% more fuel but it is carrying 15% more payload as the empty weight is lower with the same MTOW. Most 777 freighters are loaded right up and fly less than 5000nm. I've only seen a couple flights where it has flown 5500nm or so.

On a transatlantic flight of say 3500nm the fuel saved on the 777-8F is less than the extra payload carried on the 777F. It does not look good at all. Very few freight companies max out on volume. The 777-8 would only have an advantage with lightweight packages.

Baldr wrote:

patrickjp93 wrote:

Baldr wrote:

Boeing massively underestimated the A350-1000 when they launched the 777X in November 2013 -- as this video from Boeing in the link below demonstrates:

..one airplane to go as far as its competition more efficiently, while carrying tons more cargo, literally; or with just passengers and luggage go the distance, significantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fop6Qu2CN0E&t=1m34s

It's not underestimation really. The MAX crisis has thrown a spanner into Boeing's works in ways that make the A350 the only logical choice for risk-averse boards of directors. That, and Qantas probably needed to extend an olive branch to Europe after the big shift to 787s for their mainline long haul. If the A321 XLRs do all go to Jet Star and largely replace their 788 routes, then QF can take back the 788 for runs between Perth and the Eastern capitals or for the flights out to China. Depending on how the load factors shift, maybe even replace the flights for BNE/SYD/MEL to LAX.

Again, just watch the video that I linked.

The narrator of the video (with an annoying voice) is claiming that the 777-8 will be flying significantly further than the A350-1000.

That says it all, really.

well, 1,240km is a pretty significant difference, 16,090 for the A35K vs. 17,330 for the 777-8. And yes, of course, the A35K could always get an ACT, just like the 777-8 could. I mean for crying out loud it's not like the A350-1000 is able to do this just with its wings and central tank. THAT would be a marvel. When the A350 NEO comes to pass, then that capability will exist.

scbriml wrote:

patrickjp93 wrote:

That, and Qantas probably needed to extend an olive branch to Europe after the big shift to 787s for their mainline long haul.

Why would Qantas need to "extend an olive branch to Europe"? They owe "Europe" nothing. They operate A380s and A330s and have A320s on order.

Lol. I see he's spreading his conspiracy theory in every thread now...

scbriml wrote:

patrickjp93 wrote:

That, and Qantas probably needed to extend an olive branch to Europe after the big shift to 787s for their mainline long haul.

Why would Qantas need to "extend an olive branch to Europe"? They owe "Europe" nothing. They operate A380s and A330s and have A320s on order.

The A320s are for Jet Star exclusively for the time being, and by your logic Emirates owed Europe nothing due to their incredible A380 fleet, yet they ordered the A350 despite it not being the best fit for their network on technical merit.

Real shame: For me the 777X was the closest thing to a 747 successor, so it's sad to see it loose an order.

redroo wrote:

Is that the death of the 778 now?

No, but it strongly suggests we won't see any 777 in QF's fleet which IMO is noteworthy.

It's a big missed opportunity on Boeing's part to place a key product at a key customer and a strong win by Airbus.

tullamarine wrote:

VV wrote:

redroo wrote:

Is that the death of the 778 now?

No.

According to flightglobal Emirates still retains 25 777-8 on the order.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/e ... 57.article

Emirates originally ordered 35 778s but it is unclear if this mix has changed as Boeing don't clearly show the split between 779s and 778s. By coincidence, Emirates just cancelled 35 777X and lots of people think that will be 778s. The only other customer is QR who have already indicated they are looking at swapping their 778 orders to 787s. If these things happen, the pax 778 will be cancelled.

If you open the link you find:

While the rejig means a total of 35 777Xs have either been cut or effectively converted to options, Emirates insists that these do not equate to the 35 777-8s included in the original July 2014 order.

So what "people think" is being refuted by the ones who "know" rather than "think".

RJMAZ wrote:

Stitch wrote:

redroo wrote:

Is that the death of the 778 now?

