International long haul business travel won't be back on volume for a long time. It will be a slow climb back too maybe 10% back in 2022, 25% back in 2023, 60% back in 2024 etc etc we are not gonna see as drastic a shift as lesiure will see. I see a much slower return and gradual. Numbers just for show

Sunrise meant free PR headlines during the fat years now it is back to business. Stop and refuel and load up to be more efficient.

Speedy752 wrote:

I wonder if such a non-dense configuration would draw environmental ire? Seems like for a mega flight like that you’d need space but could backfire if normal density cabins with a layover are much more carbon friendly. I’m not sure if UK/AUS business dynamics but I’d expect the 2021 evaluation timeline is about right to see if enough business travel demand really exists to launch this.

Normally, there's a good amount of premium demand from SYD/MEL to LHR, mostly driven by financial services. The HQ's of the 'big 4' Australian banks are evenly split between SYD & MEL, you have the merchant bankers, equities & FX markets in SYD, and the Fintechs, Pension funds & Mining HQ's in MEL. The MEL-PER-LHR flight was doing good business pre-plague. When things do start up again, things will be slow, but there will be some pent-up demand similar to leisure travel, not everything can be done online or on a Zoom call. In the current situation, the corporates will most likely demand direct flights where possible, lest something happen on a transfer in SIN/HKG,BKK, etc. QF might decide to run a hub of sorts in Darwin for Paris & Frankfurt flights if demand warrants.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

International long haul business travel won't be back on volume for a long time. It will be a slow climb back too maybe 10% back in 2022, 25% back in 2023, 60% back in 2024 etc etc we are not gonna see as drastic a shift as lesiure will see. I see a much slower return and gradual. Numbers just for show

Microsoft and others are playing hard to find solutions that will be possible to work from home more and more. No more commuting and jet lag is good for all of us. Less for airlines.

Th e discussion about Project Sunrise starts again here and it is very interesting.

Has Qantas said something new recently?

VV wrote:

Th e discussion about Project Sunrise starts again here and it is very interesting.
Has Qantas said something new recently?

No, not really... I just posed the question if the developments related to the A350F with it's shortened A350-1000 fuselage might have any application to the aircraft Qantas will use for project sunrise... I missed that they had actually selected the A350-1000, ordered it, and then deferred the order... So, I was mistaken in thinking the A350-950F might hold any interest for QF as an extra long range passenger model. I dug this 5 month old thread out of the grave... my bad...

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

VV wrote:

Th e discussion about Project Sunrise starts again here and it is very interesting.
Has Qantas said something new recently?

No, not really... I just posed the question if the developments related to the A350F with it's shortened A350-1000 fuselage might have any application to the aircraft Qantas will use for project sunrise... I missed that they had actually selected the A350-1000, ordered it, and then deferred the order... So, I was mistaken in thinking the A350-950F might hold any interest for QF as an extra long range passenger model. I dug this 5 month old thread out of the grave... my bad...

QF has not ordered the A350 (-1000 or any variant). They selected the aircraft but never officially signed on the dotted line for a firm order, and the pricing and conditions Airbus was offering have long since lapsed (expired back in ~March 2020). Nothing precludes Airbus from offering a pax -950 (-1000 shrink) to QF and QF selecting that instead of initial -1000 choice.

Polot wrote:

QF has not ordered the A350 (-1000 or any variant). They selected the aircraft but never officially signed on the dotted line for a firm order, and the pricing and conditions Airbus was offering have long since lapsed (expired back in ~March 2020). Nothing precludes Airbus from offering a pax -950 (-1000 shrink) to QF and QF selecting that instead of initial -1000 choice.

And nothing stops Boeing from offering a 737MAX10 with fuel tanks in half the cabin either, but just like your baseless speculation above, not going to happen.

What I will be curious about is whether Qantas manage to get a better deal out of Airbus than they were offered before, now that the bottom has fallen out of the industry for the foreseeable future.

ClassicLover wrote:

Polot wrote:

QF has not ordered the A350 (-1000 or any variant). They selected the aircraft but never officially signed on the dotted line for a firm order, and the pricing and conditions Airbus was offering have long since lapsed (expired back in ~March 2020). Nothing precludes Airbus from offering a pax -950 (-1000 shrink) to QF and QF selecting that instead of initial -1000 choice.

And nothing stops Boeing from offering a 737MAX10 with fuel tanks in half the cabin either, but just like your baseless speculation above, not going to happen.

What I will be curious about is whether Qantas manage to get a better deal out of Airbus than they were offered before, now that the bottom has fallen out of the industry for the foreseeable future.

I honestly would expect a worse deal for QF right now. The -1000 was not an off the shelf product, iirc it had some modifications to fit QF’s needs. With the current state of the market, and A350 production roughly half that at time of competition (and the impact of economy of scale to build the thing), I’m not sure Airbus would have as much of an appetite to spend money on a bespoke product for an ultimately small order.

I’m not sure why you are so dismissive of Airbus possible pitching a passenger version of the -950F. It’s not like QF is not going to try and negotiate between Airbus and Boeing again. Going back to Airbus to tell them you are still only interested in the -1000 is…not smart.

Polot wrote:

I honestly would expect a worse deal for QF right now. The -1000 was not an off the shelf product, iirc it had some modifications to fit QF’s needs. With the current state of the market, and A350 production roughly half that at time of competition (and the impact of economy of scale to build the thing), I’m not sure Airbus would have as much of an appetite to spend money on a bespoke product for an ultimately small order.

I’m not sure why you are so dismissive of Airbus possible pitching a passenger version of the -950F. It’s not like QF is not going to try and negotiate between Airbus and Boeing again. Going back to Airbus to tell them you are still only interested in the -1000 is…not smart.

The reason I am dismissive is because there is no evidence that Airbus will do this. This is how a.net speculation gets out of hand, when someone mentions an aircraft that doesn't exist in such a way that others jump on it and then it goes around in circles completely without any basis in fact. If you said, "Airbus have announced they will offer a passenger version..." with a link, then I'd be fine. Otherwise it's just pie in the sky speculation for speculations sake.

FWIW I'm not dismissive of the idea of a A350-950 pax model, a combined A350F + A350-950 might be less risky than just doing the freighter.

However, I feel we can have some pushback on the concept.

