VV
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:34 am

zeke wrote:
VV wrote:
According to the press release Qantas has to form the order in March 2020.
https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-sunrise/

Airbus has agreed to extend the deadline to confirm delivery slots from February 2020 to March 2020. This provides additional time to negotiate an industrial agreement without impacting the planned start date of Project Sunrise flights in the first half of calendar 2023.


If you do not have anything factual to add to this thread can you leave it go. The press release you keep referring to is dated "13TH DECEMBER 2019 AT 9:11", we discussed that press release to death on another thread that got locked.

Things have changed in the 2 months since. Hence this thread, we are discussing the project is going ahead, with or without their pilots being onside.


Yes and according to the press release Qantas needs to firm the order by the end of March 2020, otherwise Qantas cannot get the aircraft they want to respect the targeted date for the entry into service in the first half of 2023.

Are you suggesting the deadline has changed?
Or are you suggesting that the targeted date for SY-LHR direct flights has changed?

I do not understand your comment.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:47 am

VV wrote:
Yes and according to the press release Qantas needs to firm the order by the end of March 2020, otherwise Qantas cannot get the aircraft they want to respect the targeted date for the entry into service in the first half of 2023.

Are you suggesting the deadline has changed?
Or are you suggesting that the targeted date for SY-LHR direct flights has changed?

I do not understand your comment.



I guess he means this information was known since December and the timeline Airbus gave Qantas was to ensure the aircraft is ready, including the certification of the model, for their start date in 2023. The only new information since then is that they may go ahead without a pilot contract. The changes to the model they need hasn't changed, nor has the EIS date. So bringing up time to certify and what changes will be needed is not new and has been discussed to death already on this subject.
 
VV
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:02 am

enzo011 wrote:
VV wrote:
Yes and according to the press release Qantas needs to firm the order by the end of March 2020, otherwise Qantas cannot get the aircraft they want to respect the targeted date for the entry into service in the first half of 2023.

Are you suggesting the deadline has changed?
Or are you suggesting that the targeted date for SY-LHR direct flights has changed?

I do not understand your comment.



I guess he means this information was known since December and the timeline Airbus gave Qantas was to ensure the aircraft is ready, including the certification of the model, for their start date in 2023. The only new information since then is that they may go ahead without a pilot contract. The changes to the model they need hasn't changed, nor has the EIS date. So bringing up time to certify and what changes will be needed is not new and has been discussed to death already on this subject.


There was a question asked by oschkosch in comment #20 "Any idea when QF announces that PS order for Airbus?". So the answer is in the press release.

The order has to be firmed by the end of March 2020 if Qantas wants to have the aircraft to do the SYD-LHR mission in the first half of 2023.

That is absolutely clear. However, someone said that a lot of things may have happened between December 2019 and now. So I just do not understand the comment.

As far as we know neither Qantas nor Airbus has made any new statement of the subject excepted the fact Qantas would go-ahead with the order with or without pilot association's agreement.

Initially Qantas' management said they would need pilots' agreement as well as the green-light from Australian regulatory body for very long flight duty time. I guess Qantas is now very confident Australian regulatory body will approve the rule change in pilots' work condition for those very long flights.

I understand those items (pilot agreement & regulatory) have now been removed from the list of conditions to proceed with the A350-1000 firm orders.
Therefore the order has to be firmed by the end of March 2020.
We agree on that.
 
RalXWB
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:19 am

To speak in your own words, I do not think it is productive in this thread to UNDERESTIMATE Airbus. In many posts here you keep repeating that the timeline for an EIS in 2023 is very tight or optimistic and a lot of engineering work has to be done, you keep repeating that you do not think that an EIS as proposed by Airbus is possible. #brokenclock
 
VV
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:39 am

RalXWB wrote:
To speak in your own words, I do not think it is productive in this thread to UNDERESTIMATE Airbus. In many posts here you keep repeating that the timeline for an EIS in 2023 is very tight or optimistic and a lot of engineering work has to be done, you keep repeating that you do not think that an EIS as proposed by Airbus is possible. #brokenclock


Well, I do not underestimate Airbus, but I still think the required modification for an entry into service in the first half of 2023 is very tight. They might well do it on time, but the buffer is not so huge.

I am saying it is a very tight timeline I never said it is impossible.
The amount of engineering work and also the negotiations will with the suppliers would take easily one year. There are a lot of small things that need to studied and analysed.

