qf002
Posts: 3602
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:53 pm

Gemuser wrote:
People please read, at least, the last 2 pages of the thread.
1) You CAN NOT RUN SYD/MEL - LHR with only 4 frames. It requires about 5,5 frames IF the timetable allows it. Historically, since the B744 took over all the SYD/MEL - LHR services it REQUIRED 6 frames!!! Some time after QF 1 & 2s and QF 9 &10s transit stop was moved from SIN to DXB QF was able to rejig the timetable to cut down the layover time of one A380 to allow the requirement of frames to be reduce to around 5.5. The major constraints are the slot times at LHR AND the SYD curfew which combine to prevent a fast turn around at LHR
2) While some poster have said of course SYD - JFK can be done with 2 frames . I will not be convince until I see a timetable that takes ALL the constriants into account. My gut feel is that the departure time ex JFK will have to put back because of the SYD curfew but I don't have time to work it out. In this case 2 frames may not be enough.
3) To me it looks like QF will need a minium of 8 frames to run the 3 PS routes. The introduction of routes will have to be staged as QF does not normalyy take delivery of more than 3 or 4 wide body frames a year due to CAPEX consideration. If this is correct they will only be able to introduce one route per year, three over two years if they really push it.
4) The number of frames stated in QFs press release, 12 will allow the three routes with 1 spare ie 5.5 LHR + 2.something JFK = about 8 frames + 2 spare frames [at least while they initial deliveries are happening] =10 + 2 for expansion =12, which leaves 2 frames for other routes.
This is based only on public information and could be consertative and very consertative if SYD - JFK can in fact be done reliably with 2 frames.

Gemuser


Firstly, I have read just about every single post made on this site about PS (the good, the bad and the ugly!).

Secondly, it is absolutely possible to do SYD or MEL-LHR daily with two aircraft. Historic schedules are irrelevant.

dep SYD 2100 arr LHR 0600+1
dep LHR 1000 arr SYD 1700+1

Plane that departs on Monday arrives back on Wednesday with ample time to turn around back to LHR (or to dovetail into an evening departure over the Pacific). This is also the only realistic schedule given the curfew restrictions on both ends. You could flip these times 12hrs for MEL but that would mean a 3am arrival into MEL during the NS which isn't ideal.

To run both SYD and MEL to this schedule would require one existing evening departure be brought forward to the middle of the day, which is admittedly a busy period at LHR. They would also need to rejig the existing PER/SIN flights to make way for the flagship PS services. Obstacles but nothing unachievable.

Part of the efficiencies that nonstop services provide is the reduction of downtime. If QF can do double daily LHR with four planes rather than five or six then that represents huge savings which is a critical element of the business case.

Thirdly, SYD-JFK is an easy 2 frames (I'd even say 1.5 if they had something to dovetail it into):

dep SYD 1500 arr JFK 1700
dep JFK 1900 arr SYD 0600+2

or anything later than that works as well, you just get back to SYD later in the morning. A later arrival into JFK may be preferable anyway to avoid potential fuel-related diversions in the early-evening.

dep SYD 2100 arr JFK 2300
dep JFK 0100 arr SYD 1200+1

As for delivery schedules, it's quite feasible that they could take delivery of six aircraft during calendar year 2023 (four in FY23 and two in FY24). Obviously a new fleet takes time to build up and routes don't all start at once. It will be interesting to see how they prioritise the rollout (ie SYD-LHR/JFK first and MEL later, or SYD/MEL-LHR then JFK later etc).

And of course, this all goes without saying that it's all still hypothetical at this stage anyway!!
Last edited by qf002 on Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
HM7
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:01 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:56 pm

ewt340 wrote:
cpd wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Sweet.

Image

I must go back and read some of the old Project Sunrise threads.


Although it would be fun to go back and read the old messages of doom about the A350, I really doubt we’ll even see the plane in Qantas colours in real life.

I’m not sure this project will go ahead.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-sunrise/

That is how the press release sounds.


A330 and A380 would be out in the future. They can't just survived on B787-9. Probably gonna order some standard A350-900/-1000 if Project Sunrise Fail.

Yeah I think the project is definitely a go. Unless the pilots do something drastic, I don’t see QF choosing an aircraft and then not ordering it. At this point, PS really is too big to fail.
CRJ200, CRJ700, CRJ900, Q400, E175, E195, MD88, MD90, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A388, B712, B734, B738, B739, B752, B762, B763ER, B789, B744, B744ER
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5002
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:17 pm

ewt340 wrote:
A330 and A380 would be out in the future. They can't just survived on B787-9. Probably gonna order some standard A350-900/-1000 if Project Sunrise Fail.


True. This announcement is essentially an open door for the A350 into QF's long haul fleet.
Even if PS ultimately failed, whatever airframes were dedicated to these routes could easily be refurbished into standard A350s and used on the rest of the network.

The risk for QF is quite low.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
pasen
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:03 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:54 pm

Ferroviarius wrote:
Or, even more abstractly worded:

Is one short flight and a very short transfer time at a "small and fast airport" (HEL) better than two long flights and a modest to long transfer time at a "slow and large airport" (SIN / HKG / Middle East)?

Interesting question.

Firstly, SIN is anything but a "slow airport". I regularly transfer there in 55 minutes without any problems. Of course, connecting flights always bear the risk of missing the connection, but that would apply in HEL as well.

