Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
gloom
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 11, 2020 4:53 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
I suspect PS is now delayed enough that a newer plane will be available.


I don't think so.

Designing a plane takes about 7 years. SO basically, if we're talking 2027-2028 it's just about time to start.
But the question is - to whom?
Airbus has A350, and that's a likely candidate to be re-engined around 2030. It's at the "cash out" phase, since it broke even. Absolutley I do not see them to start new WB these years.
Boeing finishes 777 X design. In 7 years it will be ready. But it was an option for PS, and it was not selected. And it's not a "newer plane". Boeing also has 787 and 777X to pay off.

Both are also vulnerable now in terms of being able to start design. The costs now they're striving to survive. More urgent replacements than (almost new) ULR widebodies.

I don't see it happening.

Cheers,
Adam
 
VV
Posts: 1841
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 11, 2020 6:37 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
...
I suspect PS is now delayed enough that a newer plane will be available.


No.

Qantas decided to order A350-1000s.
They will stick with A350-1000, but they may order the normal ones without additional tank.

The most probable scenario is that Qantas drops the very long direct routes like SYD-LHR and JFK-SYD.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 11, 2020 7:22 am

VV wrote:
Qantas decided to order A350-1000s pre-Covid 19.


Fixed it for you. Because that is all we know really. We don't know when, if and what they will order post-Covid 19.
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
VV
Posts: 1841
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 11, 2020 7:53 am

oschkosch wrote:
VV wrote:
Qantas decided to order A350-1000s pre-Covid 19.


Fixed it for you. Because that is all we know really. We don't know when, if and what they will order post-Covid 19.


No.
They will stick with their decision.

However we do not know if the long routes will be operated with the aircraft.
That's the most probable scenario.

This Project has been postponed many times, it was not unexpected there would be other postponement, covid-19 or not covid-19.
Covid-19 is just a very timely excuse to delay it once again.

So here is my take.
They will order the A350-1000 and they are going to abandon the idea for direct flight over SYD-LHR and JFK-SYD with this aircraft.
 
Strato2
Posts: 551
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 11, 2020 8:09 am

scbriml wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Specifically in the case of PS - video or voice conferencing is far from ideal when you've got such a large time difference.


That large time difference also means when flying for a business trip recovering at both ends before optimally sleeping well or thinking well - upwards of two days lost.


True, but for big and/or important stuff, that's just part of the cost of doing business.


After Covid-19 I don't think there's necessarily enough of that to support ULH. I think the consequence of Covid will be that videoconferencing will take a giant leap at the expense of flying for business and that chance will stick.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2216
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 11, 2020 8:20 am

gloom wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
I suspect PS is now delayed enough that a newer plane will be available.


I don't think so.

Designing a plane takes about 7 years. SO basically, if we're talking 2027-2028 it's just about time to start.
But the question is - to whom?
Airbus has A350, and that's a likely candidate to be re-engined around 2030. It's at the "cash out" phase, since it broke even. Absolutley I do not see them to start new WB these years.
Boeing finishes 777 X design. In 7 years it will be ready. But it was an option for PS, and it was not selected. And it's not a "newer plane". Boeing also has 787 and 777X to pay off.

Both are also vulnerable now in terms of being able to start design. The costs now they're striving to survive. More urgent replacements than (almost new) ULR widebodies.

I don't see it happening.

Cheers,
Adam


Personally, it might take 3 years to get back to 80% pre COVID levels for international. Possibly 5 years before the airlines have their finances in position to buy new metal. Ultra long haul is usually the last to come back because the economics are more borderline, yes point to point will keep growing but hubs save tons compared to the ULH. So before Qantas reconsiders PS it may be 7-8 years and a dozen years before it is flown.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 11, 2020 8:37 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
gloom wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
I suspect PS is now delayed enough that a newer plane will be available.


I don't think so.

Designing a plane takes about 7 years. SO basically, if we're talking 2027-2028 it's just about time to start.
But the question is - to whom?
Airbus has A350, and that's a likely candidate to be re-engined around 2030. It's at the "cash out" phase, since it broke even. Absolutley I do not see them to start new WB these years.
Boeing finishes 777 X design. In 7 years it will be ready. But it was an option for PS, and it was not selected. And it's not a "newer plane". Boeing also has 787 and 777X to pay off.

Both are also vulnerable now in terms of being able to start design. The costs now they're striving to survive. More urgent replacements than (almost new) ULR widebodies.

I don't see it happening.

Cheers,
Adam


Personally, it might take 3 years to get back to 80% pre COVID levels for international. Possibly 5 years before the airlines have their finances in position to buy new metal. Ultra long haul is usually the last to come back because the economics are more borderline, yes point to point will keep growing but hubs save tons compared to the ULH. So before Qantas reconsiders PS it may be 7-8 years and a dozen years before it is flown.


The thing with SYD-LHR is, that the demand is there to fill a plane, even a big one. This is a route that has no nonstop travel because there was never an aircraft that could cover the distance within economic means. It is like LHR-NYC but with no aircraft that can do it non-stop and you have to fuel in SNN to make it. Now there is an aircraft available, but you have to bypass your SNN hub, would you launch it?
Interestingly with the current fuel prices even the 77E might be economical on the Sunrise Route but only now, so chances are, that Qantas might go ahaed with PS because it will be the only long haul route that will make money, just because there is massive demand for that route.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 11, 2020 8:51 am

I think post-covid there will remain a latent fear of crowded places. People will avoid them if they sensibly can. That includes intermediate stops on long haul flights, especially where an aircraft change is involved.

This will strengthen the business case for long non-stops.
 
VV
Posts: 1841
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 11, 2020 9:26 am

JerseyFlyer wrote:
I think post-covid there will remain a latent fear of crowded places. People will avoid them if they sensibly can. That includes intermediate stops on long haul flights, especially where an aircraft change is involved.

This will strengthen the business case for long non-stops.


No.
Humans have a short memory.
Past pandemics and plus the different SARS, MERS and other outbreaks have not deterred humans from gathering in crowds.
There will be no change in our behavior this time either.