It is also important to take into account the burden of administration and the different internal discussions about minute details. Anyone who has been in an aircraft development knows it.

So yes, I think the timeline is very tight. I still remember back then the final design of the A340-500's rear center tank was not achieved on time and needed some retrofit to produced aircraft.

I am not underestimating their capability, but we may need to look back how things have been done in the past.

As I already suggested in a previous message, let us get back here in July 2023 and make the observation on what will have happened on this development.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:03 am

VV wrote:
I understand those items (pilot agreement & regulatory) have now been removed from the list of conditions to proceed with the A350-1000 firm orders.
Therefore the order has to be firmed by the end of March 2020.
We agree on that.


Do we know why that was a hard date? It could be to do with pricing or long lead time items. Do we know it is do with design and certification of the mods?

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
Scotron12
Topic Author
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:24 am

Im sure Airbus has conveyed to QF what they will do to meet the EIS in 2023, hence the hard date for QF to actually order the frames.

Personally, I feel QF have decided PS will go ahead and they are trying to get the pilots on board. Otherwise they will go ahead without them.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7092
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:12 am

VV wrote:
RalXWB wrote:
To speak in your own words, I do not think it is productive in this thread to UNDERESTIMATE Airbus. In many posts here you keep repeating that the timeline for an EIS in 2023 is very tight or optimistic and a lot of engineering work has to be done, you keep repeating that you do not think that an EIS as proposed by Airbus is possible. #brokenclock


Well, I do not underestimate Airbus, but I still think the required modification for an entry into service in the first half of 2023 is very tight. They might well do it on time, but the buffer is not so huge. I am saying it is a very tight timeline I never said it is impossible. The amount of engineering work and also the negotiations will with the suppliers would take easily one year. There are a lot of small things that need to studied and analysed..


I get that none of us has a crystal ball.
What I don't get is why you think Airbus don't know the things that you don't know.

Are you an expert on aircraft development?
Are you an expert on the A350-1000?
I'm sure Airbus has lots of both.

Project Sunrise was announced in August 2017
The A350-1000ULR was discussed as being QANTAS preferred offering from Airbus back in June 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQxjoTAwF7U
Airbus are quoted back then as saying "this is an easy development"
QANTAS announced their preferred option was the A350-1000 in December 2019

What do you think had to happen prior to June 2018 in order for Airbus to propose an A350-1000ULR?
What do you think has been happening between June 2018 when QANTAS turned its back on the A350-900ULR, and December 2019, when they downselected the A350-1000?

What governance do you think QANTAS would have to have applied in order to authorise that purchase decision?
What governance do you think Airbus would have to have applied in order to accept this order?
What conversations do you think will have taken place around readiness to deliver the project, and risks to that delivery?

Or do you think Airbus just fired off a pretty powerpoint slide out of the blue in June 2018, and then sat back on their thumbs for 18 months?
And do you think QANTAS took a pretty powerpoint slide, sat back on their thumbs for 18 months, and then suddenly decided, 18 months later, that they liked the powerpoint slide and were going to order?

I'm a big fan of objective analysis. That's how we learn things on A-net (and elsewhere)
I'm not a big fan of kites being flown for what seems little more than self gratification to be honest.
"Lots of Engineering, lots of supply chain issues, and lots of small things to be studied" is just noise without some form of quantification

Rgds
 
VV
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:14 am

Scotron12 wrote:
Im sure Airbus has conveyed to QF what they will do to meet the EIS in 2023, hence the hard date for QF to actually order the frames.


Obviously it is the case, although the execution part can be very different.

Let us take the case of the 787. Obviously the delivery date of the very first aircraft back then was committed and contractually agreed. The execution has been much different and the aircraft has been delayed by several years. So, I am just saying that it is not because you are committed to something that it would happen. I am just saying that in my opinion the timing is very tight, perhaps Airbus will achieve that timeline. If it the case then good for them.

Scotron12 wrote:
Personally, I feel QF have decided PS will go ahead and they are trying to get the pilots on board. Otherwise they will go ahead without them.


They already stated they would go with the A350-1000 order and go-ahead with the Project Sunrise.
But, flying an aircraft without pilot may be a little bit difficult nowadays.
 
VV
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:16 am

astuteman wrote:
...
Are you an expert on aircraft development?
Are you an expert on the A350-1000?
I'm sure Airbus has lots of both.
...


