Page 3 of 8

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:42 am
by JonesNL
VV wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
VV wrote:


323 tonne that you mention is probably enough.
However the comment was for 319 tonnes.


MTOW is already 319t since May 2019. See Airbus brochure: https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... ooklet.pdf

Adding 4t to achieve a MTOW of 323t is a 25% bigger increase than the previous one. Still a slight increase.


"Slight" increase?
Maybe so.

What's about the take off thrust requirements to keep the same runway requirements?


How would you classify a 4t(1,25%) MTOW increase?

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:50 am
by VV
JonesNL wrote:
VV wrote:
JonesNL wrote:

MTOW is already 319t since May 2019. See Airbus brochure: https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... ooklet.pdf

Adding 4t to achieve a MTOW of 323t is a 25% bigger increase than the previous one. Still a slight increase.


"Slight" increase?
Maybe so.

What's about the take off thrust requirements to keep the same runway requirements?


How would you classify a 4t(1,25%) MTOW increase?


It depends where you put the reference.

Initially the -1000 was at 308,000 kg.

Since its EIS in 2018 the MTOW has been creeping up to 319T and now we are talking about 323T.

Yes, each increment is a "slight" increase.

Has the take off thrust requirements moved up? I don't know.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:53 am
by flipdewaf
VV wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
VV wrote:

"Slight" increase?
Maybe so.

What's about the take off thrust requirements to keep the same runway requirements?


How would you classify a 4t(1,25%) MTOW increase?


It depends where you put the reference.

Initially the -1000 was at 308,000 kg.

Since its EIS in 2018 the MTOW has been creeping up to 319T and now we are talking about 323T.

Yes, each increment is a "slight" increase.

Has the take off thrust requirements moved up? I don't know.

Sounds to me like they know what they have to do to increase the TOW...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:02 am
by astuteman
flipdewaf wrote:
VV wrote:
JonesNL wrote:

MTOW is already 319t since May 2019. See Airbus brochure: https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... ooklet.pdf

Adding 4t to achieve a MTOW of 323t is a 25% bigger increase than the previous one. Still a slight increase.


"Slight" increase?
Maybe so.

What's about the take off thrust requirements to keep the same runway requirements?

Why would it need the same runway requirements?
SYD, LHR, MEL, JFK...

Not lacking runway length.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


All these pretty much at sea level too.

All though the field performance charts in the ACAP stop at 316t, you can see from the gradient that the distance delta between 316t and 323t is vanishingly small - an increase from about 2,800m to about 3,000m

As to your comment regarding 323t being sufficient to carry a 27t payload over the distance, that too can be extrapolated from the data in the R/P chart.
(note I assume 0.8kg/l density for fuel instead of the Airbus 0.785kg/l assumption, as this aligns with the assumption in Boeing's R/P charts. This reduces the payload by about 2t to 2.5t from the Airbus R/P chart at full fuel range.)

Rgds

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:10 am
by AirbusA322
CriticalPoint wrote:
Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
We are being told direct flight LHR-SYD is very attractive.

Actually we are being told LHR-SYD direct flights are only viable if passengers, airplane manufacturers and airline employees make financial concessions. Whether or not that is accurate is up for debate.

Scotron12 wrote:
Gives a bit more detail on the economics for QF by going ahead.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-london- ... -approval/

One point of interest:

The UBS analysis and its revenue projections suggest Project Sunrise is viable and isn’t dependent on the outcome of a pay deal.

This suggests QF is using this opportunity to squeeze a concession out of the pilots, namely:

Qantas says that if it cannot reach a deal with AIPA, it will approach pilots directly and offer terms. According to a report published overnight in The Financial Review, Captains would receive an annual base salary of USD$265,400, first officers would receive USD$175,370 and second officers would receive USD$86,680.
...
One of the sticking points is the salary for second officers on Project Sunrise flights. Qantas wants to pay future second officers less than it will pay existing second officers. AIPA isn’t happy with this.