Secondly, HEL is at the far North of Europe. So, to fly to most places in Europe, flying via HEL would add quite a bit of additional flying time and therefore not save travel time overall.

That’s why I personally see absolutely no advantage in a direct SYD-LHR flight if these two cities are not the actual departure and destination cities. However, this comes down to personal preference. Apparently, people are travelling from SYD to LHR via PER now because they prefer to have a longer flight without interruption.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:55 pm

It is like I said it. Boeing gets the bit of very needed publicity with the 3 test flights and Airbus gets the real prestige and money with the orders. Well done Airbus and A350!

2019 goes down as a historically successful Airbus year!

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
gloom
Posts: 375
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:12 pm

One remark I find quite interesting.

They quote Trent XWB and its reliability as one of the reasons for selection. Could the problem with GE90X be the reason? We'll never know, still such message would probably use a very carefully selected words. Odds are high I guess.

Cheers,
Adam
 
redroo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:01 pm

gloom wrote:
One remark I find quite interesting.

They quote Trent XWB and its reliability as one of the reasons for selection. Could the problem with GE90X be the reason? We'll never know, still such message would probably use a very carefully selected words. Odds are high I guess.

Cheers,
Adam


RR engines aren’t loved at QF as they’ve had a rough history with them - A380 and 747. The engine changes needed to the A380 fleet when they flew through Dubai was horrendous. This was one of the reasons I thought they would never go for the A350 given the engines. The total offering must have been compelling.

I am surprised they mentioned in the in the press release though. “We like the plane, and we dont the RR have problems, but they’re ok now” is an odd thing to say.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14402
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:10 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Even a basic amateur could predict the performance to within a few percent.


Can you explain the basis then for the large number of posts where you stated the A350 did not have the range for QF, it had to be a 77X or 787 ?

Myself and others have provided accurate data that showed it could.

On reflection do you think there are significant errors in your previous posts ?

qf002 wrote:
Secondly, it is absolutely possible to do SYD or MEL-LHR daily with two aircraft. Historic schedules are irrelevant.

dep SYD 2100 arr LHR 0600+1
dep LHR 1000 arr SYD 1700+1


That does not look correct to me, need to include summer time variations at either end, and taxi time into the schedule block.

3 hrs between sectors is too tight to get all the maintenance checks done.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
MareBorealis
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:16 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:18 pm

pasen wrote:

Secondly, HEL is at the far North of Europe. So, to fly to most places in Europe, flying via HEL would add quite a bit of additional flying time and therefore not save travel time overall.



HEL is at the far north but the earth is not flat ;)

HEL is the closest hub in EU from SYD, you need to add 986nm to LHR. Flying via HEL would be a shorter way to the most of Europe, comparing to LHR:

SYD-HEL-FRA 9034 nm
SYD-HEL-MAN 9183
SYD-HEL-CDG 9228
SYD-HEL-FCO 9408
SYD-HEL-BCN 9623

SYD-LHR-FRA 9542
SYD-LHR-MAN 9319
SYD-LHR-CDG 9376
SYD-LHR-FCO 9969
SYD-LHR-BCN 9808
 
pasen
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:03 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:46 pm

MareBorealis wrote:
pasen wrote:

Secondly, HEL is at the far North of Europe. So, to fly to most places in Europe, flying via HEL would add quite a bit of additional flying time and therefore not save travel time overall.



HEL is at the far north but the earth is not flat ;)

HEL is the closest hub in EU from SYD, you need to add 986nm to LHR. Flying via HEL would be a shorter way to the most of Europe, comparing to LHR:

SYD-HEL-FRA 9034 nm
SYD-HEL-MAN 9183
SYD-HEL-CDG 9228
SYD-HEL-FCO 9408
SYD-HEL-BCN 9623

SYD-LHR-FRA 9542
SYD-LHR-MAN 9319
SYD-LHR-CDG 9376
SYD-LHR-FCO 9969
SYD-LHR-BCN 9808

Sure, but I think the question was, would it be better to have one ULR flight and one short connection flight rather than have two long flights like today. So, I was comparing a stop in HEL to a stop in Asia or Middle East, for example:

SYD-SIN-BCN: 9280nm
SYD-DXB-BCN: 9280nm
SYD-HEL-BCN: 9620nm

SYD-SIN-ZRH: 9000nm
SYD-DXB-ZRH: 9080nm
SYD-HEL-ZRH: 9360nm

My point is, I don't see an advantage of connecting in HEL or LHR over connecting in SIN or DXB unless I'm really keen on sitting on the same seat for 20+ hours.
Last edited by pasen on Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:54 pm, edited 4 times in total.
 
oslmgm
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:29 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:47 pm

MareBorealis wrote:
pasen wrote:

Secondly, HEL is at the far North of Europe. So, to fly to most places in Europe, flying via HEL would add quite a bit of additional flying time and therefore not save travel time overall.