Past pandemics (lfu)
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resour ... emics.html

SARS scare
https://www.cdc.gov/sars/

MERS scare
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/spotlight/mers
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8358
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 11, 2020 11:20 am

VV wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
I think post-covid there will remain a latent fear of crowded places. People will avoid them if they sensibly can. That includes intermediate stops on long haul flights, especially where an aircraft change is involved.

This will strengthen the business case for long non-stops.


No.
Humans have a short memory.
Past pandemics and plus the different SARS, MERS and other outbreaks have not deterred humans from gathering in crowds.
There will be no change in our behavior this time either.

Past pandemics (lfu)
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resour ... emics.html

SARS scare
https://www.cdc.gov/sars/

MERS scare
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/spotlight/mers


1) The present outbreak is *nothing* like SARS or MERS

but even if we accept that people will get over the pandemic quickly enough...

2) We are witnessing the largest global recession since the Great Depression. On a global basis we will probably smash every "target" for being the worst global depression ever.

Many people, at least those that fill the expensive seats, won't be travelling anytime soon. I sincerely wish this was over last week, but realistically it will be at least 5 years before we see air travel back at 2019 levels, with the added element that it is now readily apparent just how fragile that is. No business is going to be expending capital to push the limits just to see them come crashing down next time there is a pandemic. Business decisions that really push the envelope, so to speak, are probably off for at least 10 years.

In short, don't expect to fly LHR-SYD nonstop this side of 2030.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
VV
Posts: 1841
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 11, 2020 11:48 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
...
but even if we accept that people will get over the pandemic quickly enough...

2) We are witnessing the largest global recession since the Great Depression. On a global basis we will probably smash every "target" for being the worst global depression ever.
...
In short, don't expect to fly LHR-SYD nonstop this side of 2030.


I am not one of those people with this excessive pessimism (in French "sinistrose").

The world has now better control of the economy compared to the great depressions times.
The economy will slow down during the next twelve months, but it will grow again quickly.

People acquire the taste of travel. People study far away from home and family. They also move around to work where the job is.

I have absolutely no doubt things will get better very fast, especially in Asia and in Europe for very different reasons.

In Asia because people accept a certain level of fatality. It is God's will and they will accept whatever it is.

In Europe the economy will return fast thanks to the way governments support their citizens. The incentive to rebuild the economy is both injected to the people (as universal healthcare and unemployment benefits) and to corporation (soft loans etc.).

In the US the situation will be quite different because the bail out money to rebuild the economy is given to corporations.
The time it takes for the wealth to trickle down will be quite long. The most vulnerable people will be in such a deep trouble that they would not find job easily.

So the economic growth will start with Asia, followed by Europe and then the US will drag behind by about six months.

Everything will be about normal in late 2021 when the post-pandemic phase will be declared.

Just to add something, Christmas 2020 will see a huge jump in consumers' buying spree.
It will be a record breaking Christmas sales.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 11, 2020 12:38 pm

VV wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
I think post-covid there will remain a latent fear of crowded places. People will avoid them if they sensibly can. That includes intermediate stops on long haul flights, especially where an aircraft change is involved.

This will strengthen the business case for long non-stops.


No.
Humans have a short memory.
Past pandemics and plus the different SARS, MERS and other outbreaks have not deterred humans from gathering in crowds.
There will be no change in our behavior this time either.

Past pandemics (lfu)
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resour ... emics.html

SARS scare
https://www.cdc.gov/sars/

MERS scare
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/spotlight/mers


Humans do have short memories. However this will be different. To compare Covid-19 to SARS or MERS is inaccurate until the virus is further understood.

As for Sunrise you’re looking at least a decade, if ever. Air Travel is changed for the remainder of the lifespan of most members in these forums. I agree with an earlier post that the only increasing demand will be for longer direct flight with less stopovers.

If I were a manufacturer my priority would be toward looking for ways to design into my cabins ways for passengers to feel less exposed. Coved-19 is simply the current Pandemic.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sat May 16, 2020 6:41 am

Delta is retiring 10 777Lr aircraft that just had a refurb.

Buying these aircraft might be the only chance of the Project Sunrise route happening. Cash flow at Qantas has taken a huge hit and buying a new aircraft might not be possible.

The decision of picking the best aircraft for the route was based on a much higher fuel price. The fuel efficiency of the A350-1000 could offset the purchase price.

With fuel prices this low the 777LR would now be the front runner. It can easily do the route. No one would have expected that ten lightly used and freshly refurbed 777LR aircraft would now be on the market. This would be a dream come true for Qantas.

Once Australia to Europe reopens there will be huge demand to skip Asia and do a direct flight. Qantas briefly doubled their Perth to London flight just before the borders shut.

Qantas would be crazy to not buy these. There is a chance someone at Qantas has not even thought of using these aircraft yet. Who else thinks these would be perfect?
 
mmKUL
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sat May 16, 2020 7:07 am

Let us not ignore the fast growing number of global corporates setting ambitious carbon reduction targets for their own operations and their value chains. For many, business travel is a significant element.
The current pandemic has demonstrated the opportunity to significantly reduce the frequency of flights. And companies are beginning to understand the greater impacts from business/first class travel and inefficient fleets.
Project Sunrise was a retrograde step in emissions, undoing some of the fuel efficiency gains from latest generation of aircraft. It is difficult to imagine where the market for these Types of flights will re-emerge from.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sat May 16, 2020 7:21 am

Apart from the original LHR and JFK focus of the original Sunrise concept the remarkably consistent theme in Joyce’s public comments has been his insistence they would be used on other trunk long-haul routes as well - including some shorter Asian sectors. We have to assume a key driver is to have a big fleet of 77W-sized aircraft with a consistent premium product and all the advantages of commonality. A bunch of second hand 77Ls plus whatever else comes along in the next decade doesn’t begin to fit Joyce’s vision. Meanwhile the original idea of meeting premium demand for non-stop to key hubs ex SYD MEL and BNE is as compelling as ever, once the market recovers. Somehow I don’t think it will be third time lucky for the 77L.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sat May 16, 2020 7:42 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Delta is retiring 10 777Lr aircraft that just had a refurb.

Buying these aircraft might be the only chance of the Project Sunrise route happening. Cash flow at Qantas has taken a huge hit and buying a new aircraft might not be possible.

The decision of picking the best aircraft for the route was based on a much higher fuel price. The fuel efficiency of the A350-1000 could offset the purchase price.