Polot wrote:

QF has not ordered the A350 (-1000 or any variant). They selected the aircraft but never officially signed on the dotted line for a firm order, and the pricing and conditions Airbus was offering have long since lapsed (expired back in ~March 2020). Nothing precludes Airbus from offering a pax -950 (-1000 shrink) to QF and QF selecting that instead of initial -1000 choice.

Leeham suggests A350F EIS of 2025, presumably A350-950 would follow that, maybe that stretches the time line out too much?

Polot wrote:

I honestly would expect a worse deal for QF right now. The -1000 was not an off the shelf product, iirc it had some modifications to fit QF’s needs. With the current state of the market, and A350 production roughly half that at time of competition (and the impact of economy of scale to build the thing), I’m not sure Airbus would have as much of an appetite to spend money on a bespoke product for an ultimately small order.

I can see why Team A would want to improve the A350-1000, it's a competitive threat to 779.

Introducing the smaller model may not be seen as such, and it too has a small potential market, not many airlines are interested in routes like SYD-LHR.

It may be enough of a one-off to lose favor with financiers and lessors based on how we see 77L getting shunted to the desert prematurely.

It'll need more of a certification effort than a -1000 variant and cause more churn in the production line and supply chain.

Bottom line is if they are trying to just satisfy QF they've done the legwork to convince themselves and QF that the -1000 does the job and it's the cheaper approach.

If there's more customers that a -950 can snag, it may be worth following up on that, but again the specter of the 77L hangs over it, IMO.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

VV wrote:

Th e discussion about Project Sunrise starts again here and it is very interesting.
Has Qantas said something new recently?

No, not really... I just posed the question if the developments related to the A350F with it's shortened A350-1000 fuselage might have any application to the aircraft Qantas will use for project sunrise... I missed that they had actually selected the A350-1000, ordered it, and then deferred the order... So, I was mistaken in thinking the A350-950F might hold any interest for QF as an extra long range passenger model. I dug this 5 month old thread out of the grave... my bad...

You did nothing wrong.
I think your comment is quite good from timing perspective.

If Qantas is still serious about its Project Sunrise, it is very likely this semester is the right time to decide something. They can decide to proceed with the order for the A350-1000.
They already selected the aircraft for the project. It is now about setting the timing of the expected debut date and then as function of that date they can order the aircraft.

So let's hope Qantas will say something this year.

ClassicLover wrote:

And nothing stops Boeing from offering a 737MAX10 with fuel tanks in half the cabin either, but just like your baseless speculation above, not going to happen.

that was rough....

anyway, with no official order placed, anything can happen.... Project Sunrise: A350-950XLR anyone?

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

International long haul business travel won't be back on volume for a long time. It will be a slow climb back too maybe 10% back in 2022, 25% back in 2023, 60% back in 2024 etc etc we are not gonna see as drastic a shift as lesiure will see. I see a much slower return and gradual. Numbers just for show

All travel will not be back for some time. Business travel will return as countries open up. If you are not traveling, you will be losing business, it is that simple.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

International long haul business travel won't be back on volume for a long time. It will be a slow climb back too maybe 10% back in 2022, 25% back in 2023, 60% back in 2024 etc etc we are not gonna see as drastic a shift as lesiure will see. I see a much slower return and gradual. Numbers just for show

All travel will not be back for some time. Business travel will return as countries open up. If you are not traveling, you will be losing business, it is that simple.

Not that 'simple at all The past year has shown that very little, if any real, business is lost by not travelling. Very little can be achieved which cannot be easily done, and considerably cheaper, by online technology. You seem to be imagining that business travel will suddenly rebound as if nothing had happened.

Vicenza wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

International long haul business travel won't be back on volume for a long time. It will be a slow climb back too maybe 10% back in 2022, 25% back in 2023, 60% back in 2024 etc etc we are not gonna see as drastic a shift as lesiure will see. I see a much slower return and gradual. Numbers just for show

All travel will not be back for some time. Business travel will return as countries open up. If you are not traveling, you will be losing business, it is that simple.

Not that 'simple at all The past year has shown that very little, if any real, business is lost by not travelling. Very little can be achieved which cannot be easily done, and considerably cheaper, by online technology. You seem to be imagining that business travel will suddenly rebound as if nothing had happened.

To both of your credits - it will likely rebound, as a synergy - of what both of you have said.

http://otp.investis.com/clients/us/jetblue_airways/usn/usnews-story.aspx?cid=981&newsid=76563
"In contrast with domestic leisure travel, which has largely recovered, business travel has been relatively slow in coming back. Just 9 percent of companies say they’ve resumed their pre-pandemic travel levels, according to a recent survey by the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants. United Airlines and Delta Air Lines both recently said that business travel remains about 60 percent lower than pre-pandemic levels, despite an increase in recent months. Rising coronavirus cases in recent weeks could delay the recovery of business travel further. But Mr. Calhoun’s plan to reduce his own internal travel echoes the results of the accountants association’s survey, which found that two-thirds of companies were allowing travel for sales or client meetings, with fewer permitting travel for internal purposes or training programs.".

Of note, the Mr. Calhoun referenced and quoted there is introduced above in the article, and as saying:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/31/business/business-travel.html"David Calhoun, chief executive of Boeing, has access to company aircraft as part of his job. Even so, he told an interviewer that he didn’t expect to fly nearly as much for internal company meetings after the pandemic.
“I will do as much or more customer travel, because that’s still the most important way to build relationships,” Mr. Calhoun told the authors. “But most travel when leading big companies is visiting your own teams. I won’t be doing that nearly as much.”".

So - I believe that we will see a rebound in business travel, however with the restriction that said travel be really more 'essential' than it was before, with many employers choosing to reduce as they progress (and for differing reasons/motivations). Backing to the matter at hand, and the related topics - of business travel, the question then becomes - how will airlines, and services change - to capture more customers and/or make profits in this new reality. What are some methods that could be used, services offered, or policies employed - to change the profile of the aircraft, to make it adaptable to current and medium term goals? How much business travel, is needed, for these routes to work? How do they configure the remainder of the cabin, to maximize profitability? What would they then need to ask of Airbus (or to do, add, or remove)?

VV wrote:

So let's hope Qantas will say something this year.

Let’s hope Qantas actually starts flying long haul again this year. I think you can forget about them making any decisions on PS this year.

