Why would anyone go via PER when there are direct services from MEL and SYD?
12 A351s won't be enough to sustain more than SYD/MEL to NYC and SYD/MEL/PER to LHR, plus one other route.
There have been negative comments about hubbing out of Perth since the idea was first mooted. "No one will go to LHR via Perth when they can go via Asia or the ME". Then it was "DRW will take over from Perth as the hub as it's more direct on route". Then it was "no one will go via Perth to FCO when there's more options via Asia or the ME". Yet the PER-LHR and FCO flights have been some of the high load factors and profitability in the network. CEO AJ was quoted as saying they want to make PER the second biggest hub after SYD if they had the aircraft and better terminal access, so I hardly think QF's commercial people don't know what they are talking about when they say they want more Int flying out of PER.
If Sunrise is a success, QF will look to offer more direct services out of SYD. There is nothing surer. The advantage in the SYD (and MEL) market will be to offer non-stops to Europe. Having a stop in PER means the competitive advantage against airlines such as SQ and EK is lost. A one-stop service is a one-stop service. There is nothing magical about breaking the journey in PER.
Of course, AJ talks about making PER a second hub. He is trying to buy political capital and get the WA Government on his side against PAPL. He wants to use T3/T4 out of PER into Europe until Sunrise comes along and this is trying to pressure the WA Government to help him. The fact is PAPL don't want to spend another cent on T3/4 which they see as being bulldozed as soon as T1 is finished. QF want T3/4 improved but aren't so keen on paying for the improvements.