With fuel prices this low the 777LR would now be the front runner. It can easily do the route. No one would have expected that ten lightly used and freshly refurbed 777LR aircraft would now be on the market. This would be a dream come true for Qantas.

Once Australia to Europe reopens there will be huge demand to skip Asia and do a direct flight. Qantas briefly doubled their Perth to London flight just before the borders shut.

Qantas would be crazy to not buy these. There is a chance someone at Qantas has not even thought of using these aircraft yet. Who else thinks these would be perfect?



Sure, for the moment it might be the best option, that is if they wanted to start the project sunrise in 2020 instead of 2022 or later. The oil price is unlikely to stay at $25 per barrel though and passenger numbers will increase if the pandemic is brought under control. If people will want to avoid a stop then I don't see how taking a heavier (for its size compared to the 787 and A350) and smaller aircraft now is better just because of what is happening in this snapshot.

If Covid-19 stays a problem for many years then it doesn't matter, they will not start the route as it will not be profitable and people will not fly.

What capacity do you expect the 77L to be in the Qantas long range configuration for PS?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3581
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sat May 16, 2020 8:01 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Jefford717 wrote:
Leisure travelers will eventually come back but business travelers might take a little longer. This Covid crisis is a strong evidence that over the web conference is as good as in person.


Specifically in the case of PS - video or voice conferencing is far from ideal when you've got such a large time difference.


That large time difference also means when flying for a business trip recovering at both ends before optimally sleeping well or thinking well - upwards of two days lost.

1. Web conference being as good as being there in person would mean the end of any in person social interaction surely? No concerts. Shall we end airshows and go to the royal international Skype tattoo?

2. Agree with Scrimbl here, I have regular weekly+ video calls with colleagues and partners in projects in the US, Canada, India, Mexico, Australia. The time difference doesn’t generally suck if it’s one time zone to one time zone but the reality is that it’s normally multiple time zones involved.

3. In terms of the recovery at each end I find it doesn’t really matter that much (for me at least) and I would regularly stop from the plane take a car straight to the factory and get right to work.

I think there is this weird expectation that people who fly for ‘business’ are those wearing suits and going to boardrooms at the top of tall glass towers to ‘do deals’ and ‘negotiate contracts’ when the reality is that it’s mostly people who actually have to be somewhere to do things with physical objects or where face to face is a much more effective means of communication.

The new video conferencing that we are seeing will reduce the big travel a bit but those trips are normally justified because of the physical presence required anyway, the big change will be how often one actually goes to the normal office as day to day communications have become so much easier and more comfortable.

Will PS stay around? I think so, I hope
To be on it one day. I think the issue is less about the market and more about the regulations that may follow the virus. I’m from the UK and if I was Australian politician the two countries who I’d be looking to avoid right now are the UK and the US.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sat May 16, 2020 9:57 am

enzo011 wrote:
What capacity do you expect the 77L to be in the Qantas long range configuration for PS?

I'd expect them to just put Qantas stickers over any Delta logo. The aircraft have fresh cabins. They have similar density to Qantas.

On the New York route they wouldn't even need to block seats. I'm not sure if the Delta aircraft have any optional ACT tanks fitted. I think the middle east to New Zealand models have extra tanks. The London route might need the tanks installed.

The demand for direct flights to Europe will initially be so high in the next few years Qantas should not wait until the A350-1000ULR is ready. I am sure as soon as the borders open we will see two Perth to London direct flights straight away. Qantas will have a monopoly as people will want to avoid the middle east or asia one stop option. We may even see three daily flights from Perth as LHR will have slots available.

They could buy all ten 777LR which is the perfect number for what they want. If fuel prices go up they can get rid of them as they would have cost them so little to buy. If fuel prices stay low Qantas could wait 10 years until the A350NEO arrives.

If the demand for non stop goes through the roof they could keep all ten 777LR flying and still buy the A350-1000ULR to open up more routes. The 777LR would alloe Qantas to test the routes for maybe 10% of the cost of the original plan.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sat May 16, 2020 10:20 am

Wishful thinking about them buying the 77Ls. Why would any airline invest any cash at all right now?
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sat May 16, 2020 12:00 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
What capacity do you expect the 77L to be in the Qantas long range configuration for PS?

I'd expect them to just put Qantas stickers over any Delta logo. The aircraft have fresh cabins. They have similar density to Qantas.

On the New York route they wouldn't even need to block seats. I'm not sure if the Delta aircraft have any optional ACT tanks fitted. I think the middle east to New Zealand models have extra tanks. The London route might need the tanks installed.

The demand for direct flights to Europe will initially be so high in the next few years Qantas should not wait until the A350-1000ULR is ready. I am sure as soon as the borders open we will see two Perth to London direct flights straight away. Qantas will have a monopoly as people will want to avoid the middle east or asia one stop option. We may even see three daily flights from Perth as LHR will have slots available.

They could buy all ten 777LR which is the perfect number for what they want. If fuel prices go up they can get rid of them as they would have cost them so little to buy. If fuel prices stay low Qantas could wait 10 years until the A350NEO arrives.

If the demand for non stop goes through the roof they could keep all ten 777LR flying and still buy the A350-1000ULR to open up more routes. The 777LR would alloe Qantas to test the routes for maybe 10% of the cost of the original plan.

Not necessarily disputing that it could work, in the configuration that you describe, however arriving to that market configuration, I see a couple of stumbling blocks:
1) 777-200LR price. You believe they are available for little to nothing. But they are basically sisterships to 777F, and even scrapping LR's could release a lot of valuable parts to keep (very busy) 777F fleet going. That would tend to create a floor in pricing
2) market bouncing back soon. This is still not a given. A lot of wealth evaporates in this crisis, as we speak, and yet the losses continue and will continue down the line. Quarantine limitations erase value of flight frequency, if you are supposed to self-quarantine for days/weeks upon arrival. Do you realistically expect a quick return of pax flows, sufficient to keep 777-200LR busy on ULR routes, but insufficient to keep A380 on the same?
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
moa999
Posts: 944
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sat May 16, 2020 12:19 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
On the New York route they wouldn't even need to block seats.


You are kidding right.