Polot wrote:

VV wrote:

So let's hope Qantas will say something this year.

Let’s hope Qantas actually starts flying long haul again this year. I think you can forget about them making any decisions on PS this year.

QANTAS is saying they'll return to longhaul October 2021. The government has not agreed and has hinted at 2022. In either case it's going to be awhile.

Polot wrote:

the pricing and conditions Airbus was offering have long since lapsed (expired back in ~March 2020)

Where exactly are you getting that information from....?

Vicenza wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

International long haul business travel won't be back on volume for a long time. It will be a slow climb back too maybe 10% back in 2022, 25% back in 2023, 60% back in 2024 etc etc we are not gonna see as drastic a shift as lesiure will see. I see a much slower return and gradual. Numbers just for show

All travel will not be back for some time. Business travel will return as countries open up. If you are not traveling, you will be losing business, it is that simple.

Not that 'simple at all The past year has shown that very little, if any real, business is lost by not travelling. Very little can be achieved which cannot be easily done, and considerably cheaper, by online technology. You seem to be imagining that business travel will suddenly rebound as if nothing had happened.

Those tools have always been there yet barely used. Companies started using them the moment they did not have an option.

If you are not traveling while your competition is doing extra to try and close business; you will lose business. It is that simple. I also do not know what it is you are comparing when we had lock downs, international trade down to a trickle and whole segments of the economy shut.

jaybird wrote:

Polot wrote:

VV wrote:

So let's hope Qantas will say something this year.

Let’s hope Qantas actually starts flying long haul again this year. I think you can forget about them making any decisions on PS this year.

QANTAS is saying they'll return to longhaul October 2021. The government has not agreed and has hinted at 2022. In either case it's going to be awhile.

There is a snowballs chance in hell of QF flying long haul this year. Half of the east coast of the country is locked down for at least another 4 weeks, Australians are still prohibited from leaving the country unless you get a government exception, are filthy rich or an "A" lister. You can't travel to Australia without quarantining for 14 days at your own expense, if you can actually get a ticket with the reduced numbers being accepted at the moment. October 2022 maybe pessimistic, hopefully local vaccination rates pick up and we can hopefully travel to other countries with high vaccination levels, but realistically that will take to the end of the year for the Australian end of things.

And nothing stops Boeing from offering a 737MAX10 with fuel tanks in half the cabin either, but just like your baseless speculation above, not going to happen.

Really?! Can you go a little easier, please? Speculation, baseless or otherwise gives rise to conversation. I don't remember anywhere in this thread that states that anything said is to be 100% factual. Or else this thread would be half it's length.

It is comments like this that keep me from posting for not wanting to be flamed for my limited in depth knowledge of the industry and topics and where I want to ask a question. Please keep this in mind.

I am posting this more as feedback, and it has taken me nearly all my confidence to post this.

And back to PS. I do not see this happening for some time yet, in my opinion. As for a time frame, late 2020's. It is going to take some time to recover, even if we have a good handle of this pandemic.



VHECA

vheca wrote:

And nothing stops Boeing from offering a 737MAX10 with fuel tanks in half the cabin either, but just like your baseless speculation above, not going to happen.

Really?! Can you go a little easier, please? Speculation, baseless or otherwise gives rise to conversation.

Like, how ridiculous said version of speculation is?

I mean, there's a difference in reasonable guesses versus an full-on left-field fantasy fic..... the post in question here, was definitely more of the latter.

I mean, there's a difference in reasonable guesses versus an full-on left-field fantasy fic..... the post in question here, was definitely more of the latter.

I appreciate that I strayed off topic, and again will do so to respond. So I apologise to the moderators in advance.

But who gets to decide what is reasonable and what is not? You? The original respondent? I am asking for people to accept that some who post on here, and are more than encouraged to do so, do not have the extent of knowledge that others have. So even if they say that dragons will be used in 2025 for PS, perhaps the response should be a little less curt. I mean the forefathers of flight were told that they were being fantastical and unreasonable, but look where aviation is now?

If I am not mistaken, the type of aircraft is being looked at by the manufacturer, and who is to say other than the manufacturer themselves if a pax version is to be modeled from it. Hence speculation from poster. Happy to be corrected here as I do not follow Airbus/Boeing model decisions religiously.

YOU can not say that it WONT happen. You can guess, or act on rumour or office gossip at best.

Just asking for the person to respond a little differently, as per other posters in the thread further below the response, had made.

Nothing precludes Airbus from offering a pax -950 (-1000 shrink) to QF and QF selecting that instead of initial -1000 choice.

As for this quote, the use of the word "Nothing" would be the only issue that I would have, as even the Manufacturer may not make this model, and that would be something to preclude the offer as posted.



VHECA

(I am happy to discuss this further off forum as to not meet the wrath of the moderators....I am sure other posters may also appreciate it).

vheca wrote:

I appreciate that I strayed off topic, and again will do so to respond. So I apologise to the moderators in advance.

But who gets to decide what is reasonable and what is not? You? The original respondent? I am asking for people to accept that some who post on here, and are more than encouraged to do so, do not have the extent of knowledge that others have. So even if they say that dragons will be used in 2025 for PS, perhaps the response should be a little less curt. I mean the forefathers of flight were told that they were being fantastical and unreasonable, but look where aviation is now?

If I am not mistaken, the type of aircraft is being looked at by the manufacturer, and who is to say other than the manufacturer themselves if a pax version is to be modeled from it. Hence speculation from poster. Happy to be corrected here as I do not follow Airbus/Boeing model decisions religiously.

YOU can not say that it WONT happen. You can guess, or act on rumour or office gossip at best.

Just asking for the person to respond a little differently, as per other posters in the thread further below the response, had made.

Yeahhhh, the guy mentioning the 737-10 tanker gave this babble all of the respect that it deserves. Silly me for engaging further.

A question no-one seems to be addressing is what is the lead time on delivery once the order has been placed? If a new version (e.g. a -950) is to be developed it is going to take a while to get it certificated, on top of the build period, so it is probably going to take 4-5 years to get the first example into service. If Qantas don't take the gamble till the pandemic has finally and definitely subsided it could be the next decade before they are in a position to start services. I don't want to start another Covid 19 discussion butr the evidence seems to be that the morbidity of the virus can be well controlled by the current vaccines once a high percentage of the population has been vaccinated, so the two main markets for Project Sunrise of N. America and Europe will probably be returning to normal in the nest 12-18months.