HEL is at the far north but the earth is not flat ;)

HEL is the closest hub in EU from SYD, you need to add 986nm to LHR. Flying via HEL would be a shorter way to the most of Europe, comparing to LHR:

SYD-HEL-FRA 9034 nm
SYD-HEL-MAN 9183
SYD-HEL-CDG 9228
SYD-HEL-FCO 9408
SYD-HEL-BCN 9623

SYD-LHR-FRA 9542
SYD-LHR-MAN 9319
SYD-LHR-CDG 9376
SYD-LHR-FCO 9969
SYD-LHR-BCN 9808


That is true. But the question was, when traveling from SYD to "somewhere in Europe", is it longer to go through HEL vs. SIN? Of the European airports served from SIN, at least these have a shorter distance going through HEL than through SIN:

AMS, LHR, MAN, CPH, ARN

If your destination is BCN, it will be a longer distance through HEL than SIN.
If you compare HEL and DXB, then even CDG and TXL is shorter through HEL
 
User avatar
CraigAnderson
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:02 pm

Wouldn't Sunrise non-stops from SYD, MEL and BNE to LHR basically mean the end of PER-LHR? Without CDG and FRA 'taking off' as PER services it would seem like PER's days as QF's European hub are numbered.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:10 pm

zeke wrote:
Can you explain the basis then for the large number of posts where you stated the A350 did not have the range for QF, it had to be a 77X or 787 ?

Myself and others have provided accurate data that showed it could.

Do you now admit you made an significant error ?

What error? My data posted was by far the most accurate.

I stated the A350-1000 does not have the range. I have stated probably 10 times that the A350 could not make the route without extra fuel capacity. Guess what? I was right.

Qantas just stated extra fuel and a small MTOW bump. Adding fuel capacity and a small MTOW bump is what defined the 900ULR so Qantas is effectively getting an A350-1000ULR.

Lets see my posts:
RJMAZ wrote:
At the 319,000kg raised MTOW the A350-1000 needs the fuel capacity raised to around 175,000litres. It could then do SYD-LHR with around 28,000kg which is excellent.


It looks like Airbus is doing exactly what I said 8-)

What about this beauty:
RJMAZ wrote:
If I was Qantas CEO I would have already selected the A350-900ULR and it would have been doing the LHR-SYD route for the last 12 months. It can do the route with a typical Qantas density which would be around 200-220 seats on a A350-900ULR.


I debunked the 777-9 rumour
RJMAZ wrote:
It has to be a fake rumour or misreporting. The 777-9 could never do the route.


I went as far as stating exactly how much fuel capacity the A350-1000 needed to be added and the trip fuel burn that was required. I even mentioned my concern on the cost of adding extra fuel to the A350-1000 and that it will probably eat most of the profit margin if the order ends up being small. Airbus might not make any profit on the deal if the project sunrise is limited to say 6 aircraft but stopping the 777-8 is priceless. Airbus will then have the only aircraft that can fly 8000+nm for the next decade or two.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
oslmgm
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:29 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:12 pm

oslmgm wrote:
MareBorealis wrote:
pasen wrote:

Secondly, HEL is at the far North of Europe. So, to fly to most places in Europe, flying via HEL would add quite a bit of additional flying time and therefore not save travel time overall.



HEL is at the far north but the earth is not flat ;)

HEL is the closest hub in EU from SYD, you need to add 986nm to LHR. Flying via HEL would be a shorter way to the most of Europe, comparing to LHR:

SYD-HEL-FRA 9034 nm
SYD-HEL-MAN 9183
SYD-HEL-CDG 9228
SYD-HEL-FCO 9408
SYD-HEL-BCN 9623

SYD-LHR-FRA 9542
SYD-LHR-MAN 9319
SYD-LHR-CDG 9376
SYD-LHR-FCO 9969
SYD-LHR-BCN 9808


That is true. But the question was, when traveling from SYD to "somewhere in Europe", is it longer to go through HEL vs. SIN? Of the European airports served from SIN, at least these have a shorter distance going through HEL than through SIN:

AMS, LHR, MAN, CPH, ARN

If your destination is BCN, it will be a longer distance through HEL than SIN.
If you compare HEL and DXB, then even CDG and TXL is shorter through HEL


My BAD! The starting point was actually AKL, not SYD. Then HEL becomes an even better option compared to SIN and DXB, for cities as far south (and west) as BCN:

AKL-DXB-BCN: 10,467 nm
AKL-SIN-BCN: 10,429 nm
AKL-HEL-BCN: 10,413 nm
 
pasen
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:03 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:48 pm

oslmgm wrote:
oslmgm wrote:
MareBorealis wrote:

HEL is at the far north but the earth is not flat ;)

HEL is the closest hub in EU from SYD, you need to add 986nm to LHR. Flying via HEL would be a shorter way to the most of Europe, comparing to LHR:

SYD-HEL-FRA 9034 nm
SYD-HEL-MAN 9183
SYD-HEL-CDG 9228
SYD-HEL-FCO 9408
SYD-HEL-BCN 9623

SYD-LHR-FRA 9542
SYD-LHR-MAN 9319
SYD-LHR-CDG 9376
SYD-LHR-FCO 9969
SYD-LHR-BCN 9808


That is true. But the question was, when traveling from SYD to "somewhere in Europe", is it longer to go through HEL vs. SIN? Of the European airports served from SIN, at least these have a shorter distance going through HEL than through SIN:

AMS, LHR, MAN, CPH, ARN

If your destination is BCN, it will be a longer distance through HEL than SIN.
If you compare HEL and DXB, then even CDG and TXL is shorter through HEL


My BAD! The starting point was actually AKL, not SYD. Then HEL becomes an even better option compared to SIN and DXB, for cities as far south (and west) as BCN:

AKL-DXB-BCN: 10,467 nm
AKL-SIN-BCN: 10,429 nm
AKL-HEL-BCN: 10,413 nm


Okay, so let's say the distance and total travel time are roughly the same. But ULR flights tend to be more expensive (which is why QF is spending so much time on figuring out the business case for Project Sunrise). Would you be willing to pay a premium for the ULR flight via HEL or LHR compared to a cheaper flight via Asia or the Middle East if it doesn't safe you any travel time or stop-overs?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22274
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:02 am

oschkosch wrote:
It is like I said it. Boeing gets the bit of very needed publicity with the 3 test flights and Airbus gets the real prestige and money with the orders. Well done Airbus and A350!