Qantas proved 20yrs ago that a 744 could fly LHR-SYD crew only.
More recently they showed a very lightly loaded 789 could fly LHR-SYD and JFK-SYD

However neither could fly those with a profit making passenger and freight load.
Same with the 772LR.

If it could Qantas would have ordered it 10 years ago, and we wouldn't have had the last 18 months focused on Sunrise
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sat May 16, 2020 2:39 pm

moa999 wrote:
You are kidding right.

Qantas proved 20yrs ago that a 744 could fly LHR-SYD crew only.
More recently they showed a very lightly loaded 789 could fly LHR-SYD and JFK-SYD

However neither could fly those with a profit making passenger and freight load.
Same with the 772LR.

No kidding. With 300 passengers the 777LR has a range of 9500nm. Check the ACAP document. That will do Sydney to London comfortably.

The 777LR has a range of 8555nm with 317 passengers with the standard fuel capacity of 145t. That is enough to do New York without the aux tanks. The range with one, two and three aux tanks are listed in the ACAP.

With 3 aux tanks it carries 162t of fuel to hit 9500nm. The empty weight is 145t. With the MTOW weight of 347t you can deduct the aircraft weight and fuel weight to calculate how much payload can be carried. 40t of payload is the answer. After you subtract the weight of the crew, the aux tanks and all the catering there will still be more than 30t left for passengers. At 100kg per person that is 300 passengers.

Absolute worst case scenario in poor weather it might carry 250 passengers.

moa999 wrote:
If it could Qantas would have ordered it 10 years ago, and we wouldn't have had the last 18 months focused on Sunrise

Fuel price is currently a third of the price of 10 years ago.

The A350-1000ULR can do the Sydney-London with appriximately three quarters of the fuel load of the 777LR. When fuel was 3 times the price it killed the economics.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4297
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sat May 16, 2020 6:28 pm

Because of quarantine measures that are going to stay in different countries and differences in how situation in different countries unfold, ultra long distance premium direct routes are probably going to perform better than flights that involve international transfer.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sat May 16, 2020 8:06 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I'd expect them to just put Qantas stickers over any Delta logo. The aircraft have fresh cabins. They have similar density to Qantas.

On the New York route they wouldn't even need to block seats. I'm not sure if the Delta aircraft have any optional ACT tanks fitted. I think the middle east to New Zealand models have extra tanks. The London route might need the tanks installed.

The demand for direct flights to Europe will initially be so high in the next few years Qantas should not wait until the A350-1000ULR is ready. I am sure as soon as the borders open we will see two Perth to London direct flights straight away. Qantas will have a monopoly as people will want to avoid the middle east or asia one stop option. We may even see three daily flights from Perth as LHR will have slots available.

They could buy all ten 777LR which is the perfect number for what they want. If fuel prices go up they can get rid of them as they would have cost them so little to buy. If fuel prices stay low Qantas could wait 10 years until the A350NEO arrives.

If the demand for non stop goes through the roof they could keep all ten 777LR flying and still buy the A350-1000ULR to open up more routes. The 777LR would alloe Qantas to test the routes for maybe 10% of the cost of the original plan.



The 789 is 62m in length, the 77L is 63m. Delta has 291 seats in their 77L, Qantas has 236 seats in their 789. That is a lot of extra seats in a crude 1m difference in length. Both are 9-abreast in Y as well. So not sure if as you state the density is similar.

When you say the 77L will be at 10% of the cost, how do you work that out? Are you saying the 77L will be 90% cheaper to operate than the A350? And before you say they will get them cheaply, what do you mean by cheaply? Do you mean for free? Or what price do you put on the 77L from Delta?

As for demand, we will have to wait and see. Airlines are going to need to recoup costs as soon as they can so the prices will be higher. Unemployment has soared all over the world so I don't know who will be buying these tickets in a few months or even a year. If anything the premium of non-stop may deter some passengers if they are looking at the price even more due to the coming recession. Add in Brexit to the UK economy, the amount of people able to afford to fly between the UK and Australia will probably be much reduced for the short term.
 
marcelh
Posts: 1029
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sat May 16, 2020 9:39 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I'd expect them to just put Qantas stickers over any Delta logo. The aircraft have fresh cabins.

Sure. Starting your most prestigious flights with some left overs with a cheap hybrid livery and a cabin which screams "this isn't Qantas!"....
I really like your "out of the box" thinking, but I can't see Qantas starting with Project Sunrise with the 777LR. For the short term, it's much easier to take an A380 and make a "spash and dash". Just a quick refuel, no passengers in or out.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 12:02 am

enzo011 wrote:
The 789 is 62m in length, the 77L is 63m. Delta has 291 seats in their 77L, Qantas has 236 seats in their 789. That is a lot of extra seats in a crude 1m difference in length. Both are 9-abreast in Y as well. So not sure if as you state the density is similar.

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Delta ... ER_V3.php#

Here is the new seat map. I think this is absolutely perfect. After COVID these non stops will attract passengers from the lower cost carriers for the first time. Qantas will no longer be just for premium customers but for the whole market so they will need more budget seats.

9AB in the 777 is more comfortable than 9AB in the 787. The 777 has a much wider cabin so at the similar length the 777 seats more. This is big advantage for economy for these long flights. Qantas can also unbolt a few of the economy rows installed at 31inch pitch and space out the seats to make Delta Comfort+ which is 34inch pitch. Doing this to all the economy seats would bring seating down to 260 or so. The business class seats for Delta also have more room than the Qantas business seats.


enzo011 wrote:
When you say the 77L will be at 10% of the cost, how do you work that out?

Just the purchase price. Brand new A350-1000's will not become much cheaper, Airbus will simply reduce production rate instead of selling them for half price at a low. However used aircraft there is no limit how far the price will fall. Looking at the lease prices of used aircraft gives a good indication. Lease prices will probably halve at best. Quarter at worse. There is the 10% purchase price.

The 777LR will not be turned into freighters. The huge supply of 777W make them cheaper supply of parts.


enzo011 wrote:
If anything the premium of non-stop may deter some passengers if they are looking at the price even more due to the coming recession. Add in Brexit to the UK economy, the amount of people able to afford to fly between the UK and Australia will probably be much reduced for the short term.

Qantas carries less than 10% of the passengers between Europe and Australia. So if the market was reduced to about 25% then Qantas could capture half of the market for a large net growth.