What would you do if the answer to both questions were "yes"?

It is not about me, it is about the possibility that the timing is tight.

As suggested above, let us come back here in July 2023 and then discuss about the situation.
Perhaps you are right.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9292
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:44 am

VV wrote:
RalXWB wrote:
To speak in your own words, I do not think it is productive in this thread to UNDERESTIMATE Airbus. In many posts here you keep repeating that the timeline for an EIS in 2023 is very tight or optimistic and a lot of engineering work has to be done, you keep repeating that you do not think that an EIS as proposed by Airbus is possible. #brokenclock


Well, I do not underestimate Airbus, but I still think the required modification for an entry into service in the first half of 2023 is very tight. They might well do it on time, but the buffer is not so huge.


do you actually know what those changes will entail ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
VV
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:46 am

WIederling wrote:
VV wrote:
RalXWB wrote:
To speak in your own words, I do not think it is productive in this thread to UNDERESTIMATE Airbus. In many posts here you keep repeating that the timeline for an EIS in 2023 is very tight or optimistic and a lot of engineering work has to be done, you keep repeating that you do not think that an EIS as proposed by Airbus is possible. #brokenclock


Well, I do not underestimate Airbus, but I still think the required modification for an entry into service in the first half of 2023 is very tight. They might well do it on time, but the buffer is not so huge.


do you actually know what those changes will entail ?


Do you?

It is not about what I know but about the possibility the timing is tight.

As suggested above, let us come back here in July 2023 and then discuss about the actual situation. Perhaps I am mistaken.
 
moa999
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:49 am

Reading between the lines the pilots seem to be pushing for A380/747 pay, somewhat forgetting that this is a much smaller aircraft and given what's been said about the config, probably not many more seats than QFs 236-seat 787-9. And pilots have historically had pay relative to the size of the aircraft

Indeed it's not that much greater than the 12/162 domestic 737, and probably about the same as the current 27/224 330-200 - all of which I suspect have much lower salaries.

I'd think for most pilots this would be a hugely attractive role.
Base in Syd and Mel.
Probably 4-day duty - flight, 48-hr rest in LHR or JFK, flight, racking up 40 hours of duty time and only a couple of takeoffs and landings (and seemingly none for the cruise only SOs).

So on the usual 900-hr max your probably looking at 20-25 4-day trips plus some reserve days for some.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:55 am

VV wrote:
Are you suggesting the deadline has changed?
Or are you suggesting that the targeted date for SY-LHR direct flights has changed?

I do not understand your comment.


The press release from December 2029 is not the topic of discussion, that topic was discussed to death, thread locked, discussion over.

This topic is about sunrise going ahead with out without current QF pilots.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 9292
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:02 pm

VV wrote:
WIederling wrote:
VV wrote:

Well, I do not underestimate Airbus, but I still think the required modification for an entry into service in the first half of 2023 is very tight. They might well do it on time, but the buffer is not so huge.


do you actually know what those changes will entail ?


Do you?


I don't have to.
you are the one making dear predictions. This, afaics would require some working knowledge of what has to design/production changed. :-)
Other wise it would be so much air spent with unknown intentions.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22991
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:50 pm

VV wrote:
Initially Qantas' management said they would need pilots' agreement as well as the green-light from Australian regulatory body for very long flight duty time. I guess Qantas is now very confident Australian regulatory body will approve the rule change in pilots' work condition for those very long flights.

Maybe QF is telling the regulators those aren't the droids they are looking for.

VV wrote:
I understand those items (pilot agreement & regulatory) have now been removed from the list of conditions to proceed with the A350-1000 firm orders.
Therefore the order has to be firmed by the end of March 2020.
We agree on that.

That's just because QF wants EIS to happen on a given date.

Not all the variables are under their control.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
VV
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:29 pm

Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
Initially Qantas' management said they would need pilots' agreement as well as the green-light from Australian regulatory body for very long flight duty time. I guess Qantas is now very confident Australian regulatory body will approve the rule change in pilots' work condition for those very long flights.

Maybe QF is telling the regulators those aren't the droids they are looking for.


It is very likely the regulator will extend the duty time limit anyway. After all the crew can sleep in the crew rest area.

Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
I understand those items (pilot agreement & regulatory) have now been removed from the list of conditions to proceed with the A350-1000 firm orders.
Therefore the order has to be firmed by the end of March 2020.
We agree on that.