What order did Airbus get?

None, as far as the rest of us know.

There's that sticky matter of getting the pilots to cough up 30% "productivity gains" and the wait for the regulators to decide what the rest requirements are.

Don't count the chicks till they hatch.

Nice win for Airbus to vanquish Boeing, but that's where things stand right now, and no further.
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
 
oslmgm
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:29 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:18 am

pasen wrote:
Would you be willing to pay a premium for the ULR flight via HEL or LHR compared to a cheaper flight via Asia or the Middle East if it doesn't safe you any travel time or stop-overs?


I would not, I just didn't agree with this:
"to fly to most places in Europe, flying via HEL would add quite a bit of additional flying time and therefore not save travel time overall."
 
MareBorealis
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:16 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:24 am

pasen wrote:
Sure, but I think the question was, would it be better to have one ULR flight and one short connection flight rather than have two long flights like today. So, I was comparing a stop in HEL to a stop in Asia or Middle East, for example:

SYD-SIN-BCN: 9280nm
SYD-DXB-BCN: 9280nm
SYD-HEL-BCN: 9620nm

SYD-SIN-ZRH: 9000nm
SYD-DXB-ZRH: 9080nm
SYD-HEL-ZRH: 9360nm

My point is, I don't see an advantage of connecting in HEL or LHR over connecting in SIN or DXB unless I'm really keen on sitting on the same seat for 20+ hours.


Yeah I didn't read you post probably, I was just thinking LHR/HEL and oneworld. I love SIN myself. One thing about HEL is that it's desinged for Europe-Asia traffic, easy connections.
 
User avatar
TheDutchman92
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:27 am

It won't be the A350-1000 currently on the market today according to this article:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/qanta ... 74.article

It will be essentially an A350-1000ULR with higher MTOW and a bigger fuel capacity in order to get to the goal of 300 PAX for all routes.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3309
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:44 am

I think that the 30% efficiency gains they are looking for from the pilots is likely a negotiating position that will have to change.

QF have invested far too much time now to let this fall over, and it would be a massive loss of face with the industry as a whole given the work undertaken by many others.

Overall, I think that a SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK will come first, with MEL-LHR and potentially MEL-DFW likely come next. I don’t see a market for more than a daily JFK flight from Australia, especially at the premiums required.

I also wouldn’t be shocked if ORD moves from BNE to SYD and is operated by the A350.

I do think that PER has missed an opportunity to strengthen its claims as the QF European hub as I can’t see them now looking at adding CDG with an increased refocus on LHR occurring.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8099
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:24 am

zeke wrote:

qf002 wrote:
Secondly, it is absolutely possible to do SYD or MEL-LHR daily with two aircraft. Historic schedules are irrelevant.

dep SYD 2100 arr LHR 0600+1
dep LHR 1000 arr SYD 1700+1


That does not look correct to me, need to include summer time variations at either end, and taxi time into the schedule block.

3 hrs between sectors is too tight to get all the maintenance checks done.


It's a pretty accurate stab in the dark. For summer variations it would be broadly like the following, noting there is a cross-over for a couple of weeks in October/April which I can't be bothered to work out:

Northern Winter:

SYD-LHR 21:00-07:00
LHR-SYD 11:00-17:30

Northern Summer:

SYD-LHR 20:00-08:00
LHR-SYD 12:00-16:30

What maintenance are you referring to? 3-4 hours is plenty for a standard turnaround, and they will rotate aircraft out in SYD for maintenance checks. With SYD/MEL-LHR/JFK they could conceivably operate the network with 9 frames - 8 flying and one on the ground.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:43 am

IndianicWorld wrote:
I think that the 30% efficiency gains they are looking for from the pilots is likely a negotiating position that will have to change.

QF have invested far too much time now to let this fall over, and it would be a massive loss of face with the industry as a whole given the work undertaken by many others.

Overall, I think that a SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK will come first, with MEL-LHR and potentially MEL-DFW likely come next. I don’t see a market for more than a daily JFK flight from Australia, especially at the premiums required.

I also wouldn’t be shocked if ORD moves from BNE to SYD and is operated by the A350.

I do think that PER has missed an opportunity to strengthen its claims as the QF European hub as I can’t see them now looking at adding CDG with an increased refocus on LHR occurring.


I don't see the relevance of pilot wage and mixed fleet negotiations with PS.
It's most likely, QF management isn't getting a green light from higher up yet, and if they don't get it, they want to dump responsibility on the pilots.
The people higher up are taking a look at what PER-LHR and aren't convinced.