And:

zeke wrote:
They have a history of doing that, either buying smaller airlines and expanding them to remove flying from mainline, Impulse, Network, using contractors like Cobham, Atlas, starting new airlines like Australian, Qantas Freight, Jetconnect

... they have a track record of winning.

I guess the real question is if QF's pilots will decide if they should resort to strikes or not.


Those pay rates are terrible.

You need to convert those pay rates to Aussie Dollar. That’s 400,000 Right Seat and 270,000 for the Left Seat. Add in expected allowances of say 50,000 and that’s a big salary. Virgin Triple drivers are not far behind.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:15 am
by moa999
AirbusA322 wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Actually we are being told LHR-SYD direct flights are only viable if passengers, airplane manufacturers and airline employees make financial concessions. Whether or not that is accurate is up for debate.


One point of interest:


This suggests QF is using this opportunity to squeeze a concession out of the pilots, namely:


And:


... they have a track record of winning.

I guess the real question is if QF's pilots will decide if they should resort to strikes or not.


Those pay rates are terrible.

You need to convert those pay rates to Aussie Dollar. That’s 400,000 Right Seat and 270,000 for the Left Seat. Add in expected allowances of say 50,000 and that’s a big salary. Virgin Triple drivers are not far behind.
And the Virgin 777s carry 339 passengers, probably 20% more than the 35J.

What's Qantas 333 pay like?

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:26 am
by Whatsaptudo
AirbusA322 wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Actually we are being told LHR-SYD direct flights are only viable if passengers, airplane manufacturers and airline employees make financial concessions. Whether or not that is accurate is up for debate.


One point of interest:


This suggests QF is using this opportunity to squeeze a concession out of the pilots, namely:


And:


... they have a track record of winning.

I guess the real question is if QF's pilots will decide if they should resort to strikes or not.


Those pay rates are terrible.

You need to convert those pay rates to Aussie Dollar. That’s 400,000 Right Seat and 270,000 for the Left Seat. Add in expected allowances of say 50,000 and that’s a big salary. Virgin Triple drivers are not far behind.


Just a slight correction AirbusA322. The captains sits on the left so your seats are the wrong way around.
Allowances wouldn't exceed 20k at the most. So your estimate of 50k is way off.
The proposal as it stands now is probably twice what it was originally. I think they are getting somewhere.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:31 am
by flipdewaf
Whatsaptudo wrote:
AirbusA322 wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

Those pay rates are terrible.

You need to convert those pay rates to Aussie Dollar. That’s 400,000 Right Seat and 270,000 for the Left Seat. Add in expected allowances of say 50,000 and that’s a big salary. Virgin Triple drivers are not far behind.


Just a slight correction AirbusA322. The captains sits on the left so your seats are the wrong way around.
Allowances wouldn't exceed 20k at the most. So your estimate of 50k is way off.
The proposal as it stands now is probably twice what it was originally. I think they are getting somewhere.


Novice on pilot pay here: what are the ‘Allowances’? Does that refer to travel expenses? Meals, taxis, hire cars, hotels, drinks? I would have assumed these were simply put on corporate credit card and expensed.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:35 am
by Whatsaptudo
Simply meals and incidentals. We get what the Australian public service would get if they go away. Most other countrys call it "per diem"

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 1:53 pm
by zeke
VV wrote:
Has the take off thrust requirements moved up? I don't know.


The A350-1000 will already do a TOW of 323 tonnes off 16R at SYD with an OAT of 35 deg C.


AirbusA322 wrote:
You need to convert those pay rates to Aussie Dollar. That’s 400,000 Captain and 270,000 for the First Officer. Add in expected allowances of say 50,000 and that’s a big salary. Virgin Triple drivers are not far behind.


Just in comparison, a China Southern A330 Captain SYD based is on the equivalent of around AUD$60,000 per month (around US$25,000 tax paid). They were paid in US$ and nett salaries, when converted to AUD gross pay is significant.



moa999 wrote:
And the Virgin 777s carry 339 passengers, probably 20% more than the 35J.

What's Qantas 333 pay like?


