Page 2 of 2

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:48 am
by Sparker
VC10er wrote:
dmstorm22 wrote:
VC10er wrote:
If Qantas uses a 789, why couldn’t UA use one of theirs? At my last company we were forbidden by corporate travel to book business on that SQ A340-500 because of price. We had to fly either UA via HKG or BA flying in the opposite direction due to corporate contacts. If that is true with other big corporations, if UA could do it nonstop for a lower fare than Qantas or SQ to SIN, what would UA need to do to use a 789 to fly nonstop EWR to SYD/SIN? A special subfleet configured 789 with very High J and PE, or would they require additional fuel tanks, (engines?)


The two questions for UA (or any other airline contemplating competing with QF on these direct routes) would be:
  • Whether it would be cost-effective to set up a subfleet to fly ULH routes. QF may have an advantage here, because such a large proportion of their North and South American, European and South African routes are ULH, so QF can cost-effectively set up a fairly large ULH fleet - greater flexibility to redeploy planes onto different routes, greater redundancy when a plane goes tech, fewer nasty surprises for customers from cancelling direct flights or substituting sub-standard LH products with lots of blocked seats etc.
  • Whether it could command the yield premium to fill a large F/J/W cabin AND get passengers to pay more to fly direct. Again, QF may have an advantage here, with its near-monopoly on the relatively high-yielding Australian corporate market through QFF. And, because Australian passengers are generally more accustomed to flying long-haul, and so more likely to fly ULH. Anecdotally, at least, US and European passengers are less used to flying longhaul and prefer to have a stopover.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:59 am
by RyanairGuru
Pcoder wrote:
Someone I knew went to a conference with Alan Joyce as speaker and he said that a fair number of their premium passengers are rewards or upgrades.



For domestic absolutely, no doubt at all, and by sheer numbers therefore the statement is probably not incorrect as an airline-wide average. I assumed we were talking about long haul though, and upgrades and classic awards in Business on routes like LHR and LAX are exceptionally rare. Not unheard of, but I would never plan my travel around the hope of a points upgrade.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:22 pm
by AEROFAN
HP69 wrote:
Will QF fly to EWR instead of JFK? It would shave off a few hundred miles.


Why is that? They are at most, just across the river from each other...

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:31 pm
by AEROFAN
airbazar wrote:
ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
PR and marketing!

That and Boeing doesn't want to lose this sale.
Every passenger on this flight had a flat bed to sleep on. With enough movies to watch and a flat bed to sleep on, 20 hours in a plane is really easy. Research my a$$. It's 100% publicity.
As for the pilots, it's a double crew = 10 hour work day. Some of us do that nearly every day of the week in 6x6 cubicle without a window :rotfl:


I disagree. 20 hours stuck in a metal tube breathing recycled air on a flat bed is not easy, despite the movies that may be available. I would not/could not do it without a prescription for ambien or lunesta or some such.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:32 pm
by AlexBrewster03
AEROFAN wrote:
HP69 wrote:
Will QF fly to EWR instead of JFK? It would shave off a few hundred miles.


Why is that? They are at most, just across the river from each other...

Flying to EWR would save no more than 30 miles, besides AA is at JFK and despite their diminishing operations, still offer valuable connections

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:47 pm
by Bricktop
The difference in flying miles between EWR and JFK is more than 17 miles, depending on which runways are in use. But it's not enough to make it more than a rounding error when flying from SYD.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:20 pm
by AEROFAN
AlexBrewster03 wrote:
AEROFAN wrote:
HP69 wrote:
Will QF fly to EWR instead of JFK? It would shave off a few hundred miles.


Why is that? They are at most, just across the river from each other...

Flying to EWR would save no more than 30 miles, besides AA is at JFK and despite their diminishing operations, still offer valuable connections


The poster stated there would be a shaving of a few hundred miles. My question was how is this possible given the proximity of one to the other.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:21 pm
by AEROFAN
Bricktop wrote:
The difference in flying miles between EWR and JFK is more than 17 miles, depending on which runways are in use. But it's not enough to make it more than a rounding error when flying from SYD.