If we need to quarantine at the destination, stopping at a hub could add weeks to your journey.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 12:06 am

marcelh wrote:
Sure. Starting your most prestigious flights with some left overs with a cheap hybrid livery and a cabin which screams "this isn't Qantas!"....
I really like your "out of the box" thinking, but I can't see Qantas starting with Project Sunrise with the 777LR. For the short term, it's much easier to take an A380 and make a "spash and dash". Just a quick refuel, no passengers in or out.


https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... m-april-5/

The cabin refurb is less than 12 months old. Higher end and newer tech than the Qantas offering. The Delta business class seats are way more private for sleeping. Qantas has always mentioned the project sunrise will have a cabin more suited to ultra long haul. So these beds and wider economy seats are actually perfect.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4982
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 12:33 am

for the length of flight that is? And the airplane they're going to fly? The money is fair to middling. If they have to hire foreign pilots? They might want to have at it as I don't think they will get much from their own crews. But the maintenance on those airplanes? Had better be top of the mark in Both directions. or they might have some oretty nice looking Lawn ornaments.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 3:06 am

I think hiring foreign pilots will not be required. Qantas will have all the bargaining power with the pilots. They will have an oversupply of pilots and crew in the next few years. The pilots will be fighting to keep their job and will accept anything.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7500
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 4:20 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I think hiring foreign pilots will not be required. Qantas will have all the bargaining power with the pilots. They will have an oversupply of pilots and crew in the next few years. The pilots will be fighting to keep their job and will accept anything.


As much as I like your optimism there really are a lot of hurdles to I overcome, adding second hand 777s would be one of them given QF would like to use the aircraft on other routes to Asia where the 77L wouldn't be at all efficient.
 
Tedjamvor
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 4:34 am

RJMAZ wrote:
enzo011 wrote:

Here is the new seat map. I think this is absolutely perfect. After COVID these non stops will attract passengers from the lower cost carriers for the first time. Qantas will no longer be just for premium customers but for the whole market so they will need more budget seats.



Qantas 787-9 has a 18/12/70 J/P/Y % split
Deltas 77LR has a 10/17/73 J/P/Y % split

Considering we know that PS will most likely have an F cabin (I'll assume 6 seats) the most likely config to maintain premium % would be:

6/48/35/198 which is a % split: 19/12/69 F+J/P/Y

makes a lot more sense to me.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 6:41 am

Tedjamvor wrote:
Qantas 787-9 has a 18/12/70 J/P/Y % split
Deltas 77LR has a 10/17/73 J/P/Y % split

Considering we know that PS will most likely have an F cabin (I'll assume 6 seats) the most likely config to maintain premium % would be:

6/48/35/198 which is a % split: 19/12/69 F+J/P/Y

makes a lot more sense to me.

It is hard to do an apple to apple comparison like that.

The "Delta one" business class seats on their 777LR are around the same size as first class seats Qantas has on their A380 aircraft. They have a full privacy door.

So the Qantas 787-9 might have a larger percentage of business class seats but the Delta offering are effectively a first class seat. The premium economy seats are the same size of both offerings. The Delta aircraft dont really have a seat to match the business class compact beds used on Qantas fleet.

Delta also has a fairly large economy plus with a few inchs of legroom. For the budget passengers who are flying Qantas for the first time to Europe due to the non stop this would be a good upsell. 9ab in the 777 is more comfortable than 9ab in the A350 and 787 or 8ab in the A330. The 777 9ab is perfect for a 20 hour flight.

The pricing would simple be changed to reflect the space the passenger gets. If Qantas still called the Delta beds "business class" then they would have to be a little more expensive as they are close to a first class seat.
 
qf002
Posts: 3669
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 7:45 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The "Delta one" business class seats on their 777LR are around the same size as first class seats Qantas has on their A380 aircraft. They have a full privacy door.


No they are not. DL's Suite is exactly the same seat as QF's latest J product, just with a different shell to incorporate the sliding door. On comparable aircraft (ie the A330), QF's seat is actually more spacious as less width is lost to chunky walls/doors vs a simple privacy panel.

QF's F seat would be at least double the footprint of DL's J Suite.
 
moa999
Posts: 944
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 8:58 am

qf002 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
The "Delta one" business class seats on their 777LR are around the same size as first class seats Qantas has on their A380 aircraft. They have a full privacy door.


No they are not. DL's Suite is exactly the same seat as QF's latest J product, just with a different shell to incorporate the sliding door...

QF's F seat would be at least double the footprint of DL's J Suite.


Exactly - they are both slightly customised versions of the Thompson Vantage XL seat.

And the overall footprint is a lot tighter than even the SkyBedII, and a helluva lot less than Qantas F.
 
Scotron12
Topic Author
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 10:27 am

marcelh wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I'd expect them to just put Qantas stickers over any Delta logo. The aircraft have fresh cabins.

Sure. Starting your most prestigious flights with some left overs with a cheap hybrid livery and a cabin which screams "this isn't Qantas!"....
I really like your "out of the box" thinking, but I can't see Qantas starting with Project Sunrise with the 777LR. For the short term, it's much easier to take an A380 and make a "spash and dash". Just a quick refuel, no passengers in or out.


Have to agree with you. Why would QF use an old Boeing aircraft, and an old "used" one to boot, for their flagship PS service??

It will not fly!!
 
VV
Posts: 1841
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 10:41 am

Scotron12 wrote:
marcelh wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I'd expect them to just put Qantas stickers over any Delta logo. The aircraft have fresh cabins.

Sure. Starting your most prestigious flights with some left overs with a cheap hybrid livery and a cabin which screams "this isn't Qantas!"....
I really like your "out of the box" thinking, but I can't see Qantas starting with Project Sunrise with the 777LR. For the short term, it's much easier to take an A380 and make a "spash and dash". Just a quick refuel, no passengers in or out.


Have to agree with you. Why would QF use an old Boeing aircraft, and an old "used" one to boot, for their flagship PS service??

It will not fly!!


What will not fly? Is it the Project Sunrise or the 777-200LR for Qantas?
 