That’s not the way it would be looked at, need to RTK basis,
339 pax = 33.9 tonnes over a SYD-LAX (12,000 km) would be a RTK of 406800
280 pax = 28.0 tonnes over a SYD-LHR (17,000 km) would be a RTK of 476000 the QF A350 pilot would be 17% more productive.

The A330 was pitched at the old 747 classic levels (above the 767, below the 747-400), you can see the hourly pay rates and allowances here https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/docume ... 415325.pdf

If you look at 34.1, I think they will want a similar arrangement to the 787 where overtime rates in 34.1.1 to 34.1.5 would be removed.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:27 pm
by Baldr
VV wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
VV wrote:

"Slight" increase?
Maybe so.

What's about the take off thrust requirements to keep the same runway requirements?


How would you classify a 4t(1,25%) MTOW increase?


It depends where you put the reference.

Initially the -1000 was at 308,000 kg.

Since its EIS in 2018 the MTOW has been creeping up to 319T and now we are talking about 323T.

Yes, each increment is a "slight" increase.

Has the take off thrust requirements moved up? I don't know.


The A350-1000 has significantly better takeoff performance than expected.

Hence, the 316 metric tonne MTOW version should have the same takeoff field length as the design takeoff field length of the 308 metric tonne MTOW version -- that is, when taking off from airports such as LHR, EWR/JFK and SYD.

Meanwhile, the -1000 also demonstrated better airfield performance than expected, exceeding takeoff weight predictions by 5.3 metric tons out of Riyadh, 7.2 metric tons out of Newark and 3.8 metric tons out of Johannesburg.


https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2018-02-05/a350-1000-takes-singapore-spotlight

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:40 pm
by mjoelnir
astuteman wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
VV wrote:

"Slight" increase?
Maybe so.

What's about the take off thrust requirements to keep the same runway requirements?

Why would it need the same runway requirements?
SYD, LHR, MEL, JFK...

Not lacking runway length.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


All these pretty much at sea level too.

All though the field performance charts in the ACAP stop at 316t, you can see from the gradient that the distance delta between 316t and 323t is vanishingly small - an increase from about 2,800m to about 3,000m

As to your comment regarding 323t being sufficient to carry a 27t payload over the distance, that too can be extrapolated from the data in the R/P chart.
(note I assume 0.8kg/l density for fuel instead of the Airbus 0.785kg/l assumption, as this aligns with the assumption in Boeing's R/P charts. This reduces the payload by about 2t to 2.5t from the Airbus R/P chart at full fuel range.)

Rgds


You have one misconception. Range depends only on kg fuel (weight). The density comes only in when fuel volume gets maxed out, how many kg you will be able to store in a certain volume.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:03 pm
by PepeTheFrog
VV wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
VV wrote:

Define "slight MTOW increase".


Airbus mentioned the MTOW will go up from 316 to 319t.

See Airbus proposing 319t A350-1000 for Project Sunrise

That's what I would define as "a slight MTOW increase".


Are you sure it is enough?


According to Airbus, 319t was pitched at Qantas for Project Sunrise.

So Airbus believes 319t is enough.

JonesNL wrote:
VV wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Both a simple breguet calculator and my first principles model say that 323t is enough.

Assumes required SAR of 9600nm

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



323 tonne that you mention is probably enough.
However the comment was for 319 tonnes.


MTOW is already 319t since May 2019. See Airbus brochure: https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... ooklet.pdf

Adding 4t to achieve a MTOW of 323t is a 25% bigger increase than the previous one. Still a slight increase.


Yes 319t was added to the ACAP documents in 2019, but AFAIK it won't be available until later this year (2020).

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:35 am
by mileduets
These long distance flights without any stop overs suddenly seem a lot more appealing with the Corona virus scare in mind.
I wonder how it will affect project Sunrise and the strategies of airlines for long distance air travel as a whole.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 11:27 am
by Ruscoe
The Coronavirus threat is economic. If it goes pandemic then 12 months should see the end of the infective phase, but the economic effect will last much longer. Some years.
Since the aircraft will not be delivered for 2+ years, the benefits of non stop, would not seem to be important.
However if business is depressed for years, timing could be relevant.
I don't believe that Qantas can't extract another few months out of Airbus, before finalisation, in order for things to be clearer. In short, if pandemic then delay, if not pandemic, then proceed with order asap.