Thanks. Just as I thought.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:30 pm
by HP69
Bricktop wrote:
The difference in flying miles between EWR and JFK is more than 17 miles, depending on which runways are in use. But it's not enough to make it more than a rounding error when flying from SYD.


Thank you this is all I meant.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:04 pm
by Pcoder
RyanairGuru wrote:
Pcoder wrote:
Someone I knew went to a conference with Alan Joyce as speaker and he said that a fair number of their premium passengers are rewards or upgrades.



For domestic absolutely, no doubt at all, and by sheer numbers therefore the statement is probably not incorrect as an airline-wide average. I assumed we were talking about long haul though, and upgrades and classic awards in Business on routes like LHR and LAX are exceptionally rare. Not unheard of, but I would never plan my travel around the hope of a points upgrade.


I'll have to note there is always more demand on the upgrades for international and fewer seats available, which is another reason why it can be hard to get. I'd imagine platinums and golds get the majority of the upgrades, with the occasional lower status member getting lucky (Just did a dummy booking for qf11 with 4 business pax on Thursday, and the seats are still available)

I'm pretty sure if Qantas we're projecting most premium seats would be sold on a service like this, they would go for a Singapore style layout, but I'm just providing a reason why Qantas is going four class.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:52 pm
by HP69
So which NYC airport will QF fly to? EWR, JFK, or LGA?

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:53 pm
by aemoreira1981
Ishrion wrote:
HP69 wrote:
Fuling wrote:

So it's 19 miles then


Source?


Did you really just ask for a source for a mile converter?

SYD-EWR: 9,930 mi
SYD-JFK: 9,950 mi

20 mi = 17 nmi

Source: Google


EWR-SIN is eastbound to take advantage of prevailing winds. Additionally, Singapore is in the Northern Hemisphere (barely). JFK-SYD has to be against headwinds until it passes the equator, which is about at the International Date Line.

As for which airport, given that AA and QF have a JV, I expect that it would be JFK. I also expect that AA might up-gauge one of its transcon flights to a B788 or B789 on JFK-LAX primarily for connections to and from BNE and MEL, as I expect that the LAX-JFK sector on QF11/12 (on the aircraft that flies QF15/6) would be dropped.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:10 am
by dtw2hyd
There is no blanket approval for ULH routes, each route needs a separate approval from local CAA. Some CAAs just stamp, some ask for proving flights.

QF is looking for a 24 hr duty limit, it is not going to be easy win from CASA and/or unions.

I think the world is spoiled by City State CAAs and their sister sovereign airlines with a non-union crew getting instant approvals for anything they want. For those yes this looks like a PR stunt.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:51 am
by JFKJets
I attended the departure event at JFK Friday. The route will definitely be from JFK using either the 777X or an A350 with both Boeing and Airbus currently making pitches to Qantas. If QF can get union approval, these flights will start after 2021.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:29 am
by Cunard
HP69 wrote:
So which NYC airport will QF fly to? EWR, JFK, or LGA?


I'm being honest here but I have great difficulty finding some of your questions that you ask on these forums being taken seriously!

QF already fly to JFK and have done for decades.

LGA for obvious reasons won't ever see QF using the airport.

EWR won't be seeing QF either.

By all means ask questions as these forums are the place to ask such questions but for your sake and for others please think and put some thought into it before posting such questions as you have done in this case!

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:28 am
by gokmengs
HP69 wrote:
So which NYC airport will QF fly to? EWR, JFK, or LGA?

LGA with the 380, brakes on full thrust almost an aircraft carrier type operation, hence these research flights.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:42 am
by Cunard
gokmengs wrote:
HP69 wrote:
So which NYC airport will QF fly to? EWR, JFK, or LGA?

LGA with the 380, brakes on full thrust almost an aircraft carrier type operation, hence these research flights.