Scotron12
Topic Author
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 10:56 am

VV wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
marcelh wrote:
Sure. Starting your most prestigious flights with some left overs with a cheap hybrid livery and a cabin which screams "this isn't Qantas!"....
I really like your "out of the box" thinking, but I can't see Qantas starting with Project Sunrise with the 777LR. For the short term, it's much easier to take an A380 and make a "spash and dash". Just a quick refuel, no passengers in or out.


Have to agree with you. Why would QF use an old Boeing aircraft, and an old "used" one to boot, for their flagship PS service??

It will not fly!!


What will not fly? Is it the Project Sunrise or the 777-200LR for Qantas?


The 777LR for QF. IMO they will want an state of the art aircraft to run this service. Certainly not a used one!!
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 10:59 am

RJMAZ wrote:
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Delta_Airlines/Delta_Airlines_Boeing_777-200ER_V3.php#

Here is the new seat map. I think this is absolutely perfect. After COVID these non stops will attract passengers from the lower cost carriers for the first time. Qantas will no longer be just for premium customers but for the whole market so they will need more budget seats.

9AB in the 777 is more comfortable than 9AB in the 787. The 777 has a much wider cabin so at the similar length the 777 seats more. This is big advantage for economy for these long flights. Qantas can also unbolt a few of the economy rows installed at 31inch pitch and space out the seats to make Delta Comfort+ which is 34inch pitch. Doing this to all the economy seats would bring seating down to 260 or so. The business class seats for Delta also have more room than the Qantas business seats.



So flying 42 J seats on the PER-LHR route to offering 28 J seats on the more prestigious LHR-SYD route. The reason why the A359 or 789 wasn't considered for PS was because they were too small for the demand QF was looking at. You are saying that the demand will be there, but you are arguing for a aircraft with a smaller premium cabin than on offer on the PER-LHR route. Do you see how this doesn't make sense?


RJMAZ wrote:
Qantas carries less than 10% of the passengers between Europe and Australia. So if the market was reduced to about 25% then Qantas could capture half of the market for a large net growth.

If we need to quarantine at the destination, stopping at a hub could add weeks to your journey.


Wait, how does quarantine at destination mean adding weeks to a journey through a hub?
 
VV
Posts: 1841
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 11:06 am

Scotron12 wrote:
VV wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:

Have to agree with you. Why would QF use an old Boeing aircraft, and an old "used" one to boot, for their flagship PS service??

It will not fly!!


What will not fly? Is it the Project Sunrise or the 777-200LR for Qantas?


The 777LR for QF. IMO they will want an state of the art aircraft to run this service. Certainly not a used one!!


It is indeed unlikely they will use the 777-200LR to do those very long routes.
If they wanted to they could have ordered it five years ago.

So either the Project Sunrise is bogus or the 777-200LR does not allow to serve those very long direct routes profitably.

Despite the enthusiasm expressed by many in this thread, there is always a question about the competitiveness of direct flights between SYD and LHR and between JFK and SYD.
But we already discussed about it many times. We are not going to start it all over again.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 11:11 am

VV wrote:
What will not fly? Is it the Project Sunrise or the 777-200LR for Qantas?

The A350-1000ULR will not fly. Qantas will not have the money to purchase new aircraft for many years. Airbus will no longer be willing to pay for the expensive fuel system upgrades just to gain bragging rights.

If people want the route to happen I think the 777-200LR would be the only choice. At the current price for fuel it is also the best choice. Qantas could have the route running the day the borders open with the Delta aircraft.

I'm sure regular Qantas customers won't mind the seats being blue instead of burgundy.
 
qf002
Posts: 3669
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 11:28 am

The other thing being missed here is the fact that the A350 is not a one-trick pony for QF. It is part of a long-term strategy for their fleet which will carry them through the next 20-30 years.

The QF of today is all about making proactive decisions rather than reactive ones. Picking up used 77Ls to rush into opening one set of routes while throwing all other considerations out the window is not a proactive, future-focused decision.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 11:49 am

RJMAZ wrote:
VV wrote:
What will not fly? Is it the Project Sunrise or the 777-200LR for Qantas?

The A350-1000ULR will not fly. Qantas will not have the money to purchase new aircraft for many years. Airbus will no longer be willing to pay for the expensive fuel system upgrades just to gain bragging rights.

If people want the route to happen I think the 777-200LR would be the only choice. At the current price for fuel it is also the best choice. Qantas could have the route running the day the borders open with the Delta aircraft.

I'm sure regular Qantas customers won't mind the seats being blue instead of burgundy.


QF could quite easily have bought 77Ls if they were viable, it's been available for 15+ years.

It might be delayed, but it's not an enormous undertaking to make the A35K for Project Sunrise, QF will need to replace aircraft eventually, and the A35K can efficiently cover Asia and other US destinations besides JFK. If PS doesn't go ahead with the A35K then it won't go ahead at all. Buying used 77Ls is a novel idea but I really don't think QF would be considering it at all.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 3:46 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
QF could quite easily have bought 77Ls if they were viable, it's been available for 15+ years.

Someone has already said this.

Oil price has averaged $90 a barrel for the last 15 years. Oil price is now below $30 a barrel and all indications is that it will remain low for many years. So only now are they a viable option for Qantas.

Qantas not buying the 777-200LR for the last 15 years is completely irrelevant to if they are the perfect choice today. They are clearly the perfect choice at this oil price.

It is worth noting that oil price surged in 2005 and has remained more than double the price of where it was trending for decades. The first 777LR was delivered in 2006 bad timing I guess.

In addition the 777 had a PIP in 2016 that gave a 2% fuel burn reduction. This translates into 200nm extra range with the 3 aux tanks or 10% extra payload weight. On a flight from Sydney to London this PIP drastically changes the economics.
 
Scotron12
Topic Author
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 4:13 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
QF could quite easily have bought 77Ls if they were viable, it's been available for 15+ years.

Someone has already said this.

Oil price has averaged $90 a barrel for the last 15 years. Oil price is now below $30 a barrel and all indications is that it will remain low for many years. So only now are they a viable option for Qantas.

Qantas not buying the 777-200LR for the last 15 years is completely irrelevant to if they are the perfect choice today. They are clearly the perfect choice at this oil price.

It is worth noting that oil price surged in 2005 and has remained more than double the price of where it was trending for decades. The first 777LR was delivered in 2006 bad timing I guess.