Ruscoe

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 11:51 am
by mileduets
Ruscoe wrote:
The Coronavirus threat is economic. If it goes pandemic then 12 months should see the end of the infective phase, but the economic effect will last much longer. Some years.
Since the aircraft will not be delivered for 2+ years, the benefits of non stop, would not seem to be important.


It might make the public, companies and also decision makers re-assess risks. Big hubs like Dubai or Singapore Changi tend to increase the risk of uncontrolled spreading of any virus. What if such airports have to close down or quarantine thousands of passengers? Even with Corona completely contained the risk of new viruses being very disruptive to air traffic remains. That's why I think project Sunrise and alike will gain momentum.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 12:57 pm
by VV
mileduets wrote:
Ruscoe wrote:
The Coronavirus threat is economic. If it goes pandemic then 12 months should see the end of the infective phase, but the economic effect will last much longer. Some years.
Since the aircraft will not be delivered for 2+ years, the benefits of non stop, would not seem to be important.


It might make the public, companies and also decision makers re-assess risks. Big hubs like Dubai or Singapore Changi tend to increase the risk of uncontrolled spreading of any virus. What if such airports have to close down or quarantine thousands of passengers? Even with Corona completely contained the risk of new viruses being very disruptive to air traffic remains. That's why I think project Sunrise and alike will gain momentum.


Yeah, Sydney and Heathrow are small airports with very few transiting passengers. LOL.

In addition, it might not be a good thing being in a confined space with an infected passenger during twenty hours.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 1:27 pm
by VV
Is there any possibility the whole thing would be delayed again?

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 9:46 pm
by Sparker
VV wrote:
mileduets wrote:
Ruscoe wrote:
The Coronavirus threat is economic. If it goes pandemic then 12 months should see the end of the infective phase, but the economic effect will last much longer. Some years.
Since the aircraft will not be delivered for 2+ years, the benefits of non stop, would not seem to be important.


It might make the public, companies and also decision makers re-assess risks. Big hubs like Dubai or Singapore Changi tend to increase the risk of uncontrolled spreading of any virus. What if such airports have to close down or quarantine thousands of passengers? Even with Corona completely contained the risk of new viruses being very disruptive to air traffic remains. That's why I think project Sunrise and alike will gain momentum.


Yeah, Sydney and Heathrow are small airports with very few transiting passengers. LOL.

In addition, it might not be a good thing being in a confined space with an infected passenger during twenty hours.


Sydney and Heathrow are not major transit airports from China, which was the epicentre of the outbreak. The ability to fly direct between the two would have some appeal to passengers who do not want to be in a terminal with flights landing regularly from China, in particular.

20hrs direct v 14+7 one-stop...

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:03 pm
by VV
Sparker wrote:
VV wrote:
mileduets wrote:

It might make the public, companies and also decision makers re-assess risks. Big hubs like Dubai or Singapore Changi tend to increase the risk of uncontrolled spreading of any virus. What if such airports have to close down or quarantine thousands of passengers? Even with Corona completely contained the risk of new viruses being very disruptive to air traffic remains. That's why I think project Sunrise and alike will gain momentum.


Yeah, Sydney and Heathrow are small airports with very few transiting passengers. LOL.

In addition, it might not be a good thing being in a confined space with an infected passenger during twenty hours.


Sydney and Heathrow are not major transit airports from China, which was the epicentre of the outbreak. The ability to fly direct between the two would have some appeal to passengers who do not want to be in a terminal with flights landing regularly from China, in particular.

20hrs direct v 14+7 one-stop...


You know it is spreading everywhere, don't you?

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 11:15 pm
by StTim
Heathrow a small airport?