Let alone the Perimeter rule :-)

I'm sure your agree with me that it was a ridiculous question!

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:40 am
by HM7
aemoreira1981 wrote:
Ishrion wrote:
HP69 wrote:

Source?


Did you really just ask for a source for a mile converter?

SYD-EWR: 9,930 mi
SYD-JFK: 9,950 mi

20 mi = 17 nmi

Source: Google


EWR-SIN is eastbound to take advantage of prevailing winds. Additionally, Singapore is in the Northern Hemisphere (barely). JFK-SYD has to be against headwinds until it passes the equator, which is about at the International Date Line.

As for which airport, given that AA and QF have a JV, I expect that it would be JFK. I also expect that AA might up-gauge one of its transcon flights to a B788 or B789 on JFK-LAX primarily for connections to and from BNE and MEL, as I expect that the LAX-JFK sector on QF11/12 (on the aircraft that flies QF15/6) would be dropped.


But who in the right mind would want to fly American if they can fly Qantas? I imagine the existing MEL and BNE traffic would connect through Sydney, not LAX.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:21 am
by Coal
btfarrwm wrote:
SIN-EWR was started as an all-J layout. Even on the A350, it’s First, Business and Premium Economy. I think they want to do research on ULH flights in economy class for one.

No. It started as J + PEY, then went to all J. This was all with the A345. When it relaunched with the A359ULR it went back to its roots of J + PEY.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 8:45 am
by paperwastage
HM7 wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
Ishrion wrote:

Did you really just ask for a source for a mile converter?

SYD-EWR: 9,930 mi
SYD-JFK: 9,950 mi

20 mi = 17 nmi

Source: Google


EWR-SIN is eastbound to take advantage of prevailing winds. Additionally, Singapore is in the Northern Hemisphere (barely). JFK-SYD has to be against headwinds until it passes the equator, which is about at the International Date Line.

As for which airport, given that AA and QF have a JV, I expect that it would be JFK. I also expect that AA might up-gauge one of its transcon flights to a B788 or B789 on JFK-LAX primarily for connections to and from BNE and MEL, as I expect that the LAX-JFK sector on QF11/12 (on the aircraft that flies QF15/6) would be dropped.


But who in the right mind would want to fly American if they can fly Qantas? I imagine the existing MEL and BNE traffic would connect through Sydney, not LAX.

Someone who doesn't want to fly that long, or don't want to ay the price premium?

Even for SQ, they file different fares for PE EWR-SIN vs PE JFK-FRA-SIN.

The nonstop is generally more expensive, though you can usually find it cheaper on sale ($1000) because SQ find it harder to fill up PE on nonstop (whoever cares about the nonstop would usually have enough $ to pay for J).

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:52 pm
by aemoreira1981
How does the recently announced AKL-EWR route by Air New Zealand affect Qantas on this?

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:19 pm
by airbazar
AEROFAN wrote:
airbazar wrote:
ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
PR and marketing!

That and Boeing doesn't want to lose this sale.
Every passenger on this flight had a flat bed to sleep on. With enough movies to watch and a flat bed to sleep on, 20 hours in a plane is really easy. Research my a$$. It's 100% publicity.
As for the pilots, it's a double crew = 10 hour work day. Some of us do that nearly every day of the week in 6x6 cubicle without a window :rotfl:


I disagree. 20 hours stuck in a metal tube breathing recycled air on a flat bed is not easy, despite the movies that may be available. I would not/could not do it without a prescription for ambien or lunesta or some such.


For you personally but not an issue for me personally. But the world is full of people who are as different as you and me.
I was flying 14+ hours in economy between SIN-LHR and SFO-HKG long before there were flat beds, modern AVOD, and cleaner air to bread.
The thing I question here is whether there is a market for NYC-SYD non-stop given that there is very little in terms of viable connections on either side.
Are there any ULH routes that don't pull connections on at least one side? I don't think so.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:30 pm
by qf789
aemoreira1981 wrote:
How does the recently announced AKL-EWR route by Air New Zealand affect Qantas on this?