Some bulletpoints:
-The A350-1000ULR is going to be expensive. Like 200 Mega's expensive. That's probably more than QF paid for their A380's and shareholders are scratching their heads.
-PER-LHR may be flying full, but what is full? Are they blocking seats Westbound? Are they getting the yields that justify flying a B789 vs. a A380 at lower yields? Are yields even higher than they used to get with the 1-stop A380?
-The B787/A330neo seem like a better fit for right-sizing their Asian and Oceania network.
-What are they going to do with their A380's?
-Will the A350's attract as many pax as the A380's, which their passengers love?
-Reviews in business class are good, but economy class reviews are not so good, and yet they are 166 out of 236 seats aboard these flights:

We thought we give this a go. 17 hours non-stop. The flight itself had no major issues but for both my wife and I who are people in our late 60's there just simply wasn't enough room in the seats. We were impressed by the service we received and in fact the food we received on the flight was good food for prepacked meals. We were fortunate in that the person against the window settled in and after a few hours went off to sleep and didn't wake again until arrival. Not being great travel sleepers we caught up on all the latest movies and then some. If you suffer from arthritis or similar this flight is not for you. Whilst the convenience of non-stop travel was great, without more seat room we will not do this again.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserRev ... World.html
 
Strato2
Posts: 482
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:45 am

The real story of all this regardless of what will happen in the end is that the 777-8 is DOA.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:52 am

Strato2 wrote:
The real story of all this regardless of what will happen in the end is that the 777-8 is DOA.


Come on now. The 778 blew the doors off the comp.... wait... the 778 blew the doors off... itself. Nevermind.
 
MareBorealis
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:16 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:54 am

MareBorealis wrote:
pasen wrote:
Sure, but I think the question was, would it be better to have one ULR flight and one short connection flight rather than have two long flights like today. So, I was comparing a stop in HEL to a stop in Asia or Middle East, for example:

SYD-SIN-BCN: 9280nm
SYD-DXB-BCN: 9280nm
SYD-HEL-BCN: 9620nm

SYD-SIN-ZRH: 9000nm
SYD-DXB-ZRH: 9080nm
SYD-HEL-ZRH: 9360nm

My point is, I don't see an advantage of connecting in HEL or LHR over connecting in SIN or DXB unless I'm really keen on sitting on the same seat for 20+ hours.


Yeah I didn't read you post properly, I was just thinking LHR/HEL and oneworld. I love SIN myself. One thing about HEL is that it's desinged for Europe-Asia traffic, easy connections.
 
moa999
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:00 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
-Reviews in business class are good, but economy class reviews are not so good, and yet they are 166 out of 236 seats aboard these flights:


That's in a 787 9-abreast.
An A350 is wider which gives an economy seat width about the same as on the A380 at 18.something inches
 
tayser
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:49 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:39 am

CraigAnderson wrote:
Wouldn't Sunrise non-stops from SYD, MEL and BNE to LHR basically mean the end of PER-LHR? Without CDG and FRA 'taking off' as PER services it would seem like PER's days as QF's European hub are numbered.


I wouldn't write it off and I wouldn't say QF9/10 (MEL)-PER-LHR-PER-(MEL) days are numbered.... this was reported on the 1 year anniversary:

https://www.flightglobal.com/strategy/q ... 72.article

"The airline also released data showing that just under 60% of passengers on the route originate from Australia, with 31% from the United Kingdom. Of those passengers originating in Australia, around half start their journey in Perth, 25% from Melbourne where the flight commences, 7% from Sydney and 6% from Brisbane."

Half of the 60% of people flying from Australia originate in Perth, I wouldn't be surprised if half the passengers originating in the UK are in the same boat. MEL passengers headed for LHR also have the option of QF37 (MEL-SIN) which connects nicely to QF1 (SYD-SIN-LHR) which might explain why the PER-LHR flight isn't critically dependent on connecting passengers from Melbourne (even though there are a fair few, the bigger story/headline is Perth's 2 million people is sufficient to attract a decent amount of bums on seats in UK-PER market).
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14402
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:41 am

RJMAZ wrote:
What error? My data posted was by far the most accurate.

I stated the A350-1000 does not have the range. I have stated probably 10 times that the A350 could not make the route without extra fuel capacity. Guess what? I was right.


There is an old saying, even a broken analogue clock displays the correct time twice a day.

Your reply is disingenuous. Only a day before QF announced the A350 you were advocating for the 787 for the route, not once have you given an indication that the A350 would be selected. The common theme in your posts were the 777-8 would take more payload, or the 787 would burn less fuel. Time and again I have stated it comes down to the business case. You have also said clangers like “If the A350-1000 was selected I'm sure the bags would go on another flight nuch more often.”, it took pages of a thread for you to understand positive bag luggage loading requirements, and the SYD-LHR luggage would not go via PER leaving the passengers to wait in LHR for the PER flight to arrive with their luggage.

Revelation wrote:
There's that sticky matter of getting the pilots to cough up 30% "productivity gains" and the wait for the regulators to decide what the rest requirements are.


Under EASA certification the 777/787 and A330/A350 are common type ratings, under FAA rules these aircraft are not common type ratings. In Australia they have accepted the EASA certification and have a common 777/787 type rating, I suspect they will grant the same for the A330/A350.

I suspect QF could gain most of their productivity gains by having the A330/A350 as a common pilot pool for rostering purposes, and as a common pay scale. This will require pilots to accept significant concessions (mainly based upon hard earned seniority lists) as the A330 currently sits behind the A380 and 747 pay scales, and there will need to have concessions for pilots moving from the 747/A380 to displace pilots already on the A330. They made similar seniority list concessions for the 787 for pilots to come over from the A380 and 747.