I think I am in an alternate reality!

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 12:37 am
by Planetalk
mileduets wrote:
These long distance flights without any stop overs suddenly seem a lot more appealing with the Corona virus scare in mind.
I wonder how it will affect project Sunrise and the strategies of airlines for long distance air travel as a whole.


It won't.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:05 am
by 747cllipper747
How about getting “new management” pay them much less and that will offset the pilots pay!!

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 5:33 am
by enzo011
StTim wrote:
Heathrow a small airport?

I think I am in an alternate reality!


In fairness he did say that in regard to passengers from China and he would be half right in those terms, depending how you use the statistics. Frankfurt has more passengers from Beijing and Shanghai than the UK has from China in total for 2017.

Frankfurt passengers from Shanghai (814 752) and Beijing (630 546) for 2017 - 1 445 298 in total
Passengers from China to the UK - 1 315 106

As for Sydney, by my rough (very rough) calculation they had about 1.4m passengers from China for 2018 as well. But that isn't the only consideration seeing as all airports in Australia are relatively well serviced apart from Sydney. My, again rough, calculations is that more than 2.7m passengers moved between China and Australia in 2018. So about double the amount of passengers between China and Australia than UK and China. Statistics are fun.

Sources - Wiki for Frankfurt
https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA/Content/Standard_Content/Data_and_analysis/Datasets/Airport_stats/Airport_data_2018_annual/Table_12_1_Intl_Air_Pax_Route_Analysis.pdf

For more UK data, this page has lots of numbers for those that want to prove their point using statistics.

https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/International_airline_activity_FY2019.pdf

Out of interest, there is a lot of interesting information in the Australia statistics, including the flights were operating at 80.4% load of capacity for 2019 (page 14) and then on page 36 it has the share of the types of aircraft used.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:37 am
by VV
I am still a little bit puzzled by the issue with the pilot union.

If ever the management goes against the pilot union, is there any risk of strike or something similar?

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:14 am
by scbriml
VV wrote:
Sparker wrote:
VV wrote:

Yeah, Sydney and Heathrow are small airports with very few transiting passengers. LOL.

In addition, it might not be a good thing being in a confined space with an infected passenger during twenty hours.


Sydney and Heathrow are not major transit airports from China, which was the epicentre of the outbreak. The ability to fly direct between the two would have some appeal to passengers who do not want to be in a terminal with flights landing regularly from China, in particular.

20hrs direct v 14+7 one-stop...


You know it is spreading everywhere, don't you?


You know Project Sunrise isn't starting tomorrow, don't you?

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 11:08 am
by zeke
scbriml wrote:

You know Project Sunrise isn't starting tomorrow, don't you?


Technically no reason it couldn’t start tomorrow, some of the proposed routes do not need additional capability added to the A350-1000.

As these flights are “new routes”, the Qantas pilots union don’t actually right to fly them under the scope clause.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:40 pm
by JohanTally
zeke wrote:
scbriml wrote:

You know Project Sunrise isn't starting tomorrow, don't you?


Technically no reason it couldn’t start tomorrow, some of the proposed routes do not need additional capability added to the A350-1000.

As these flights are “new routes”, the Qantas pilots union don’t actually right to fly them under the scope clause.


Last I checked they don't have the equipment. Maybe EY will cut them a deal on their unused A35ks sitting in storage. Without that happening they are at least 2 years from operating these routes regardless who is behind the yoke or joystick.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:49 pm
by zeke
JohanTally wrote:
Last I checked they don't have the equipment


They could get their hands on A350s very quickly if they wanted to pay the money. Pilots and aircraft are not holding this up.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:32 pm
by Sparker
zeke wrote:
scbriml wrote:

You know Project Sunrise isn't starting tomorrow, don't you?


Technically no reason it couldn’t start tomorrow, some of the proposed routes do not need additional capability added to the A350-1000.

As these flights are “new routes”, the Qantas pilots union don’t actually right to fly them under the scope clause.

Ha, with that kind of thinking, *technically* they could have started them 5 years ago with the 772LR.