Its been known for a while that both QF and NZ has JFK/EWR on their wishlist. It really doesn't affect Qantas at all. They already fly to JFK currently so they have a good idea of what the market is, SYD-JFK market for business is bigger than AKL-EWR plus QF also have a large FF base and domestic network to feed the flight

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 3:26 pm
by dmstorm22
airbazar wrote:
AEROFAN wrote:
airbazar wrote:
That and Boeing doesn't want to lose this sale.
Every passenger on this flight had a flat bed to sleep on. With enough movies to watch and a flat bed to sleep on, 20 hours in a plane is really easy. Research my a$$. It's 100% publicity.
As for the pilots, it's a double crew = 10 hour work day. Some of us do that nearly every day of the week in 6x6 cubicle without a window :rotfl:


I disagree. 20 hours stuck in a metal tube breathing recycled air on a flat bed is not easy, despite the movies that may be available. I would not/could not do it without a prescription for ambien or lunesta or some such.


For you personally but not an issue for me personally. But the world is full of people who are as different as you and me.
I was flying 14+ hours in economy between SIN-LHR and SFO-HKG long before there were flat beds, modern AVOD, and cleaner air to bread.
The thing I question here is whether there is a market for NYC-SYD non-stop given that there is very little in terms of viable connections on either side.
Are there any ULH routes that don't pull connections on at least one side? I don't think so.


Isn't the current longest flight in the world a flight that doesn't pull too many connections? I could be wrong, but my feeling having taken it a few times is SQ21/22 is mostly O&D.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:58 pm
by VC10er
QF to JFK is not a nonstop though, is it? I guess I could go try and book it and see, but where do they stop to pick up more fuel, and what aircraft do they use? Last I saw Oantas at JFK was a 744

Thanks

As for UA, thanks, totally makes sense that UA would not have enough ULH needs for a large enough subfleet. But, then I think about "why wouldn't UA then add some ULH beyond SYD to Pacific destinations (Eg; Singapore for one). Everyone knows UA owns AsiaPac among the US3, personally I think with NEW Polaris seats it would be fine. Total no-go if it was an old Diamond seat! Really, all I am doing is dreaming. I think it adds prestige to have some ULH like that and UA could use some big "jewel in the crown" routes from EWR.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:00 pm
by dmstorm22
VC10er wrote:
QF to JFK is not a nonstop though, is it? I guess I could go try and book it and see, but where do they stop to pick up more fuel, and what aircraft do they use? Last I saw Oantas at JFK was a 744

Thanks

As for UA, thanks, totally makes sense that UA would not have enough ULH needs for a large enough subfleet. But, then I think about "why wouldn't UA then add some ULH beyond SYD to Pacific destinations (Eg; Singapore for one). Everyone knows UA owns AsiaPac among the US3, personally I think with NEW Polaris seats it would be fine. Total no-go if it was an old Diamond seat! Really, all I am doing is dreaming. I think it adds prestige to have some ULH like that and UA could use some big "jewel in the crown" routes from EWR.


Right now it goes JFK-LAX-OZ. I believe the actual plane that flies the JFK-LAX leg continues to BNE, but the JFK-LAX flight can take passengers that go onward to BNE, SYD or MEL (they don't have rights for just JFK-LAX).

I think right now the JFK-LAX leg is a B789 (which is also on the LAX-BNE, while LAX-SYD/MEL is an A388)

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:05 pm
by A388
UA not going for ultra long haul aside, UA wouldn't have a sub fleet for this if they did want to go for it. They would probably go for the 787-9 which already is in their fleet. QF did that ultra long haul flight from JFK to SYD on a 787-9 so it is possible. UA would only need to reconfigure a few 787-9's for this purpose but I wouldn't classify it as a sub fleet.