I don't subscribe to the notion that business travel will be replaced by internet conversations by whatever platform. For low level meetings, possibly, but no business sends people on expensive trips around the world for low level meetings, but at higher levels personal interactions are important and far more difficult to maintain remotely - and people are human, for the most part they enjoy their trips!

Vicenza wrote:

Not that 'simple at all The past year has shown that very little, if any real, business is lost by not travelling. Very little can be achieved which cannot be easily done, and considerably cheaper, by online technology. You seem to be imagining that business travel will suddenly rebound as if nothing had happened.

Correct. People here do not seem to see that commerce has not just been standing still all this time. Progress has been slowed, to be sure, but the development of online/telepresence has been incredible in the last 18 months. And not just with capacity, either. It is not an exaggeration to say that it would be the equivalent of going from a 707 to an A380 in a single generation. It is understandable that people think things 'will just go back to normal' at some point. It is a very natural and human assumption that people would want that. And a lot of people made their livings this way. But for better or worse, that gravy train is coming to a halt. The cost savings —no matter how individual traveling employees feel about it— are impossible for most companies and clientele to ignore. Going forward, if it is not essential —and cheap, see below—, it is not happening.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Those tools have always been there yet barely used. Companies started using them the moment they did not have an option.

100% false. The difference in capability, capacity, and speed is not something an outsider would appreciate, I understand.

And this actually brings us to another point along this line. The savings are not solely the province of travel expenses. As well, things are happening faster. As an example, the show I have spent the past six months writing for would have, as recently as four years ago, taken three times that long for the same Bloc. But with everything from Copywrite to Colab happening in real time, we will be delivering ahead of sched. There was a time when being behind was a literal trope. These changes became noticeable about half a decade ago. C19 obviously accelerated this, but rest assured, there will be no going back to the days of couriers and advance teams.
And this is certainly not the only industry to see these leaps.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

If you are not traveling while your competition is doing extra to try and close business; you will lose business. It is that simple. I also do not know what it is you are comparing when we had lock downs, international trade down to a trickle and whole segments of the economy shut.

Nope. The only business you would lose would be that which is too expensive to be of value. Consider. Your client promises they will award you business if you show up. However, I have found a way to make the same result happen for 45% less, altogether. Either I am doing the same gig remotely or have found a way to hire a local. You will lose that customer. They may like you better, but your cost structure which —apart from eating yourself— you have no way out of, becomes their competitive disadvantage.

The world has not been standing still in these times. Even in places where lockdowns are at their most intense, the essentials are still getting done. Which means adaptation has been the rule.

Obviously I am speaking in generalities. But trends are far more important to Project Sunrise than exceptions.

Having all that been said, I do feel prognostications of doom for this are more than a little premature. There are still leisure markets, and blended travel will likely become the norm as well for what little corporate does come back. Hotels will be pushing that one hard, and SYD-LHR/SYD-NYC will still be markets that will support NS flying. If only for a premium.

LAX772LR wrote:

vheca wrote:

And nothing stops Boeing from offering a 737MAX10 with fuel tanks in half the cabin either, but just like your baseless speculation above, not going to happen.

Really?! Can you go a little easier, please? Speculation, baseless or otherwise gives rise to conversation.

Like, how ridiculous said version of speculation is?

I mean, there's a difference in reasonable guesses versus an full-on left-field fantasy fic..... the post in question here, was definitely more of the latter.

Heh... I did see that for the hyperbole it was —though perhaps it could have been made more clear? Anyway, no, a 3M10 would not be able to cover that distance with such a mod. So to answer his point, Physics. That is what would stop BCA from making such a thing.


I agree with other posters here though. Much as a -1000 would be incredible, the idea of a 950 is not far fetched considering how committed AB is to the 35F at this point. I would see a situation entirely analogous to the 77F/L program.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

If you are not traveling while your competition is doing extra to try and close business; you will lose business. It is that simple. I also do not know what it is you are comparing when we had lock downs, international trade down to a trickle and whole segments of the economy shut.

Nope. The only business you would lose would be that which is too expensive to be of value. Consider. Your client promises they will award you business if you show up. However, I have found a way to make the same result happen for 45% less, altogether. Either I am doing the same gig remotely or have found a way to hire a local. You will lose that customer. They may like you better, but your cost structure which —apart from eating yourself— you have no way out of, becomes their competitive disadvantage.

It depends of the size of the business you're trying to close and the share of the travel budget in your cost structure.
Considering in business class these are mostly large corporations I don't see them jeopardizing hundred of millions dollars to save a few hundred of thousands.

It's quite contradictory but with all the data, IT, laws, regulations etc. everything became too complex to take rationale decisions. You can demonstrate everything and the opposite. Too much information kills the information. So my feeling is since a decade or so we see more and more decisions based on people relationships. I have personal evidence of companies losing a lot because they thought showing powerpoint by webex was good enough.

I think the QF ULH business case is in the bin. Too much has changed over the last 18 months, start off with a blank sheet..

The A350-950 major modifications are the (carbon?) cargo door and it's fittings, fuselagesection and cargo floor. Not directly usefull for a -950 passenger version it seems.

If a -1000 version can do the job, why shrink anyway? But the major consideration would be if the Australia - Europe and Australia- US East coast markets are still there post 2024..

I noticed the jetstar 787-8 are in storage, why not convert these into project sunrise as a starter. Sort of use what you got to make it work until the traffic gets back.

keesje wrote:

I think the QF ULH business case is in the bin. Too much has changed over the last 18 months, start off with a blank sheet..

The A350-950 major modifications are the (carbon?) cargo door and it's fittings, fuselagesection and cargo floor. Not directly usefull for a -950 passenger version it seems.

If a -1000 version can do the job, why shrink anyway? But the major consideration would be if the Australia - Europe and Australia- US East coast markets are still there post 2024..