That's just because QF wants EIS to happen on a given date.

Not all the variables are under their control.


I fully agree. Qantas wants the Sydney-London direct flights to start in the first half of 2023 and to "secure the delivery slots" for that targeted date they need to firm the order for the aircraft by the end of March 2020. It was mentioned in their press release of December 2019.
It seems initially the deadline for the order decision was given for the end of February 2020 and then it was extended to end of March 2020.

Yes, not all the variables are under Qantas' control.
In addition, a lot of things can still happen between now and then.
 
miegapele
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:24 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:02 pm

VV wrote:
Well, I do not underestimate Airbus, but I still think the required modification for an entry into service in the first half of 2023 is very tight. They might well do it on time, but the buffer is not so huge.

You think 3 years is tight timeline, while just recently Boeing was promising completely new plane in 5. This is completely minor change compared to doing whole new plane and 3 years is tight?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:08 pm

Revelation wrote:
Maybe QF is telling the regulators those aren't the droids they are looking for.


Pilots are not an impediment to them, their most recent experience with Express Freighters Australia found they could easily entice many expat Australian pilots back. They have been successful employing all their 767, 737, and A321 pilots this way.

QF could probably recruit 400 Australian qualified A350 a pilots flying in the Middle East and Asia in 6 months, and actually reduce the project risk.

Airbus has already done 25-30 different weight variations on the A350 and one fuel modification. Having proven experience on doing this on the A300, A319/320/321, A330, A350, A350 gives them a lot of credibility. They have also been pushing these changes to customers for a while, the A350-1100 has already been in the press.

The aircraft are not a risk, the regulator is not a risk, the crewing is not a risk, and according to UBS it will generate over 100 million to the airline.

“ According to analysts at UBS, the numbers do stack up.

Their analysis, reported in The Financial Review, suggests Project Sunrise could deliver Qantas an additional USD$121 million in pre-tax profit in the 2025 financial year. Qantas wants to start flying the ultra-long-haul flights in 2023.

These numbers should have the champagne corks popping in the Qantas C-suites. But one stumbling block remains; a pay deal with pilots. Qantas has long argued that Project Sunrise will only go ahead if the flights will make money. As it seems they will, that argument falls by the wayside.“

From https://simpleflying.com/qantas-london- ... -approval/
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:13 pm

The A350-1000 MTOW has done 308t->311t->316t->319t.

Airbus is well aware of what needs to be done from both and engineering and regulatory perspective to enable the A350-1000 to make the required weight.

I have yet to see anything that says it won’t be ACTs and so even if something else is more optimal but more challenging to design and certificate then I would still expect ACTs to be part of a mitigation plan to make the dates.

Even using a simple breguet formula it is relatively simple to see what additions would be required for the A350-1000 to make the mission and there is no reason to think that the 323t MTOW spoken about previously will not make the grade. Of course you’d have to be able to do the basic maths of the breguet and some folks have struggled with this before ;-).

I’m sure Zeke could give a very accurate prediction of the weights required for the sunrise mission as I believe he actually flies the jet in question.

It’s such a shame that these threads get hijacked by those wishing to spread FUD. Luckily those folks don’t have any credibility and that’s clear to see for everyone so we all know who to ignore.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:10 pm

I'm guessing the test -1000 that has been doing engine test flights is related to this development.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:12 pm

Slug71 wrote:
I'm guessing the test -1000 that has been doing engine test flights is related to this development.

I know the A380 did flight tests above MTOW, I wonder if the A350 is doing any with this in mind?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:25 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
I'm guessing the test -1000 that has been doing engine test flights is related to this development.

I know the A380 did flight tests above MTOW, I wonder if the A350 is doing any with this in mind?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not sure. But it you go to the A350 production and delivery thread, there is a few posts of the A35K doing engine test flights. Seems the Trent-XWB has had some mods.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:30 pm

Slug71 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
I'm guessing the test -1000 that has been doing engine test flights is related to this development.

I know the A380 did flight tests above MTOW, I wonder if the A350 is doing any with this in mind?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not sure. But it you go to the A350 production and delivery thread, there is a few posts of the A35K doing engine test flights. Seems the Trent-XWB has had some mods.


Copying here,



AECM wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
bspc wrote:

New Rolls Royce Engines.