A388

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:29 pm
by dmstorm22
A388 wrote:
UA not going for ultra long haul aside, UA wouldn't have a sub fleet for this if they did want to go for it. They would probably go for the 787-9 which already is in their fleet. QF did that ultra long haul flight from JFK to SYD on a 787-9 so it is possible. UA would only need to reconfigure a few 787-9's for this purpose but I wouldn't classify it as a sub fleet.

A388


QF used the 787-9 as a test flight. There's no guarantee when they eventually decide on the route it will be on a B789.

In fact I think the initial discussion focused around a A359 or B77X

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 8:00 pm
by airbazar
dmstorm22 wrote:
airbazar wrote:
AEROFAN wrote:

I disagree. 20 hours stuck in a metal tube breathing recycled air on a flat bed is not easy, despite the movies that may be available. I would not/could not do it without a prescription for ambien or lunesta or some such.


For you personally but not an issue for me personally. But the world is full of people who are as different as you and me.
I was flying 14+ hours in economy between SIN-LHR and SFO-HKG long before there were flat beds, modern AVOD, and cleaner air to bread.
The thing I question here is whether there is a market for NYC-SYD non-stop given that there is very little in terms of viable connections on either side.
Are there any ULH routes that don't pull connections on at least one side? I don't think so.


Isn't the current longest flight in the world a flight that doesn't pull too many connections? I could be wrong, but my feeling having taken it a few times is SQ21/22 is mostly O&D.


There's a big difference between "not too many" and "none whatsoever" which is what QF would have especially if they are going to try to run this with Y seats.
EWR is a major UA hub with connections on UA to every major city in the U.S. I would be shocked if there aren't some connections on both sides of that route.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 8:57 pm
by dmstorm22
airbazar wrote:
dmstorm22 wrote:
airbazar wrote:

For you personally but not an issue for me personally. But the world is full of people who are as different as you and me.
I was flying 14+ hours in economy between SIN-LHR and SFO-HKG long before there were flat beds, modern AVOD, and cleaner air to bread.
The thing I question here is whether there is a market for NYC-SYD non-stop given that there is very little in terms of viable connections on either side.
Are there any ULH routes that don't pull connections on at least one side? I don't think so.


Isn't the current longest flight in the world a flight that doesn't pull too many connections? I could be wrong, but my feeling having taken it a few times is SQ21/22 is mostly O&D.


There's a big difference between "not too many" and "none whatsoever" which is what QF would have especially if they are going to try to run this with Y seats.
EWR is a major UA hub with connections on UA to every major city in the U.S. I would be shocked if there aren't some connections on both sides of that route.


Why do you think there are 'none whatsoever' for QF? JFK is a AA hub (albeit much smaller hub than UA @ EWR), and also it can gather ex-SYD traffic on the Australia side.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:04 pm
by WorldFlier
eamondzhang wrote:
HP69 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

difference is 17 nm, syd - jfk 8646 nm, syd -ewr 8629 nm


That is nm in real miles it is much more.

What?? EWR is on the other side of the river not other side of the country. Just looking at the map!

Michael


Ya and it takes 2 hours to cross that [expletive deleted] river...

Image

/Sarcasm in case anyone can't tell

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:06 pm
by dmstorm22
WorldFlier wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
HP69 wrote:

That is nm in real miles it is much more.

What?? EWR is on the other side of the river not other side of the country. Just looking at the map!

Michael


Ya and it takes 2 hours to cross that [expletive deleted] river...

Image

/Sarcasm in case anyone can't tell


This reminds me of when I was on an Egyptair flight CAI-JFK and near the end the pilot announced we were going to land in EWR because of heavy fog.
In the end we landed in JFK (the fog was ridiculous), but as someone who lived in NJ I was seriously wondering if I could convince them to let me just leave at EWR and not have to wait for clearance to land in JFK, sit through the pointless 20 min flight or whatever and then deal with NYC traffic on the way home.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:15 pm
by malaysia
ewt340 wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:
Believe it or not, there are actually people out there who would pay money to be tortured for 19 hours.



Besides, First, Business and premium economy would fine. You only need to worry about economy class.