Keesje I think you & a lot of non Australian are VASTLY under estimating the importance Project Sunrise to QF [& possibly to the country], it must go ahead or replaced with something equally as innovative or QF will shrink drastically and will discontinue service west of India or maybe BKK. The whole PS idea is a direct reaction to the incredible competition on the Kangaroo Route & QF will not lightly abandon it.
That is not say there will not be delays & changes & refinements to the plans but the basic idea of bypassing the Asian hubs will remain. IMHO it will most likely basically proceed as planed, delayed of course

Gemuser

randomdude83 wrote:

I noticed the jetstar 787-8 are in storage, why not convert these into project sunrise as a starter. Sort of use what you got to make it work until the traffic gets back.

What do you mean? The boarders of Australia [& NZ] are closed. Everybody requires a "special permit" to cross the Australian boarder [NOT a visa or other standard approvals] & if you are an Australia citizen such permits are rare, if not forget it. At the moment there is no way to use these aircraft outside the country & inside the country QF have plenty of A330 capacity.

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think the QF ULH business case is in the bin. Too much has changed over the last 18 months, start off with a blank sheet..

The A350-950 major modifications are the (carbon?) cargo door and it's fittings, fuselagesection and cargo floor. Not directly usefull for a -950 passenger version it seems.

If a -1000 version can do the job, why shrink anyway? But the major consideration would be if the Australia - Europe and Australia- US East coast markets are still there post 2024..

Keesje I think you & a lot of non Australian are VASTLY under estimating the importance Project Sunrise to QF [& possibly to the country], it must go ahead or replaced with something equally as innovative or QF will shrink drastically and will discontinue service west of India or maybe BKK. The whole PS idea is a direct reaction to the incredible competition on the Kangaroo Route & QF will not lightly abandon it.
That is not say there will not be delays & changes & refinements to the plans but the basic idea of bypassing the Asian hubs will remain. IMHO it will most likely basically proceed as planed, delayed of course

Gemuser

Once premium demand returns, I expect project sunrise to restart. There is just too much connecting competition. QF needs an economical ULH to LHR, JFK, DFW, and probably other European cities.

I am excited for the potential. Perth to LHR showed there is demand. Even for MEL-PER-LHR. Direct flights will be in demand; the question is when will enough premium traffic return?

Lightsaber

randomdude83 wrote:

I noticed the jetstar 787-8 are in storage, why not convert these into project sunrise as a starter..

Range isn't substantially different to the 787-9 which is at their limit on PER-LHR, particularly once you add a heavier proper J/PE config.

Aither wrote:

It depends of the size of the business you're trying to close and the share of the travel budget in your cost structure.
Considering in business class these are mostly large corporations I don't see them jeopardizing hundred of millions dollars to save a few hundred of thousands.

I oversimplified for the purposes of brevity, and as I said, there are always exceptions to generalizations.

I would also not see risking the loss of something a thousand fold more valuable than the savings. But even that makes the assumption that those hundreds of millions are concerned, enough of that is above margin to equal or surpass the hundreds of thousands. And even cases where it still is greater, if it is not greater enough than the opportunity cost of doing something else, it is better to let a competitor burden themselves with it. We are seeing this more and more as a trend now, and this is something that goes even before C19.

But you are right, it does depend on those things.

Aither wrote:

It's quite contradictory but with all the data, IT, laws, regulations etc. everything became too complex to take rationale decisions. You can demonstrate everything and the opposite. Too much information kills the information. So my feeling is since a decade or so we see more and more decisions based on people relationships. I have personal evidence of companies losing a lot because they thought showing powerpoint by webex was good enough.

Sure, but the world is becoming more and more of a Quarter-by-Quarter environment. As these relationships are manned more and more by people more easily replaceable than ever, they become less important. I would actually think this is more important for smaller businesses, if anything. In any case, I do feel that your signature is entirely appropriate for this.

Gemuser wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think the QF ULH business case is in the bin. Too much has changed over the last 18 months, start off with a blank sheet..

The A350-950 major modifications are the (carbon?) cargo door and it's fittings, fuselagesection and cargo floor. Not directly usefull for a -950 passenger version it seems.

If a -1000 version can do the job, why shrink anyway? But the major consideration would be if the Australia - Europe and Australia- US East coast markets are still there post 2024..

Keesje I think you & a lot of non Australian are VASTLY under estimating the importance Project Sunrise to QF [& possibly to the country], it must go ahead or replaced with something equally as innovative or QF will shrink drastically and will discontinue service west of India or maybe BKK. The whole PS idea is a direct reaction to the incredible competition on the Kangaroo Route & QF will not lightly abandon it.
That is not say there will not be delays & changes & refinements to the plans but the basic idea of bypassing the Asian hubs will remain. IMHO it will most likely basically proceed as planed, delayed of course

Gemuser

Right. This is probably one of those routings that will remain strong without regard to whether it is business or leisure travel —especially as leisure is actually coming up in the world. As Aus & NZ open up, I would expect those to play as much a role here. In any case, I have no doubt QF are aware of the importance of this. I floated this several months ago in the NB proposal thread, but I still believe QF may be trying to work a deal with AB to cinch these along with an A32X/220 order. I am not saying that is a certainty, but there is no denying the sense of that.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

100% false. The difference in capability, capacity, and speed is not something an outsider would appreciate, I understand.

And this actually brings us to another point along this line. The savings are not solely the province of travel expenses. As well, things are happening faster. As an example, the show I have spent the past six months writing for would have, as recently as four years ago, taken three times that long for the same Bloc. But with everything from Copywrite to Colab happening in real time, we will be delivering ahead of sched. There was a time when being behind was a literal trope. These changes became noticeable about half a decade ago. C19 obviously accelerated this, but rest assured, there will be no going back to the days of couriers and advance teams.
And this is certainly not the only industry to see these leaps.

Nope. The only business you would lose would be that which is too expensive to be of value. Consider. Your client promises they will award you business if you show up. However, I have found a way to make the same result happen for 45% less, altogether. Either I am doing the same gig remotely or have found a way to hire a local. You will lose that customer. They may like you better, but your cost structure which —apart from eating yourself— you have no way out of, becomes their competitive disadvantage.

The world has not been standing still in these times. Even in places where lockdowns are at their most intense, the essentials are still getting done. Which means adaptation has been the rule.

Obviously I am speaking in generalities. But trends are far more important to Project Sunrise than exceptions.

Having all that been said, I do feel prognostications of doom for this are more than a little premature. There are still leisure markets, and blended travel will likely become the norm as well for what little corporate does come back. Hotels will be pushing that one hard, and SYD-LHR/SYD-NYC will still be markets that will support NS flying. If only for a premium.