In addition the 777 had a PIP in 2016 that gave a 2% fuel burn reduction. This translates into 200nm extra range with the 3 aux tanks or 10% extra payload weight. On a flight from Sydney to London this PIP drastically changes the economics.


As of now, QF have shelved PS. When it becomes viable, QF will reinstate it. When is the question. Not getting second hand old aircraft.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 4:36 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
QF could quite easily have bought 77Ls if they were viable, it's been available for 15+ years.

Someone has already said this.

Oil price has averaged $90 a barrel for the last 15 years. Oil price is now below $30 a barrel and all indications is that it will remain low for many years. So only now are they a viable option for Qantas.

Qantas not buying the 777-200LR for the last 15 years is completely irrelevant to if they are the perfect choice today. They are clearly the perfect choice at this oil price.

It is worth noting that oil price surged in 2005 and has remained more than double the price of where it was trending for decades. The first 777LR was delivered in 2006 bad timing I guess.

In addition the 777 had a PIP in 2016 that gave a 2% fuel burn reduction. This translates into 200nm extra range with the 3 aux tanks or 10% extra payload weight. On a flight from Sydney to London this PIP drastically changes the economics.


Relying entirely on the price of oil being low is very risky, anything could happen between now and a time when PS because viable again. The A35K is a far safer bet, would be far more fuel efficient going to JFK, LHR and any Asian destinations they have, even with fuel prices being low it's still a huge amount of fuel saved. More future-proof and sets up a possibility of buying regular A35Ks, which could work well for them.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 4:58 pm

enzo011 wrote:
So flying 42 J seats on the PER-LHR route to offering 28 J seats on the more prestigious LHR-SYD route. The reason why the A359 or 789 wasn't considered for PS was because they were too small for the demand QF was looking at.

No, the A350-900 or 787-9 were not considered because they do not even have the range to fly the route even with 100 passengers. It had nothing to with their cabin size.

As I said. Qantas will want less premium seats now. The number of passengers in total travelling between Australia and Europe will be significantly reduced. Qantas being a premium airline will then see premium passengers significantly reduced. Qantas will however capture a huge portion of passengers from lower cost airlines due to the non stop. These passengers would only afford economy or economy plus. Qantas will then be flooded with economy passengers and they will need to change their seating density. The Delta aircraft are perfect.
.
Scotron12 wrote:
The 777LR for QF. IMO they will want an state of the art aircraft to run this service. Certainly not a used one!!

There is no other choice. The A350-1000ULR will never get developed making the 777LR the only option for the next 10 years.

Qantas could even buy brand new 777LR aircraft. The decision made last year would never have taken into account fuel prices would be this low. It would however be hard to justify buying brand new 777LR aircraft when there are ten near new Delta aircraft that would be a fraction of the price.

Used aircraft have a stigma of having old, worn out, outdated cabins and high maintenance costs. This is an unprecedented situation as the Delta aircraft are totally the opposite. I doubt there has ever been a fleet of aircraft that was retired just after getting a full refurb.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 5:29 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Relying entirely on the price of oil being low is very risky, anything could happen between now and a time when PS because viable again. The A35K is a far safer bet, would be far more fuel efficient going to JFK, LHR and any Asian destinations they have, even with fuel prices being low it's still a huge amount of fuel saved. More future-proof and sets up a possibility of buying regular A35Ks, which could work well for them.

No, relying entirely on the low oil price and buying brand new 777LR aircraft would be risky. At the price Qantas would pay for the Delta 777LR fleet itwould take more than 10 years of record high oil prices until the A350 option became cheaper. There is no risk.

We can do the math it is quite shocking. Etihad paid only $67.3 million each for their used 777LR aircraft from Air India. The new A350-1000ULR has a $300+ million list price. The A350-1000 might cost Qantas $200 million more per aircraft compared to the used 777LR. Lets be conservative though and assume the price difference is only $100 million per aircraft. This then allows Qantas to fit their own cabin to the Delta 777LR fleet.

Precovid Jet-A fuel hit $600 per ton. It is now below $200 per ton. The 777LR will burn about 20t more fuel per flight. At the higher price and assuming one flight per day that is only $4.38 million per year in extra fuel. It would take 22 years until the extra fuel saved made the A350-1000ULR a cheaper option.

If 777LR was purchased brand new and it was $20 million cheaper than the A350-1000ULR then it would take only 5 years for the A350-1000ULR to be the cheaper option. However at the $200 low oil price it would take 13 years.

The Delta aircraft also have less cycles than 90% of the current Qantas fleet. So it is not like they are buying old aircraft.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 5:55 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Relying entirely on the price of oil being low is very risky, anything could happen between now and a time when PS because viable again. The A35K is a far safer bet, would be far more fuel efficient going to JFK, LHR and any Asian destinations they have, even with fuel prices being low it's still a huge amount of fuel saved. More future-proof and sets up a possibility of buying regular A35Ks, which could work well for them.

No, relying entirely on the low oil price and buying brand new 777LR aircraft would be risky. At the price Qantas would pay for the Delta 777LR fleet itwould take more than 10 years of record high oil prices until the A350 option became cheaper. There is no risk.

We can do the math it is quite shocking. Etihad paid only $67.3 million each for their used 777LR aircraft from Air India. The new A350-1000ULR has a $300+ million list price. The A350-1000 might cost Qantas $200 million more per aircraft compared to the used 777LR. Lets be conservative though and assume the price difference is only $100 million per aircraft. This then allows Qantas to fit their own cabin to the Delta 777LR fleet.

Precovid Jet-A fuel hit $600 per ton. It is now below $200 per ton. The 777LR will burn about 20t more fuel per flight. At the higher price and assuming one flight per day that is only $4.38 million per year in extra fuel. It would take 22 years until the extra fuel saved made the A350-1000ULR a cheaper option.

If 777LR was purchased brand new and it was $20 million cheaper than the A350-1000ULR then it would take only 5 years for the A350-1000ULR to be the cheaper option. However at the $200 low oil price it would take 13 years.