RyanairGuru wrote:
It's a pretty accurate stab in the dark. For summer variations it would be broadly like the following, noting there is a cross-over for a couple of weeks in October/April which I can't be bothered to work out:

Northern Winter:

SYD-LHR 21:00-07:00
LHR-SYD 11:00-17:30

Northern Summer:

SYD-LHR 20:00-08:00
LHR-SYD 12:00-16:30

What maintenance are you referring to? 3-4 hours is plenty for a standard turnaround, and they will rotate aircraft out in SYD for maintenance checks. With SYD/MEL-LHR/JFK they could conceivably operate the network with 9 frames - 8 flying and one on the ground.


I looked at the flight timings on one thread taking into account not only seasonal variations, SYD/LHR curfew, and also the LHR slots they have available. The slot timings in LHR are fixed, they just cannot change things by an hour here and there. They could trade a slot timing with another airline, I think BA have one or two of QF slots leased (the old BKK-LHR and HKG-LHR slots), they maybe able to come to a financial agreement.

All aircraft require maintenance, there are 36 hour, weekly as well as all the normal phase checks. I would be ver surprised if they didn’t use on of the A350 to Asia or even SYD-PER daily so the tasking for 3 aircraft drops down below 20 hours a day on average. The extra aircraft would be pretty full under the floor with freight on the shorter flights.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5044
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:15 am

zeke wrote:
[

qf002 wrote:
Secondly, it is absolutely possible to do SYD or MEL-LHR daily with two aircraft. Historic schedules are irrelevant.

dep SYD 2100 arr LHR 0600+1
dep LHR 1000 arr SYD 1700+1


That does not look correct to me, need to include summer time variations at either end, and taxi time into the schedule block.

3 hrs between sectors is too tight to get all the maintenance checks done.

As Zeke says this does not look right to me also. Apart from the points raised by Zeke you have ignored QFs LHR slot times. From memory the earliest departure slot time for QF at LHR is 12:00 or there abouts, which would put your into SYD about 04 :30 which as well as being commerically unattractive is totally illegal under Commonwealth law.
It seems to me that no timetable would allow the use of less than 5 point something frames TAKING INTO ACCOUNT AIRPORT LIMITATIONS! If anyone an do it I would be most interested to see it!

Ryanair, I've just seen your latest post it does not take into account QFs slot times at LHR. I still maintain 5point something frames are required, untill QF release a real timetable, which probably won't be for sometime.
Gemuser
.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14402
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:55 am

Gemuser wrote:
It seems to me that no timetable would allow the use of less than 5 point something frames TAKING INTO ACCOUNT AIRPORT LIMITATIONS! If anyone an do it I would be most interested to see it!


If I remember correctly I think I was able to get a little better efficiency by routing one aircraft SYD-JFK-LHR-SYD and another in reverse to take away some time on the ground while complying with constraints.

The problem with that idea is if they would want to operate the additional LHR-JFK vv sector.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Tedjamvor
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:59 am

Cathay A350-1000
J: 46 (Cabin 1)
W: 32 (Cabin 2)
Y: 256 (Cabin 2+3)

Total: 332

Potential Qantas A350-1000
J: 54 or 58 (Cabin 1+2)
W: 40 or 48 (Cabin 2)
Y: 206 (Cabin 2+3)

Total: 304 (58J) or 308 (54J)

Essentially, 5 rows of Y are removed to make space for 4 rows of J and/or W.

For reference, Qantas A380 has 70J and 60W.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 9548
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:08 am

Tedjamvor wrote:
Cathay A350-1000
J: 46 (Cabin 1)
W: 32 (Cabin 2)
Y: 256 (Cabin 2+3)

Total: 332

Potential Qantas A350-1000
J: 54 or 58 (Cabin 1+2)
W: 40 or 48 (Cabin 2)
Y: 206 (Cabin 2+3)

Total: 304 (58J) or 308 (54J)

Essentially, 5 rows of Y are removed to make space for 4 rows of J and/or W.

For reference, Qantas A380 has 70J and 60W.


Qantas has previously stated that the aircraft will be four classes which includes first class. They have also mentioned recently they will add extra legroom to some economy seats, some thing similar to Virgin's EconomyX
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14402
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:40 am

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has previously stated that the aircraft will be four classes which includes first class. They have also mentioned recently they will add extra legroom to some economy seats, some thing similar to Virgin's EconomyX


Do you have some thoughts on the number of F seats they would consider ?

Do you think it would be 3 across or 4 across ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:57 am

zeke wrote:
Your reply is disingenuous. Only a day before QF announced the A350 you were advocating for the 787 for the route.

I provided accurate data to any member who asked about a particular aircraft. I provided fuel load required, payload and what modifications were needed yo do the route either extra fuel or MTOW. I did this for the 777-8, A350-900, A350-1000 and correctly calculated that the A350-1000 needed more fuel.

Once the news came out that Boeing had an interim solution as the 777-8 was late I provided the same analysis for the 777-9, 787-9 and 777LR. My estimated numbers are easily within 1% accuracy and many members appreciate the effort.

I was talking about the 787-9 for the last couple days because a member QF744ER specifically asked about the 787-9.

QF744ER wrote:
Could an existing B789 reconfigured with a higher premium seat count, achieve the range required to make this project viable?


I like to participate in discussion where as you prefer to do the following:

zeke wrote:
Mods : Can this thread please get locked after the last flight on the 16th ?
 