I know of a lady who has had an opportunity to lead two different pharmaceutical giant units in my country and she will tell you that she has to travel, host hospital and pharmacy wholesalers, always meet government officials if that is what might get deals done. She could just send that information via mail and talk with them via Webex or Microsoft teams, save money for the company. Guess what, that is penny wise and pound foolish, you are saving several thousand or tens of thousands are missing out on tens of millions. We have similarly done this when we wanted to carry out medical tests for some huge companies, we had to go and meet them, sell our product.

I have worked in banking, still have friends and family that work in banking and it takes money to get money. You go out of your way to try and get companies opening accounts with you or high net worth clients to do the same. Sometimes go out of your way to even offer them financing or have to convince them why they need to pick you ahead of someone else who is also looking to acquire their services. You lose some deals, you gain some but it is something that has to be done because everyone is doing it and the money you save is minuscule compared to what these deals bring in. Like above, you can save money, talk to people on phone/video call and send relevant documents. You will lose business.

Then you have the consumer facing business that may entail things like clothing; try being in this business and you do not deal with factories. You might end up getting goods not of the quality you desired, and the same happens to be the case in things like ceramics, furniture and even in some cases agricultural produce. There are businesses everywhere that involve cultivating relationships, sustaining relationships or just demand you be there on the ground to get goods of desired quality.

You travel because you need to, and because the cost of travel, accommodation and all other related expense is such a small percentage all else considered.

It is cool hearing people talk on here about how business travel is not going to come back, or how businesses have found these new ways of doing things. When push comes to shove, businesses even small ones will have people traveling because this is what gets the best quality results.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

I know of a lady who has had an opportunity to lead two different pharmaceutical giant units in my country and she will tell you that she has to travel, host hospital and pharmacy wholesalers, always meet government officials if that is what might get deals done. She could just send that information via mail and talk with them via Webex or Microsoft teams, save money for the company. Guess what, that is penny wise and pound foolish, you are saving several thousand or tens of thousands are missing out on tens of millions. We have similarly done this when we wanted to carry out medical tests for some huge companies, we had to go and meet them, sell our product.

I have worked in banking, still have friends and family that work in banking and it takes money to get money. You go out of your way to try and get companies opening accounts with you or high net worth clients to do the same. Sometimes go out of your way to even offer them financing or have to convince them why they need to pick you ahead of someone else who is also looking to acquire their services....

That is great, but literally everything you have said makes the assumption that things will go back to the way they were twelve years ago. Not happening. As well, Banks are really not the best example, as every major house on the planet have slashed their travel budgets to single digit percentages of what 2019 was. There will be some rebound, but nothing like what you are hoping for.

I get spending money to make it. Exactly what do you think IT have been doing along those lines? In any case, you are not talking about a few dozen grand to make millions. In most cases, you are talking about hundreds of thousands to make... hundreds of thousands. If the margins are not there, let your competitor spend it.

Recovery —what you will be able to call that, at any rate— will be things like heavy industries requiring onsite engineering/labor and most importantly, the entertainment industry. There will always be a few other things we are not thinking of, but again, trends are more important than what we saw a decade ago. I get that people want handshakes to be a thing, but that reads like trying to sell horse whips in the 1910s. Pay no attention to those faddish cars, right?

Gemuser wrote:

....& a lot of non Australian are VASTLY under estimating the importance Project Sunrise to QF [& possibly to the country], it must go ahead or replaced with something equally as innovative or QF will shrink drastically and will discontinue service west of India or maybe BKK. The whole PS idea is a direct reaction to the incredible competition on the Kangaroo Route & QF will not lightly abandon it.
That is not say there will not be delays & changes & refinements to the plans but the basic idea of bypassing the Asian hubs will remain. IMHO it will most likely basically proceed as planed, delayed of course

Gemuser

How important it is?

Vicenza wrote:

Not that 'simple at all The past year has shown that very little, if any real, business is lost by not travelling. Very little can be achieved which cannot be easily done, and considerably cheaper, by online technology. You seem to be imagining that business travel will suddenly rebound as if nothing had happened.

This argument gets made after every recession and is always proved wrong.

SurlyBonds wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

Not that 'simple at all The past year has shown that very little, if any real, business is lost by not travelling. Very little can be achieved which cannot be easily done, and considerably cheaper, by online technology. You seem to be imagining that business travel will suddenly rebound as if nothing had happened.

This argument gets made after every recession and is always proved wrong.

I agree, mostly. There will be a comeback but somethings will happen differently

Business travel for me comes in 2 categories.
1. Where I have the technical skills and domain specific knowledge that I am required to be on site to convey that knowledge and use the skills to the given circumstances.
2. The building and maintaining of relationships for current and future business.

Neither of those 2 can be solely done via the wonders of technology.

1. The prototype processes and products that don't yet have manuals cannot be usefully manipulated via videocalls
2. I have yet to find a way to have a good heated argument via Microsoft teams, sometimes a good session of emotionally heated debate brings out truths and issues in a way not possible through a screen.

The old adage of the real business happens on the gold course is right (although I don't play golf) the real stuff happens around the dinner table or the hotel bar, you learn what makes them tick and where the genuine breakthroughs will happen.

If you can maintain and build relationships via the technology then surely visiting friends and relatives will also not see a comeback after covid. Its either fine for relationships or it's not....

Maybe we won't see leisure travel rebound, all you need is a pig lamp and some sand to stand on right? Why would people climb Machu Picchu, https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... chu+picchu Pictures right there, as good as going....

The area where I see the reduction in travel and the benefit of tech is the times where there is widely distributed teams (globally) are not longer having to find free days to get together for decision making now only need hours free together so those decisions have actually sped up.

Fred

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

That is great, but literally everything you have said makes the assumption that things will go back to the way they were twelve years ago. Not happening. As well, Banks are really not the best example, as every major house on the planet have slashed their travel budgets to single digit percentages of what 2019 was. There will be some rebound, but nothing like what you are hoping for.

I get spending money to make it. Exactly what do you think IT have been doing along those lines? In any case, you are not talking about a few dozen grand to make millions. In most cases, you are talking about hundreds of thousands to make... hundreds of thousands. If the margins are not there, let your competitor spend it.