QF won't be paying anywhere near list prices for the A35K, A $200m difference seems extremely pessimistic to me, especially considering the costs of the interior for each aircraft. QF tend to hold onto aircraft for the long run, 22 years probably isn't unrealistic. Also, any increase in fuel prices would probably see the A35K win out in the end, and the aircraft will be operating probably until 2040 at least, which is a long time in the future, more than long enough for everything to change drastically. Your numbers would however only be applicable to the Project Sunrise routes, not accounting for the ease of incorporating a possible fleet of regular A35Ks and the fuel savings associated with them. One of the benefits of using the A35K for the job is that it can do the PS routes but also do well on shorter routes, whereas the 77L would suffer more on the shorter routes as it has to carry its weight around. There would be an average of more than one flight per day if the aircraft are used on (say) HKG, SIN, SFO or wherever.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 5:57 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
No, the A350-900 or 787-9 were not considered because they do not even have the range to fly the route even with 100 passengers. It had nothing to with their cabin size.

As I said. Qantas will want less premium seats now. The number of passengers in total travelling between Australia and Europe will be significantly reduced. Qantas being a premium airline will then see premium passengers significantly reduced. Qantas will however capture a huge portion of passengers from lower cost airlines due to the non stop. These passengers would only afford economy or economy plus. Qantas will then be flooded with economy passengers and they will need to change their seating density. The Delta aircraft are perfect.
.


There is no other choice. The A350-1000ULR will never get developed making the 777LR the only option for the next 10 years.

Qantas could even buy brand new 777LR aircraft. The decision made last year would never have taken into account fuel prices would be this low. It would however be hard to justify buying brand new 777LR aircraft when there are ten near new Delta aircraft that would be a fraction of the price.

Used aircraft have a stigma of having old, worn out, outdated cabins and high maintenance costs. This is an unprecedented situation as the Delta aircraft are totally the opposite. I doubt there has ever been a fleet of aircraft that was retired just after getting a full refurb.


Your arguments are all over the place. Firstly the PER-LHR route will need 2 aircraft as demand will be right up there once we get flying again and people want to avoid going via a hub, now there will not be the premium demand for the 42 J seats QF has in the 789 they use on that route for the SYD-LHR route. Will there be a lot of demand to the UK to be able to use 2 789 on PER-LHR, or not enough demand for QF to go back to the A35K? I guess you think there will just be enough demand for the 77L to be used in DL configuration (about 300 seats), but not enough to go with their original plan of (as we believe the A35K will hold) about 300 seats with more premium seats.

Now we are at a stage where its not just the cheap price these discarded 77L's will have, even brand new ones will work on the route. So there goes the 90% cost advantage you talked of earlier. So what is the difference between a new 77L price and the A35K? Add in the extra fuel the 777 will burn with the older engines and the extra weight, add in the extra seats you get in the A35K compared to the 77L, why do you think the new 77L is the best option now instead of going for the A35K? The advantage of capital spending is gone because you are buying a new 777 and unless the MAX has returned to service and Boeing has been able to deliver aircraft at the same rate as before Covid-19, then they will not be able to discount too much either.

As for the maintenance cost, we are not talking about the cost to maintain the interior but the rest of the aircraft. If you buy a 5 year old car but replace the seats with new ones, does it mean you pay less when you need to service your car? I don't know what will happen with the oil price, but in January 2016 the price was right about the same price we have now. The price recovered to be around $45 a barrel a year later and then around $60-$70 two years later. If OPEC and Russia and the US (lots of fracking companies will not be making money now and you bet they will be onto their senators and their members of congress to complain) reach an agreement on output the price will jump relatively quickly as the current stock dwindle as the economies ramp up again. So how long do you expect the oil price to stay low enough to work in the 77L's favour?

I understand why you think the 77L from DL may be perfect right now, but scratch the surface and there are issues with what you would like to happen.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 6:02 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Relying entirely on the price of oil being low is very risky, anything could happen between now and a time when PS because viable again. The A35K is a far safer bet, would be far more fuel efficient going to JFK, LHR and any Asian destinations they have, even with fuel prices being low it's still a huge amount of fuel saved. More future-proof and sets up a possibility of buying regular A35Ks, which could work well for them.

No, relying entirely on the low oil price and buying brand new 777LR aircraft would be risky. At the price Qantas would pay for the Delta 777LR fleet itwould take more than 10 years of record high oil prices until the A350 option became cheaper. There is no risk.

We can do the math it is quite shocking. Etihad paid only $67.3 million each for their used 777LR aircraft from Air India. The new A350-1000ULR has a $300+ million list price. The A350-1000 might cost Qantas $200 million more per aircraft compared to the used 777LR. Lets be conservative though and assume the price difference is only $100 million per aircraft. This then allows Qantas to fit their own cabin to the Delta 777LR fleet.

Precovid Jet-A fuel hit $600 per ton. It is now below $200 per ton. The 777LR will burn about 20t more fuel per flight. At the higher price and assuming one flight per day that is only $4.38 million per year in extra fuel. It would take 22 years until the extra fuel saved made the A350-1000ULR a cheaper option.

If 777LR was purchased brand new and it was $20 million cheaper than the A350-1000ULR then it would take only 5 years for the A350-1000ULR to be the cheaper option. However at the $200 low oil price it would take 13 years.


QF won't be paying anywhere near list prices for the A35K, A $200m difference seems extremely pessimistic to me, especially considering the costs of the interior for each aircraft. QF tend to hold onto aircraft for the long run, 22 years probably isn't unrealistic. Also, any increase in fuel prices would probably see the A35K win out in the end, and the aircraft will be operating probably until 2040 at least, which is a long time in the future, more than long enough for everything to change drastically. Your numbers would however only be applicable to the Project Sunrise routes, not accounting for the ease of incorporating a possible fleet of regular A35Ks and the fuel savings associated with them. One of the benefits of using the A35K for the job is that it can do the PS routes but also do well on shorter routes, whereas the 77L would suffer more on the shorter routes as it has to carry its weight around. There would be an average of more than one flight per day if the aircraft are used on (say) HKG, SIN, SFO or wherever.


You forgot to add the extra revenue you get from the A35K though. You could fit in extra premium seats and fly them empty on the A35K with F and have the same seat count in W and Y and make money if they get sold. The A35K OEW would be higher but the MTOW would be 25T or so lower so you aren't flying around extra weight as you would in the 777.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

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