User avatar
CraigAnderson
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:58 am

FRA will join LHR and CDG as a third European destination for Project Sunrise, according to AJ.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... -frankfurt
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14402
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 7:17 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I like to participate in discussion where as you prefer to do the following:


Again you are clearly being disingenuous, when I made that post the thread title related to the 3 sunrise test flights the last of which will be on the 16th as the last 787 has now been delivered flying PAE-LAX.

People at the time I wrote that were rambling on about a 787 filling the PR role when QF had clearly stated PR was between the A350 and 777-X. The 787 was ruled out.

I still stand by my comments to close this thread after the last test flight, the topic of this thread was the 3 test flights, changing the topic like they have is not helpful as when people go searching for information on the test flights in the future will no longer able to find it as the title changed.

CraigAnderson wrote:
FRA will join LHR and CDG as a third European destination for Project Sunrise, according to AJ.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... -frankfurt


Cannot see that with 12 frames. They did talk about running extra flights via Perth if they could get agreement with the airport.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
a19901213
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:38 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 7:41 am

As much as I love 777 I believe 35K is the right option for the job.

Already flew few times on 350 and I have to say they’re the most comfortable planes to fly on other than 380.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 7:43 am

According to the last linked article, QF is in a dispute with PER? What is that about? Concessions requested by QF?

I think that the picture is clear.
Without a bunch of concessions from a lot of parties, the business case doesn't close.

I find this a weird way of communicating.
First they scream victory and that their new route is a money-printing, rainmaking, jackpot whatever, and now they want concessions from virtually everybody...
Enough said...

Good for Boeing for pulling out of this charade.

Imo, QF management will be the laughing stock of the industry if they don't go ahead with this now.
Does the sun rise from the West at QF HQ?

Frankfurt? Give me a break, barely any O&D, no feed, forget it.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:32 am

Revelation wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
It is like I said it. Boeing gets the bit of very needed publicity with the 3 test flights and Airbus gets the real prestige and money with the orders. Well done Airbus and A350!

What order did Airbus get?

None, as far as the rest of us know.


Well technically of course you are right, there is no order as of today. But the way things are shaping up, e.g. with AJ announcing FRA as the third destination and so on, I do tend to believe that
a) Project Sunrise will happen
b) Airbus gets the orders once a) is officially announced in the next few weeks

There is no point in saying "there is nothing to see here", ;) because it is obvious that PS is moving along at a very faster pace than many expected.

Well done Airbus and Qantas! :stirthepot: :champagne: :checkeredflag:
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 9548
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:38 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
According to the last linked article, QF is in a dispute with PER? What is that about? Concessions requested by QF?

I think that the picture is clear.
Without a bunch of concessions from a lot of parties, the business case doesn't close.

I find this a weird way of communicating.
First they scream victory and that their new route is a money-printing, rainmaking, jackpot whatever, and now they want concessions from virtually everybody...
Enough said...

Good for Boeing for pulling out of this charade.

Imo, QF management will be the laughing stock of the industry if they don't go ahead with this now.
Does the sun rise from the West at QF HQ?

Frankfurt? Give me a break, barely any O&D, no feed, forget it.


The dispute between Qantas and PAPL has nothing to do with PER-LHR. It is over fees and terminal relocation. Qantas is the only airline serving Perth not to agree to new fees which are actually lower than what was previously charged. Qantas also took it further by paying what they felt like and as a result short changed the airport resulting in the airport filing writs in the Supreme Court to sue them for the short fall of which is still pending.

You have made it quite clear from day 1 that PER-LHR would fail. It’s time for you to accept you are wrong, so get over it.
Forum Moderator
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:43 am

oschkosch wrote:
Revelation wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
It is like I said it. Boeing gets the bit of very needed publicity with the 3 test flights and Airbus gets the real prestige and money with the orders. Well done Airbus and A350!

What order did Airbus get?

None, as far as the rest of us know.


Well technically of course you are right, there is no order as of today. But the way things are shaping up, e.g. with AJ announcing FRA as the third destination and so on, I do tend to believe that
a) Project Sunrise will happen
b) Airbus gets the orders once a) is officially announced in the next few weeks

There is no point in saying "there is nothing to see here", ;) because it is obvious that PS is moving along at a very faster pace than many expected.

Well done Airbus and Qantas! :stirthepot: :champagne: :checkeredflag:



AJ did not announce FRA as the third destination.
FRA was merely mentionned as a candidate IF, not WHEN, PS would go ahead.

We have gone from a RFP for something certain, to a "we will decide in February whether to go ahead", which is supposed to get us used to the idea of this not going ahead.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14402
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:01 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
According to the last linked article, QF is in a dispute with PER? What is that about? Concessions requested by QF?


I understand part of the dispute between the parties was that the airport wanted all international traffic to be in the “international” terminal where QF have a special international enclave inside the “domestic” terminal for the MEL PER LHR flight. (The terminals are not called international and domestic, I am using the terms to illustrate their main use).

QF were saying they would fly PER CDG from the “domestic” terminal, and the airport is saying pay up the money you owe us first.
Last edited by zeke on Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:02 am

qf789 wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
According to the last linked article, QF is in a dispute with PER? What is that about? Concessions requested by QF?

I think that the picture is clear.
Without a bunch of concessions from a lot of parties, the business case doesn't close.

I find this a weird way of communicating.
First they scream victory and that their new route is a money-printing, rainmaking, jackpot whatever, and now they want concessions from virtually everybody...
Enough said...