What if UA did this from EWR-SYD with a 789... currently they just got old J class and regular economy.... I bet that would be hard

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:35 pm
by AngMoh
I have done SIN-EWR-SIN in premium economy on A350-500. What nobody mentions is that the A350 and 787 are significantly faster than the A340. For me, SIN-EWR and EWR-SIN were both around 18h45m flying time which was average at that time. Currently it is about an hour less on average and it makes a difference in how you feel.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:55 am
by RyanairGuru
For those who didn't notice, the QF 789 was carrying maximum fuel when it took off from JFK with 50 pople (pax + crew) on board. There is no way whatsoever that QF, UA or anyone else would consider NYC-SYD with a 789. It is simply too far, and the weight penalties mean the route would never have any hope of being anything other than a dumpster fire. The route needs the next generation of ULR aircraft to be able to carry a meaningful payload.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:51 am
by bcworld
AngMoh wrote:
I have done SIN-EWR-SIN in premium economy on A350-500. What nobody mentions is that the A350 and 787 are significantly faster than the A340. For me, SIN-EWR and EWR-SIN were both around 18h45m flying time which was average at that time. Currently it is about an hour less on average and it makes a difference in how you feel.


I don't think 18h45m was average...not for SIN-EWR anyway...it was scheduled at 18h25m...when I took SQ22 back in 2004 that was bang on. I'd be surprised if it was scheduld at less than the average flight time.

And I think there are a whole lot of other factors that come before an extra <5% flight time...departure / arrival time, cabin comfort etc.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:15 am
by zeke
RyanairGuru wrote:
For those who didn't notice, the QF 789 was carrying maximum fuel when it took off from JFK with 50 pople (pax + crew) on board. There is no way whatsoever that QF, UA or anyone else would consider NYC-SYD with a 789. It is simply too far, and the weight penalties mean the route would never have any hope of being anything other than a dumpster fire. The route needs the next generation of ULR aircraft to be able to carry a meaningful payload.


Exactly, and the reason why QF is only looking at the 77X and A350.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:25 am
by dmstorm22
zeke wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
For those who didn't notice, the QF 789 was carrying maximum fuel when it took off from JFK with 50 pople (pax + crew) on board. There is no way whatsoever that QF, UA or anyone else would consider NYC-SYD with a 789. It is simply too far, and the weight penalties mean the route would never have any hope of being anything other than a dumpster fire. The route needs the next generation of ULR aircraft to be able to carry a meaningful payload.


Exactly, and the reason why QF is only looking at the 77X and A350.


Or more simply, the reason for 'Project Sunrise' in the first place.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:39 am
by rbavfan
aa87 wrote:
Apologies if already covered, but I have a specific question. Great feat and kudos to QF, but with all the talk of research of effects of ultra-long haul and testing, etc., what exactly is so different about JFK-SYD (up to 20 hours depending on winds) v. EWR-SIN (up to 19 hours) ? SIN first launched that I think a good 10 years ago with an A340 (-500 or -600), and resumed w an A350 after a hiatus of a few years. Not taking anything away from QF, but is an extra 1.5-2 hours really such a watershed, either technologically or biologically for PAX ?


Qantas will use 787-9 with 46"/80" Business (1-2-1), 38" Premium Economy with 20.5" seat bottom & 32" coach (3-3-3) wth 17.2" seat bottom.

Singapore uses A350-900 with 60"/78" Business (1-2-1) & 38" Premium Economy (2-4-2) with 19.5" seat bottoms in coach.

How would you feel after 20 hours in those coach seats with smaller armrest.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:41 am
by zeke
dmstorm22 wrote:
Or more simply, the reason for 'Project Sunrise' in the first place.


QF have flown a 744 from LHR to SYD in 20:09 and a A332 from TLS to MEL in 20:35.

JFK-SYD is not the longest flight time they have done in a jet aircraft, nor the longest distance.