Is it a higher thrust variant for the 319t A350-1000 perhaps?


According to Twitter the A35K that was in Iqaluit had a different engine inlet in N2.

Image

https://twitter.com/FrankReardon1/status/1225242364924645378/photo/4
 
Scotron12
Topic Author
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:31 pm

Some information regarding the configuration on QFs A350s that will run the PS routes. Interesting they say that QF could end up with a fleet of 30 x A350s as more routes are added.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... m-machine/
 
Ishrion
Posts: 2077
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:34 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
Some information regarding the configuration on QFs A350s that will run the PS routes. Interesting they say that QF could end up with a fleet of 30 x A350s as more routes are added.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... m-machine/


“Following those routes, others such as Los Angeles to Perth non-stop will evolve.”
 
Scotron12
Topic Author
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:35 pm

VV wrote:
astuteman wrote:
...
Are you an expert on aircraft development?
Are you an expert on the A350-1000?
I'm sure Airbus has lots of both.
...


What would you do if the answer to both questions were "yes"?

It is not about me, it is about the possibility that the timing is tight.

As suggested above, let us come back here in July 2023 and then discuss about the situation.
Perhaps you are right.



The following mentions delivery as late 2021...so far short of the 2023 start date.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... m-machine/
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:53 pm

Slug71 wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I know the A380 did flight tests above MTOW, I wonder if the A350 is doing any with this in mind?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not sure. But it you go to the A350 production and delivery thread, there is a few posts of the A35K doing engine test flights. Seems the Trent-XWB has had some mods.


Copying here,



AECM wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:

Is it a higher thrust variant for the 319t A350-1000 perhaps?


According to Twitter the A35K that was in Iqaluit had a different engine inlet in N2.

Image

https://twitter.com/FrankReardon1/status/1225242364924645378/photo/4

That’s very interesting, thank you for posting.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13693
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:53 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
Some information regarding the configuration on QFs A350s that will run the PS routes. Interesting they say that QF could end up with a fleet of 30 x A350s as more routes are added.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... m-machine/


I think it always has been clear the Sunrise selected aircraft would be the base platform for a new bigger long haul type.
A380 Options being cancelled & 744s leaving the fleet, a new TransPac, Intra Asia 300-350 seat aircraft is on the agenda.

It could still become the 777-9, but commonality / track record no doubt plays a role.
And the low risk future option to take a smaller variant in addition.
Pilots would be a real problem, many pilots would like to make the move
Even Zeke might consider to come over, being offered a suitable compensation package :wink2:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Tue Feb 18, 2020 2:25 pm

Slug71 wrote:
According to Twitter the A35K that was in Iqaluit had a different engine inlet in N2.


New increased crosswind limits were published this week for the A350-1000.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
VV
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Wed Feb 19, 2020 6:46 am

Scotron12 wrote:

The following mentions delivery as late 2021...so far short of the 2023 start date.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... m-machine/


What? It has already been pushed back from 2021 to 2023?

That article cannot be right.
 
moa999
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:39 am

It's a horrible article all over

Seems to assume Qantas already has an order
Eg.
"will require more A350s than Qantas has on order."

Reading between the lines, someone in head office fed Geoff more than a few lines about how the A350s would deliver growth, to try and help with the pilot issue.

I am liking the comments on seat pitch however.
 
Scotron12
Topic Author
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:19 am

moa999 wrote:
It's a horrible article all over

Seems to assume Qantas already has an order
Eg.
"will require more A350s than Qantas has on order."

Reading between the lines, someone in head office fed Geoff more than a few lines about how the A350s would deliver growth, to try and help with the pilot issue.

I am liking the comments on seat pitch however.


Maybe so. But the timeline seems to fit. Even if the article is full if holes. Im sure there are many preperations to get done before take off, and for that you need the aircraft you're going to use.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5193
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:57 am

Pure speculation...

Once they decide on Sunrise A350s, gaining experience on the type ahead of that wouldn't hurt. There are five EY A350-1000s (though not in Sunrise configuration) looking for a home.

Just saying...
 
Scotron12
Topic Author
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:53 pm

PM wrote:
Pure speculation...

Once they decide on Sunrise A350s, gaining experience on the type ahead of that wouldn't hurt. There are five EY A350-1000s (though not in Sunrise configuration) looking for a home.

Just saying...