Recovery —what you will be able to call that, at any rate— will be things like heavy industries requiring onsite engineering/labor and most importantly, the entertainment industry. There will always be a few other things we are not thinking of, but again, trends are more important than what we saw a decade ago. I get that people want handshakes to be a thing, but that reads like trying to sell horse whips in the 1910s. Pay no attention to those faddish cars, right?

1. Almost everyone who is not super rich has had to adjust their budgets since Covid 19. You will not have as much money in circulation, or velocity of money being where it is until you have countries and economies opening up to a vastly greater degree. Even when economies start opening up, it is likely that you will see individuals trying to save up cash or trying to reduce their accumulated debt levels.

2. Business is about relationships. It is all easy for one to state that if there is an expense that one ought to sometimes let the competition have the business. That is just not that feasible for a lot of people that have loans to pay and employees to think about. You take any opportunity you can get, and often this is a means to grow the business through word of mouth, something we sometimes seem to forget.

3. We have had the fax, email and video conferencing for years. We have had Skype and since 2017, Microsoft Teams. There are things that can get done on some of these platforms and have been there for ages in conjunction with email and Fax. There really isn't that much that is being done today that might not have been in place in 2019. I know of businesses that have the capability and capacity for remote work that simply chose to not do it, some just did not see it as being efficient and they were right.
You then have things like science and tech where it is impossible to get anything done without travel especially in areas concerned with research. You also need travel for seminars which lead to networking opportunities that are needed for these fields to grow. It is extremely near sighted to think that we will move to a world where remote work is the norm........to those that think it to be the case, good luck.

As for me, business travel will recover as worldwide trade and consumption recover.

VV wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

....& a lot of non Australian are VASTLY under estimating the importance Project Sunrise to QF [& possibly to the country], it must go ahead or replaced with something equally as innovative or QF will shrink drastically and will discontinue service west of India or maybe BKK. The whole PS idea is a direct reaction to the incredible competition on the Kangaroo Route & QF will not lightly abandon it.
That is not say there will not be delays & changes & refinements to the plans but the basic idea of bypassing the Asian hubs will remain. IMHO it will most likely basically proceed as planed, delayed of course

How important it is?

This is one of those ones that is difficult to explain to anyone who is not Australian. On the face of it, there is the distance - you need to travel for at least seven hours from where most of the Australian population lives, to go somewhere. Therefore, air travel has always been given an extremely high status by the population. After all, it used to take six weeks by ship to get from Australia to Europe before the planes came along. It's far deeper into the national psyche of the country than in any other country I have experienced.

Part of the evidence is frequent flyer membership - Qantas has something like 13 million members and the population of Australia is 25 million people. Virgin Australia has over 10 million as well. Even counting for foreign membership, it means an extremely high proportion of adults in the country are frequent flyers. Qantas has advertised at the country for years so much so that I would opine that the people of the country wouldn't let it go out of business at this point, as it's seen as a symbol of the nation.

Aviation in Australia is just deeply ingrained in the people and that means the non-stop flights are very important to the country. I remember people here commenting nobody would want to sit on the Perth to London flight for that long in economy class, what a bad idea it was and so on. Not only did it get the highest customer satisfaction scores of any Qantas route, it also had the highest load factors. Alan Joyce has gone on record saying that the pandemic probably means there is even more of a business case for Project Sunrise as people will want to avoid any stopovers to avoid the potential to get the virus.

Either way, I would be very very surprised if it doesn't happen, because the market wants it. You have to remember Australia is an extremely rich country and Qantas charges a premium on their airfares well above other places in the world, and Australians happily pay it. That's what makes the economics work for Qantas that may not work for any other airline.

keesje wrote:

If a -1000 version can do the job, why shrink anyway?

I thought it was decided the 1000 could do the job only once the pax capacity requirements were loosened. A 950 pax plane would loose some weight compared to a 1000, which might in turn allow for a few more pax. (1000 is not capacity limited.... but range limited). If we loose some airplane structure weight, can we use that offset to allow for a few more pax (a 950 would not be capacity limited either) ?

All of that said... the question of whether or not the PS mission is even relevant post Covid... my answer is certainly not now.... but perhaps it can be tabled... allowing time for a lower casm 950 solution (lower casm because it should be able to carry more pax as it's OEW will be less but should still maintain the same MTOW.. therefore not sacrificing range while taking advantage of the increased revenue potential)..

VV wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

....& a lot of non Australian are VASTLY under estimating the importance Project Sunrise to QF [& possibly to the country], it must go ahead or replaced with something equally as innovative or QF will shrink drastically and will discontinue service west of India or maybe BKK. The whole PS idea is a direct reaction to the incredible competition on the Kangaroo Route & QF will not lightly abandon it.
That is not say there will not be delays & changes & refinements to the plans but the basic idea of bypassing the Asian hubs will remain. IMHO it will most likely basically proceed as planed, delayed of course

Gemuser

How important it is?

See reply 393 by ClassicLover, that post pretty much hits it on the head.

Gemuse

LTEN11 wrote:

There is a snowballs chance in hell of QF flying long haul this year. Half of the east coast of the country is locked down for at least another 4 weeks, Australians are still prohibited from leaving the country unless you get a government exception, are filthy rich or an "A" lister. You can't travel to Australia without quarantining for 14 days at your own expense, if you can actually get a ticket with the reduced numbers being accepted at the moment. October 2022 maybe pessimistic, hopefully local vaccination rates pick up and we can hopefully travel to other countries with high vaccination levels, but realistically that will take to the end of the year for the Australian end of things.

Just a clarification, only Australian citizens and permanent residents can travel into Australia (even with the 14 day state government operated quarantine). Foreigners cannot travel without special permission (not speaking visas, but an explicit exemption). These exemptions are few and far between. The current arrival caps are 3000 passengers a week, down from 6000 a few months back.

In terms of when we might realistically see some return to normal, it's safe to say not anytime soon. The government released a plan last week. Increasing the cap back to 6000 will occur once 70% of the adult population is fully vaccinated (currently disappointingly only 20% - Australian government has really screwed up) and possibly some alternative plans quarantine arrangements for vaccinated Australians returning.

Only likely removing quarantine, caps and opening travel for Australians at 80%, and even then only open for limited foreigners in student, economic, and humanitarian visa categories, still with caps. Likely extension of the NZ travel bubble to some other low risk regional countries (e.g. Singapore).