Qantas will want a single fleet of A35Ks that can operate all of their PS routes, at a reasonable cost and in a configuration that makes it viable. It doesn't want to be buying multiple variants of the plane that can't be cycled through its network, leading to inefficient utilisation, or uneconomic configurations to allow them to make the distance. And, it doesn't want to be paying additional refurb costs to take planes from another airline that then need to be recouped.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 11:28 pm
by moa999
zeke wrote:
Technically no reason it couldn’t start tomorrow, some of the proposed routes do not need additional capability added to the A350-1000.


Certainly none of the 'launch' routes - i.e. SYD/MEL - LHR/JFK

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:32 am
by Williamsb747
zeke wrote:
scbriml wrote:

You know Project Sunrise isn't starting tomorrow, don't you?


Technically no reason it couldn’t start tomorrow, some of the proposed routes do not need additional capability added to the A350-1000.

As these flights are “new routes”, the Qantas pilots union don’t actually right to fly them under the scope clause.

Why hasn’t QF started CPT all they need is a B789 or a standard A35k?

Williams-

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:52 am
by moa999
Williamsb747 wrote:
Why hasn’t QF started CPT all they need is a B789 or a standard A35k?
-


1. Don't think the demand is there. The only Aus-SA routes are
- SA PER-JNB Daily 340/330
- QF SYD-JNB 6/wk 747

QF had talked about a 330 from PER, but dropped that with the ongoing issues with PER airport, plus I suspect it would have only happened if the SYD flight was downgauged to a 787.

2. QF don't have the spare aircraft

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:13 am
by Williamsb747
moa999 wrote:
Williamsb747 wrote:
Why hasn’t QF started CPT all they need is a B789 or a standard A35k?
-


1. Don't think the demand is there. The only Aus-SA routes are
- SA PER-JNB Daily 340/330
- QF SYD-JNB 6/wk 747

QF had talked about a 330 from PER, but dropped that with the ongoing issues with PER airport, plus I suspect it would have only happened if the SYD flight was downgauged to a 787.

2. QF don't have the spare aircraft

QF have stated that they intended on flying to CPT, my guess is they have enough people telling them there is demand.
Ongoing rumours state that JNB will be upgauged to an A380
PER-JNB was to go along the 6w SYD-JNB B747.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:28 am
by zeke
moa999 wrote:
Certainly none of the 'launch' routes - i.e. SYD/MEL - LHR/JFK


A standard 316 tonne 35K could do SYD-JFK now, outbound with today’s conditions 17:30 300 pax and 12 tonnes of cargo. Return 19:20, 300 pax and 2 tonnes of cargo.

It could also fly LHR SYD non stop with 300 pax, just could not fly SYD LHR, SYD LHR would require one ACT.

This is not the worst time of year for prevailing winds.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:01 am
by sabby
zeke wrote:
moa999 wrote:
Certainly none of the 'launch' routes - i.e. SYD/MEL - LHR/JFK


A standard 316 tonne 35K could do SYD-JFK now, outbound with today’s conditions 17:30 300 pax and 12 tonnes of cargo. Return 19:20, 300 pax and 2 tonnes of cargo.

It could also fly LHR SYD non stop with 300 pax, just could not fly SYD LHR, SYD LHR would require one ACT.

This is not the worst time of year for prevailing winds.


If a standard 316T or upcoming 319T A35K were to do SYD-LHR, what's the max number of passengers it could lift ? I'd assume 185 and 215 respectively.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:47 am
by moa999
Williamsb747 wrote:
QF have stated that they intended on flying to CPT, my guess is they have enough people telling them there is demand.
Ongoing rumours state that JNB will be upgauged to an A380
PER-JNB was to go along the 6w SYD-JNB B747.


They've listed CPT on a slide showing possible routes. It's the least likely imho.
If JNB does go A380, even less chance of a CPT service.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:28 am
by VV
What would the passenger count be between SYD-LHR (say 9,600 nmi) on an A380?
Would have it been possible to carry 300 passengers on that route?