This is typical marketing b/s

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:49 am
by dmstorm22
zeke wrote:
dmstorm22 wrote:
Or more simply, the reason for 'Project Sunrise' in the first place.


QF have flown a 744 from LHR to SYD in 20:09 and a A332 from TLS to MEL in 20:35.

JFK-SYD is not the longest flight time they have done in a jet aircraft, nor the longest distance.

This is typical marketing b/s


I'm confused. Those were one-offs. The goal here is for an ongoing route from JFK-SYD (and eventually LHR-SYD).

I agree this current test flight is marketing b/s but the end goal here is real.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:09 am
by zeke
dmstorm22 wrote:
I'm confused. Those were one-offs. The goal here is for an ongoing route from JFK-SYD (and eventually LHR-SYD)


SYD-LHR will be the first route, followed by MEL-LHR.

These 787 flights are one offs, they will not be used on these sunrise routes with commercial payloads.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:27 am
by Sparker
rbavfan wrote:
aa87 wrote:
Apologies if already covered, but I have a specific question. Great feat and kudos to QF, but with all the talk of research of effects of ultra-long haul and testing, etc., what exactly is so different about JFK-SYD (up to 20 hours depending on winds) v. EWR-SIN (up to 19 hours) ? SIN first launched that I think a good 10 years ago with an A340 (-500 or -600), and resumed w an A350 after a hiatus of a few years. Not taking anything away from QF, but is an extra 1.5-2 hours really such a watershed, either technologically or biologically for PAX ?


Qantas will use 787-9 with 46"/80" Business (1-2-1), 38" Premium Economy with 20.5" seat bottom & 32" coach (3-3-3) wth 17.2" seat bottom.

Singapore uses A350-900 with 60"/78" Business (1-2-1) & 38" Premium Economy (2-4-2) with 19.5" seat bottoms in coach.

How would you feel after 20 hours in those coach seats with smaller armrest.


Qantas will be using a 777X or A350-1000 in a four-class configuration, the details of which have not yet been announced.

Yes, sitting in economy for 20 or so hours will be tough, but Qantas are planning to include a dedicated 'stretching area' in the economy cabin which may help - that's not a feature of most (any?) other long-haul economy cabin that I can think of. And, I suspect a lot of people would prefer to do 20 hours in economy direct, compared to 24+ hours with a bleary-eyed stopover in SIN/LAX/DXB etc. Certainly, the success of the PER-LHR route (including in economy) suggests that there's a market for it.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:39 am
by dmstorm22
zeke wrote:
dmstorm22 wrote:
I'm confused. Those were one-offs. The goal here is for an ongoing route from JFK-SYD (and eventually LHR-SYD)


SYD-LHR will be the first route, followed by MEL-LHR.

These 787 flights are one offs, they will not be used on these sunrise routes with commercial payloads.


Where did you read those will be first? JFK-SYD is shorter than either anyway.

As it is, I am agreeing with you that the 787 flights are one offs.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:43 pm
by HM7
CriticalPoint wrote:
HP69 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

difference is 17 nm, syd - jfk 8646 nm, syd -ewr 8629 nm


That is nm in real miles it is much more.


Thanks man now my brain is bleeding......

Haha

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 4:38 am
by ewt340
Sparker wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
aa87 wrote:
Apologies if already covered, but I have a specific question. Great feat and kudos to QF, but with all the talk of research of effects of ultra-long haul and testing, etc., what exactly is so different about JFK-SYD (up to 20 hours depending on winds) v. EWR-SIN (up to 19 hours) ? SIN first launched that I think a good 10 years ago with an A340 (-500 or -600), and resumed w an A350 after a hiatus of a few years. Not taking anything away from QF, but is an extra 1.5-2 hours really such a watershed, either technologically or biologically for PAX ?


Qantas will use 787-9 with 46"/80" Business (1-2-1), 38" Premium Economy with 20.5" seat bottom & 32" coach (3-3-3) wth 17.2" seat bottom.