Good for Boeing for pulling out of this charade.

Imo, QF management will be the laughing stock of the industry if they don't go ahead with this now.
Does the sun rise from the West at QF HQ?

Frankfurt? Give me a break, barely any O&D, no feed, forget it.


The dispute between Qantas and PAPL has nothing to do with PER-LHR. It is over fees and terminal relocation. Qantas is the only airline serving Perth not to agree to new fees which are actually lower than what was previously charged. Qantas also took it further by paying what they felt like and as a result short changed the airport resulting in the airport filing writs in the Supreme Court to sue them for the short fall of which is still pending.

You have made it quite clear from day 1 that PER-LHR would fail. It’s time for you to accept you are wrong, so get over it.


To me, when we see that a majority on PER-LHR used to be O&D and now a majority is connecting and I can find quite cheap fares for the route, it shows that I'm right and have been since ghe beginning and despite that it was in contrast with QF's own PR.

I know how this industry works and when I was a kid QF was my favorite airline even though I had never flown on it.

As I said numerous times, this project is distracting QF and QF is going to lose significance in the international markets if they don't take matters in their own hands.
QF with Jetstar now have less than 25% market share in international travel to/from Australia.
That's despite the absence of any significant competition from a domestic carrier and for a country that has only less than half the population of Alitalia's Italy. What does it mean? Any significant competition could decimate QF in very little time.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:05 am

zeke wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
According to the last linked article, QF is in a dispute with PER? What is that about? Concessions requested by QF?


I understand part of the dispute between the parties was that the airport wanted all international traffic to be in the “international” terminal where QF have a special international enclave inside the “domestic” terminal. (The terminals are not called international and domestic, I am using the terms to illustrate their main use).

QF were saying they would fly PER CDG from the “domestic” terminal, and the airport is saying pay up the money you owe us first.


Interesting.
One would think that PER should be kissing QF management's feet for putting them on the global map with PER-LHR at a great risk and cost to themselves.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2487
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:12 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
According to the last linked article, QF is in a dispute with PER? What is that about? Concessions requested by QF?

I think that the picture is clear.
Without a bunch of concessions from a lot of parties, the business case doesn't close.

I find this a weird way of communicating.
First they scream victory and that their new route is a money-printing, rainmaking, jackpot whatever, and now they want concessions from virtually everybody...
Enough said...

Good for Boeing for pulling out of this charade.

Imo, QF management will be the laughing stock of the industry if they don't go ahead with this now.
Does the sun rise from the West at QF HQ?

Frankfurt? Give me a break, barely any O&D, no feed, forget it.


Yes, quite clear that Boeing 'pulled out', they in no way wanted to win this order, why would they want to sell airliners, that'd be stupid!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14402
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:18 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
As I said numerous times, this project is distracting QF and QF is going to lose significance in the international markets if they don't take matters in their own hands.


I disagree, I see the project aim to achieve exactly what your saying. I see it similar to the development of the HkG JFK direct services. 10-15 years ago everyone went one stop, now it’s normal to go non stop.

Waterbomber2 wrote:
QF with Jetstar now have less than 25% market share in international travel to/from Australia.


The largest market growth however has come from China where after the state subsidy, the airlines still posted a 3+ billion loss on international flights.

I don’t see the value to QF shareholders to chase those low yields. The Chinese inbound market like to travel on Chinese airlines, picked up with Chinese owned tour companies, staying at Chinese owned hotels, eating at Chinese owned establishments.
Last edited by zeke on Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
RalXWB
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:20 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
According to the last linked article, QF is in a dispute with PER? What is that about? Concessions requested by QF?

I think that the picture is clear.
Without a bunch of concessions from a lot of parties, the business case doesn't close.

I find this a weird way of communicating.
First they scream victory and that their new route is a money-printing, rainmaking, jackpot whatever, and now they want concessions from virtually everybody...
Enough said...

Good for Boeing for pulling out of this charade.

Imo, QF management will be the laughing stock of the industry if they don't go ahead with this now.
Does the sun rise from the West at QF HQ?

Frankfurt? Give me a break, barely any O&D, no feed, forget it.


Please provide a source that Boeing pulled out of this charade, i.e. withdrew their offer for PS. #saltymuch
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18103
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:23 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
Good for Boeing for pulling out of this charade.


Boeing didn’t “pull out”, Qantas selected Airbus.
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.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9200
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:23 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
zeke wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
According to the last linked article, QF is in a dispute with PER? What is that about? Concessions requested by QF?


I understand part of the dispute between the parties was that the airport wanted all international traffic to be in the “international” terminal where QF have a special international enclave inside the “domestic” terminal. (The terminals are not called international and domestic, I am using the terms to illustrate their main use).

QF were saying they would fly PER CDG from the “domestic” terminal, and the airport is saying pay up the money you owe us first.


Interesting.
One would think that PER should be kissing QF management's feet for putting them on the global map with PER-LHR at a great risk and cost to themselves.


As Qantas seems to make money on this flights, they should perhaps kiss the feet of the airport managers, you have to accommodate different needs for international flights than domestic flights.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:35 am

scbriml wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
Good for Boeing for pulling out of this charade.


Boeing didn’t “pull out”, Qantas selected Airbus.


Qantas selected Airbus as a preferred option, not as the definite choice.

Remember that this comes weeks after QF sent Airbus' and Boeing's proposals back. Let's not pretend that that didn't happen.

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