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:44 am
by FatCat
Revelation wrote:
Qantas says that if it cannot reach a deal with AIPA, it will approach pilots directly and offer terms. According to a report published overnight in The Financial Review, Captains would receive an annual base salary of USD$265,400, first officers would receive USD$175,370 and second officers would receive USD$86,680.
...
One of the sticking points is the salary for second officers on Project Sunrise flights. Qantas wants to pay future second officers less than it will pay existing second officers. AIPA isn’t happy with this.

So a second officier will be paid less than 1/3 of a Captain for doing the same job?
I know they have not the same responsibilities
I know there is a fact of age and experience
But all in all - in the cockpit they have to fly the plane, PF and PC have to be interchangeable at any time, am I right?

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:09 am
by Eikie
FatCat wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Qantas says that if it cannot reach a deal with AIPA, it will approach pilots directly and offer terms. According to a report published overnight in The Financial Review, Captains would receive an annual base salary of USD$265,400, first officers would receive USD$175,370 and second officers would receive USD$86,680.
...
One of the sticking points is the salary for second officers on Project Sunrise flights. Qantas wants to pay future second officers less than it will pay existing second officers. AIPA isn’t happy with this.

So a second officier will be paid less than 1/3 of a Captain for doing the same job?
I know they have not the same responsibilities
I know there is a fact of age and experience
But all in all - in the cockpit they have to fly the plane, PF and PC have to be interchangeable at any time, am I right?

When things go wrong, it is the one in charge, usually the captain, who has to make the call what to do.

And that is what brings in the money. Not the steering of an airplane, but the responsibility based on experience, skills and knowledge.
If things go wrong in the cabin, ultimately the captain is the one who has to explain. If people have to be arrested, refused entry or otherwise treated, he is the one who has to do it. If people die, it's on his watch.

That explaines the difference in pay. A first/second officier can always look to the left for advice, a captain only sees his reflection when he does that.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:41 pm
by Scotron12
QF have decided to go ahead directly to pilots after negotiations with AIPA did not reach an agreement.

They will be asked to vote between 20-30 March so that QF can finalize their actual order with Airbus.

Note: In the article it mentions that AJ has been approached by an Australian pilot who said he could entice expat pilots from Asia for PS.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... rise-deal/

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:42 am
by VV
Scotron12 wrote:
QF have decided to go ahead directly to pilots after negotiations with AIPA did not reach an agreement.

They will be asked to vote between 20-30 March so that QF can finalize their actual order with Airbus.

Note: In the article it mentions that AJ has been approached by an Australian pilot who said he could entice expat pilots from Asia for PS.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... rise-deal/


If they have an alternate solution, why bother negotiating with the pilot union? I don't get it.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:48 am
by RyanairGuru
VV wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
QF have decided to go ahead directly to pilots after negotiations with AIPA did not reach an agreement.

They will be asked to vote between 20-30 March so that QF can finalize their actual order with Airbus.

Note: In the article it mentions that AJ has been approached by an Australian pilot who said he could entice expat pilots from Asia for PS.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... rise-deal/


If they have an alternate solution, why bother negotiating with the pilot union? I don't get it.


I don't think that Qantas pushing this vote has much to do with whether Sunrise goes ahead or not (if anything Qantas would probably prefer - from a cost perspective - that the flying is outsourced). Tying the two issues together though dangles a shiny thing in front of the pilots to try and get them to vote for a contract that was rejected by their union. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:59 am
by zeke
RyanairGuru wrote:
I don't think that Qantas pushing this vote has much to do with whether Sunrise goes ahead or not (if anything Qantas would probably prefer - from a cost perspective - that the flying is outsourced). Tying the two issues together though dangles a shiny thing in front of the pilots to try and get them to vote for a contract that was rejected by their union. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


As an outsider looking in, it has the appearance that that the union didnt have long term strategic thinking in place. At some time in the future, the A380, 747, and A330 will no longer be in the fleet, the penalty rates which apply to those aircraft will cease when the aircraft leave the fleet. A no vote would effectily endorse outsouring of jobs outside of QF, and may lead to redundancies within QF as their fleets shrink.