Singapore uses A350-900 with 60"/78" Business (1-2-1) & 38" Premium Economy (2-4-2) with 19.5" seat bottoms in coach.

How would you feel after 20 hours in those coach seats with smaller armrest.


Qantas will be using a 777X or A350-1000 in a four-class configuration, the details of which have not yet been announced.

Yes, sitting in economy for 20 or so hours will be tough, but Qantas are planning to include a dedicated 'stretching area' in the economy cabin which may help - that's not a feature of most (any?) other long-haul economy cabin that I can think of. And, I suspect a lot of people would prefer to do 20 hours in economy direct, compared to 24+ hours with a bleary-eyed stopover in SIN/LAX/DXB etc. Certainly, the success of the PER-LHR route (including in economy) suggests that there's a market for it.


Well they said they would provide bigger room for economy passengers. Is it gonna be the same as the on in B787? They promise more room but all they did is add extra 1" to the seat pitch which isn't much.

I suspect the stretching areas would be the rear galley on either A350 or B777X which are massive to begin with, which mean that they didn't add much in the first place.

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:09 pm
by emre787
Sparker wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
aa87 wrote:
Apologies if already covered, but I have a specific question. Great feat and kudos to QF, but with all the talk of research of effects of ultra-long haul and testing, etc., what exactly is so different about JFK-SYD (up to 20 hours depending on winds) v. EWR-SIN (up to 19 hours) ? SIN first launched that I think a good 10 years ago with an A340 (-500 or -600), and resumed w an A350 after a hiatus of a few years. Not taking anything away from QF, but is an extra 1.5-2 hours really such a watershed, either technologically or biologically for PAX ?


Qantas will use 787-9 with 46"/80" Business (1-2-1), 38" Premium Economy with 20.5" seat bottom & 32" coach (3-3-3) wth 17.2" seat bottom.

Singapore uses A350-900 with 60"/78" Business (1-2-1) & 38" Premium Economy (2-4-2) with 19.5" seat bottoms in coach.

How would you feel after 20 hours in those coach seats with smaller armrest.


Qantas will be using a 777X or A350-1000 in a four-class configuration, the details of which have not yet been announced.

Yes, sitting in economy for 20 or so hours will be tough, but Qantas are planning to include a dedicated 'stretching area' in the economy cabin which may help - that's not a feature of most (any?) other long-haul economy cabin that I can think of. And, I suspect a lot of people would prefer to do 20 hours in economy direct, compared to 24+ hours with a bleary-eyed stopover in SIN/LAX/DXB etc. Certainly, the success of the PER-LHR route (including in economy) suggests that there's a market for it.


Note that the A350 configuration said by rbavfan is not correct. Singapore Airlines has a much more premium condiguration on their A350-900ULRs with only having 67 Business and 94 Premium Economy Class seats. There isn't even a regular Economy Class onboard...

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:23 pm
by HIA350
a friend of mine (a pilot for a legacy carrier in the US) told me all this is for marketing and news buzz, it wont make or brake either A or B if they choose either

Re: Qantas Project Sunrise: JFK-SYD v. EWR-SIN ?

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:56 pm
by eta unknown
Sparker wrote:
Yes, sitting in economy for 20 or so hours will be tough, but Qantas are planning to include a dedicated 'stretching area' in the economy cabin which may help - that's not a feature of most (any?) other long-haul economy cabin that I can think of. And, I suspect a lot of people would prefer to do 20 hours in economy direct, compared to 24+ hours with a bleary-eyed stopover in SIN/LAX/DXB etc. Certainly, the success of the PER-LHR route (including in economy) suggests that there's a market for it.


I can think of many areas:
https://www.malaysiaairlines.com/tw/en/ ... 0-800.html
https://www.malaysiaairlines.com/cn/en/ ... 0-900.html
https://www.saudia.com/SAUDIA%20Content ... ov2019.pdf
https://www.saudia.com/SAUDIA%20Content ... ov2019.pdf

Stretch and pray your heart out... :-)