Thought EY were taking them next year?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18522
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Wed Feb 19, 2020 1:00 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
PM wrote:
Pure speculation...

Once they decide on Sunrise A350s, gaining experience on the type ahead of that wouldn't hurt. There are five EY A350-1000s (though not in Sunrise configuration) looking for a home.

Just saying...


Thought EY were taking them next year?


If EY has no intention of operating them, a curious person would wonder why bother painting them in full colours. :confused:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
tealnz
Posts: 630
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Wed Feb 19, 2020 1:37 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
Some information regarding the configuration on QFs A350s that will run the PS routes. Interesting they say that QF could end up with a fleet of 30 x A350s as more routes are added.
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... m-machine/


Yes. Some of us have been pointing out for several years that Joyce's list of potential PS destinations, multiplied by some combination of SYD/MEL/BNE/PER, easily gets you to a fleet of 20+. Perhaps we're getting closer to the point where the sceptics will have to accept that he has a strategy, that it's internally consistent and commercially sound, and that the project will proceed.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5193
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:52 pm

scbriml wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
PM wrote:
Pure speculation...

Once they decide on Sunrise A350s, gaining experience on the type ahead of that wouldn't hurt. There are five EY A350-1000s (though not in Sunrise configuration) looking for a home.

Just saying...


Thought EY were taking them next year?


If EY has no intention of operating them, a curious person would wonder why bother painting them in full colours. :confused:

I'm guessing something contractual. Airbus forced EY to accept delivery and EY forced Airbus to paint them. Just a guess.
 
PepeTheFrog
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:26 pm

VV wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
VV wrote:

Considering the time to develop and to certify the modifications mentioned by Qantas in its press release, it is very likely they need to firm their order during the next six weeks.
They need to do it quickly if they want to start Project Sunrise operation in 2022.

I couldn’t read the press release on my phone but what were the modifications. I had thought as previously mentioned that it was a slight MTOW increase and the addition of 1or 2 acts. Looks like they are having to more now? Very odd
....


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".
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1863
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am

tealnz wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
Some information regarding the configuration on QFs A350s that will run the PS routes. Interesting they say that QF could end up with a fleet of 30 x A350s as more routes are added.
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... m-machine/


Yes. Some of us have been pointing out for several years that Joyce's list of potential PS destinations, multiplied by some combination of SYD/MEL/BNE/PER, easily gets you to a fleet of 20+. Perhaps we're getting closer to the point where the sceptics will have to accept that he has a strategy, that it's internally consistent and commercially sound, and that the project will proceed.
I have never doubted PS could happen. I just thought the histrionics of making it happen were way over the top.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:15 am

Well, some financial analysts are predicting Qantas will take a big hit from the coronavirus.
What surprises me is that they are prepared to take on Sunrise at this time, with the uncertainty ahead

Ruscoe
 
VV
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:02 am

PepeTheFrog wrote:
VV wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I couldn’t read the press release on my phone but what were the modifications. I had thought as previously mentioned that it was a slight MTOW increase and the addition of 1or 2 acts. Looks like they are having to more now? Very odd
....


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?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:24 am

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?

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
Image
 
moa999
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:43 am

Ruscoe wrote:
Well, some financial analysts are predicting Qantas will take a big hit from the coronavirus.
What surprises me is that they are prepared to take on Sunrise at this time, with the uncertainty ahead


Coronavirus is at most a 12-mth issue.
Sunrise is a 20 year call.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:02 am

Ruscoe wrote:
Well, some financial analysts are predicting Qantas will take a big hit from the coronavirus.
What surprises me is that they are prepared to take on Sunrise at this time, with the uncertainty ahead

Ruscoe


You mean you are surprised they are looking at non stop flights that would avoid areas that have the highest concentration of reported cases.

If anything an accelerated introduction is warranted.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
VV
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:16 am

flipdewaf wrote:
VV wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:

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?

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.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:22 am

VV wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
VV wrote:

Are you sure it is enough?

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.

Ah yes, I see what you mean. I thought 319t was already a certificated/offered weight and didn’t actually consider it an increase if I’m honest.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
JonesNL
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:33 am

VV wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
VV wrote:

Are you sure it is enough?

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.
 
VV
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:47 am

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.


"Slight" increase?
Maybe so.

What's about the take off thrust requirements to keep the same runway requirements?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:16 am

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?

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

Not lacking runway length.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image

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