Depends on whether or not Emirates sticks with the type. If not, then as a passenger plane, yes. But the airframe will eventually see the light of day as a freighter down the road.

Will it though? I am very doubtful.

The larger wing and higher empty only creates an advantage on very long flights. It makes a great ultra long haul passenger aircraft with low payload. Pretty much perfect for project sunrise if it wouldn't be 2 years late.

But as a freighter up until about 5000nm the current 777F burns less fuel per kg of payload than a potential 777-8F. At that 5000nm point the 777F has burnt roughly 15% more fuel but it is carrying 15% more payload as the empty weight is lower with the same MTOW. Most 777 freighters are loaded right up and fly less than 5000nm. I've only seen a couple flights where it has flown 5500nm or so.

On a transatlantic flight of say 3500nm the fuel saved on the 777-8F is less than the extra payload carried on the 777F. It does not look good at all. Very few freight companies max out on volume. The 777-8 would only have an advantage with lightweight packages.

The 777-8 which doesn't even have a firm design yet but you have detailed fuel burn data is quite impressive. If it were to become a freighter it would be marketed to carriers looking for 10% more capacity over the 777F. The 777X family will be heavier but the wings and engines will realize fuel efficiency gains on most current 777 routes.

patrickjp93 wrote:

The A320s are for Jet Star exclusively for the time being, and by your logic Emirates owed Europe nothing due to their incredible A380 fleet, yet they ordered the A350 despite it not being the best fit for their network on technical merit.

Doesn't matter if they're for QF or JQ. Emirates ordered A350s as compensation for cancelling 38 of those A380s, but on what technical merit was it not the best fit?

You haven't given any reason why QF "needs to extend an olive branch to Europe".

Baldr wrote:

patrickjp93 wrote:

Baldr wrote:

Boeing massively underestimated the A350-1000 when they launched the 777X in November 2013 -- as this video from Boeing in the link below demonstrates:

..one airplane to go as far as its competition more efficiently, while carrying tons more cargo, literally; or with just passengers and luggage go the distance, significantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fop6Qu2CN0E&t=1m34s

It's not underestimation really. The MAX crisis has thrown a spanner into Boeing's works in ways that make the A350 the only logical choice for risk-averse boards of directors. That, and Qantas probably needed to extend an olive branch to Europe after the big shift to 787s for their mainline long haul. If the A321 XLRs do all go to Jet Star and largely replace their 788 routes, then QF can take back the 788 for runs between Perth and the Eastern capitals or for the flights out to China. Depending on how the load factors shift, maybe even replace the flights for BNE/SYD/MEL to LAX.

Again, just watch the video that I linked.

The narrator of the video (with an annoying voice) is claiming that the 777-8 will be flying significantly further than the A350-1000.

That says it all, really.

The 777-8 may well fly further or have greater range than the A350-1000 (ER, LR or XLR) but why is that an issue if the A350 makes SYD-LHR all year round the who cares if the Boeing could go all the way to Iceland there really isn't much for QF beyond New York or London. Its not all about absolute range but more to do with the 778 still being a paper plane and the process for the 779 is delayed.

12 aircraft is substantially more than what would be required for the routes discussed publicly for sunrise. Perhaps some unmodified a35k will be delivered for regional and regular transpacific ops?

xwb565 wrote:

12 aircraft is substantially more than what would be required for the routes discussed publicly for sunrise. Perhaps some unmodified a35k will be delivered for regional and regular transpacific ops?

Yep. Personally speaking, JFK and LHR are the 2 only realistic options for Project Sunrise. While other destinations like Paris or Frankfurt are on the consideration list. We know that the only routes that would proven to be working are JFK and LHR.

So 12 aircrafts seems about right. They need to trial these 2 destinations. So SYD-LHR, SYD-JFK, MEL-LHR and MEL-JFK with 2 aircrafts per route. And then the other 4 would probably for routes like DFW which required normal mtow.