I can't see a broad opening up even in 2022, so never mind a return to normal, so don't expect anything on PS for a long time still.

moa999 wrote:

randomdude83 wrote:

I noticed the jetstar 787-8 are in storage, why not convert these into project sunrise as a starter..

Range isn't substantially different to the 787-9 which is at their limit on PER-LHR, particularly once you add a heavier proper J/PE config.

By "isn't substantially different," you mean "significantly less."

788 isn't getting you anywhere near PER-LHR, unless you're flying it borderline empty.

LAX772LR wrote:

moa999 wrote:

randomdude83 wrote:

I noticed the jetstar 787-8 are in storage, why not convert these into project sunrise as a starter..

Range isn't substantially different to the 787-9 which is at their limit on PER-LHR, particularly once you add a heavier proper J/PE config.

By "isn't substantially different," you mean "significantly less."

788 isn't getting you anywhere near PER-LHR, unless you're flying it borderline empty.

Not only that but with less capacity - would be very hard to make it profitable with even fewer seats. The -9 holds 240 ish so a -8 would be closer to 200.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

That is great, but literally everything you have said makes the assumption that things will go back to the way they were twelve years ago. Not happening. As well, Banks are really not the best example, as every major house on the planet have slashed their travel budgets to single digit percentages of what 2019 was. There will be some rebound, but nothing like what you are hoping for.

I get spending money to make it. Exactly what do you think IT have been doing along those lines? In any case, you are not talking about a few dozen grand to make millions. In most cases, you are talking about hundreds of thousands to make... hundreds of thousands. If the margins are not there, let your competitor spend it.

Recovery —what you will be able to call that, at any rate— will be things like heavy industries requiring onsite engineering/labor and most importantly, the entertainment industry. There will always be a few other things we are not thinking of, but again, trends are more important than what we saw a decade ago. I get that people want handshakes to be a thing, but that reads like trying to sell horse whips in the 1910s. Pay no attention to those faddish cars, right?

1. Almost everyone who is not super rich has had to adjust their budgets since Covid 19. You will not have as much money in circulation, or velocity of money being where it is until you have countries and economies opening up to a vastly greater degree. Even when economies start opening up, it is likely that you will see individuals trying to save up cash or trying to reduce their accumulated debt levels.

2. Business is about relationships. It is all easy for one to state that if there is an expense that one ought to sometimes let the competition have the business. That is just not that feasible for a lot of people that have loans to pay and employees to think about. You take any opportunity you can get, and often this is a means to grow the business through word of mouth, something we sometimes seem to forget.

3. We have had the fax, email and video conferencing for years. We have had Skype and since 2017, Microsoft Teams. There are things that can get done on some of these platforms and have been there for ages in conjunction with email and Fax. There really isn't that much that is being done today that might not have been in place in 2019. I know of businesses that have the capability and capacity for remote work that simply chose to not do it, some just did not see it as being efficient and they were right.
You then have things like science and tech where it is impossible to get anything done without travel especially in areas concerned with research. You also need travel for seminars which lead to networking opportunities that are needed for these fields to grow. It is extremely near sighted to think that we will move to a world where remote work is the norm........to those that think it to be the case, good luck.

As for me, business travel will recover as worldwide trade and consumption recover.

This guy rightly understands that Teams/Zoom/Webex is only 'good enough' for covid-times, given the circumstances, and that those apps are not one-for-one replacements for most important face-to-face meetings. Anyone who believes otherwise is merely hoping and praying they need not face their social anxiety ever again.

These apps are still a far ways off from holding a candle to being there in person and interacting with people in the flesh. There are so many intangibles lost in online only team work that cannot be recovered via digital means (at this time). A lot of company cultures are slowly dying as a result due to the lack of organic, impromptu conversations that would otherwise occur in many office settings. These are the types of interactions that would simply never warrant a prescribed call to a person. Think: just bumping into someone and chatting, lunch/coffee talk, and overhearing conversation (and adding yourself to it, or not!).

I don't care if your're too anti-social to understand what I mean, but to most office workers and business folk, the personal touch is still everything and that will remain a key differentiator. Who's going to get the business? The person you see in the flesh and spend time with and get to know or the 5 faces you saw on your computer for brief period of time?

Business travel will return in a big way in due course, because it will remain the great differentiator.

SuperTwin wrote:

The person you see in the flesh and spend time with and get to know or the 5 faces you saw on your computer for brief period of time?

Business travel will return in a big way in due course, because it will remain the great differentiator.

The thing you're missing is that the people who are meeting these salesmen, are also not wanting to travel to the office to meet the sales guy, they'll turn up to the office and be met by a few biz-dev minions and shown into the conference room to meet a load of folk on a video call from their homes, the sales trip doesn't produce an in person experience with the decision makers. Those senior folk will go to the office occasionally to meet their peers, but they won't be wasting their little time meeting sales folk. This is what was happening pre-pandemic in our heavily remote business, it's only the junior folk you'd get the in office reliably (as they didn't have as nice a home working environment), I think that is likely to be what happens in more companies now.

JibberJim wrote:

SuperTwin wrote:

The person you see in the flesh and spend time with and get to know or the 5 faces you saw on your computer for brief period of time?

Business travel will return in a big way in due course, because it will remain the great differentiator.

The thing you're missing is that the people who are meeting these salesmen, are also not wanting to travel to the office to meet the sales guy, they'll turn up to the office and be met by a few biz-dev minions and shown into the conference room to meet a load of folk on a video call from their homes, the sales trip doesn't produce an in person experience with the decision makers. Those senior folk will go to the office occasionally to meet their peers, but they won't be wasting their little time meeting sales folk. This is what was happening pre-pandemic in our heavily remote business, it's only the junior folk you'd get the in office reliably (as they didn't have as nice a home working environment), I think that is likely to be what happens in more companies now.

I think what is important is to differentiate the different reasons for business travel and what will come back and what not.

No one disputes that important business travel will not come back. The head of sales meeting an important prospect to close a deal will still happen. What is not gonna happen is all the follow up travels of the minions to chew through all the paperwork.

The same happens with our business. When we meet the C-levels for important consulting we go in person. But we do not meet the regional managers any more, that is done remote to safe us and the client time and money.

This reduces our travel by about 70% though.