As a group they would probably have 20+ different pilot contracts, from network, easterns, jetstar, jetconnect, express freight, domestic, international, management putting one group up against the other. I think they should have taken the longer term view, have a single international salary scale (swallow the pill and have the A380, 747, A330, 787, A350) at the same hourly rate, create unity.

My understanding is after taking it to the employees for a vote, they can then apply to the FWC to have the deal imposed by the courts.

The concerns raised in the article about FMRS I dont think are valid, a number of airline have been doing ULR flying for some time.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:41 am
by grjplanes
Williamsb747 wrote:
moa999 wrote:
Williamsb747 wrote:
Why hasn’t QF started CPT all they need is a B789 or a standard A35k?
-


1. Don't think the demand is there. The only Aus-SA routes are
- SA PER-JNB Daily 340/330
- QF SYD-JNB 6/wk 747

QF had talked about a 330 from PER, but dropped that with the ongoing issues with PER airport, plus I suspect it would have only happened if the SYD flight was downgauged to a 787.

2. QF don't have the spare aircraft

QF have stated that they intended on flying to CPT, my guess is they have enough people telling them there is demand.
Ongoing rumours state that JNB will be upgauged to an A380
PER-JNB was to go along the 6w SYD-JNB B747.


Also recall CPT showing as destination initially when PS idea was started...however, would CPT be more regarding ETOPS capabilities, instead of range. If so, will the decision on PS aircraft still take that in consideration as well, having range for the likes of SYD-LHR, and also the ETOPS for SYD-CPT...or would that just complicate the decision more?

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:23 pm
by Williamsb747
grjplanes wrote:
Williamsb747 wrote:
moa999 wrote:

1. Don't think the demand is there. The only Aus-SA routes are
- SA PER-JNB Daily 340/330
- QF SYD-JNB 6/wk 747

QF had talked about a 330 from PER, but dropped that with the ongoing issues with PER airport, plus I suspect it would have only happened if the SYD flight was downgauged to a 787.

2. QF don't have the spare aircraft

QF have stated that they intended on flying to CPT, my guess is they have enough people telling them there is demand.
Ongoing rumours state that JNB will be upgauged to an A380
PER-JNB was to go along the 6w SYD-JNB B747.


Also recall CPT showing as destination initially when PS idea was started...however, would CPT be more regarding ETOPS capabilities, instead of range. If so, will the decision on PS aircraft still take that in consideration as well, having range for the likes of SYD-LHR, and also the ETOPS for SYD-CPT...or would that just complicate the decision more?


ETOPS would definitely be the issue with SYD/MEL-CPT.
Imo, the PS aircraft should not be an issue here. I cannot see QF sending an A35K with ,as is my understanding, a premium heavy configuration with an increased MTOW when a regular A35K or B789 can easily do the mission.

Williams-

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:29 pm
by MIflyer12
Reuters reports that Qantas has asked Airbus for an extension to the deadline to place an order.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN20W33T

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:42 pm
by lightsaber
MIflyer12 wrote:
Reuters reports that Qantas has asked Airbus for an extension to the deadline to place an order.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN20W33T

I think all Aircraft orders just stopped, Airbus either extends or a hungry Boeing counters. Farnborough will be sad.

Lightsaber

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:34 am
by qf002
There's no way they could place an order in the next 3 weeks.

It'll just mean a delay of 6 months at the other end, not the end of the world.

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 6:25 am
by Scotron12
lightsaber wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
Reuters reports that Qantas has asked Airbus for an extension to the deadline to place an order.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN20W33T

I think all Aircraft orders just stopped, Airbus either extends or a hungry Boeing counters. Farnborough will be sad.

Lightsaber


Makes sense.

But, nothing to do with PS, makes you wonder why NH decided to order 15-20 787s at a time when Japan has one of the largest virus infections which is even threatening the Olympics. :duck: