Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AusFlyer93
Topic Author
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:14 pm

Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:24 am

Which destinations (other than London and New York) do you think are actually feasible under QF's Project Sunrise?
 
asr0dzjq
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:36 am

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:33 am

ORD, MSP, DTW, and JFK

QF should do flights from BNE, SYD, MEL, and PER to CDG, AMS, FRA, and MUC
R.I.P. Douglas Aircraft Company
Born 22 July 1921 | Died 23 May 2006
You will be missed, but your management will not.
 
melpax
Posts: 2070
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:13 am

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:43 pm

MEL-ORD & MEL-MUC would both have a fair bit of demand

Ford & GM traffic headed to DTW can be routed through ORD, and you also have the banking/finance traffic.

A good number of German businesses have their Australian HQ's in Melbourne, Benz, BMW, Bosch & Siemens among others. Allianz also has a decent MEL presence.
Essendon - Whatever it takes......
 
flightuk
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:08 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:31 am

Sunrise is a great idea, direct flights, what better?. However, it will fail and fail badly. I say badly because it is going to be a very costly exercise for Qantas. After 12 months or so people will just stop booking those ultra long haul flights. Early feedback from the passengers is not good. Business travellers will get too fatigued and holidaymakers will want their Dubai/Singapore stopover.
 
upperdeckfan
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:59 am

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:42 pm

flightuk wrote:
Sunrise is a great idea, direct flights, what better?. However, it will fail and fail badly. I say badly because it is going to be a very costly exercise for Qantas. After 12 months or so people will just stop booking those ultra long haul flights. Early feedback from the passengers is not good. Business travellers will get too fatigued and holidaymakers will want their Dubai/Singapore stopover.


Fully agree, besides QF it is also a very costly exercise by Airbus and Boeing investing to develop it.

Several colleagues in the company I work for fly LHR-PER in J twice or thrice a year, only few of them have tried the QF non-stop and most of them are not doing it anymore. They claim it's not worthy just to save 4 or 5hrs of total flying time as they have multiple options through DOH, SIN or BKK with 2-3 hrs stopovers.
748,744,742,741,772,773,762,763,
764, 789, 732,733,735,737,738,739,
752, 722, 717,74M,DC10,DC9,M82,
M83, M87, M88,310,319,320,321,332,
333, 343, 346,359,388,L1011,CR2,
CR7, CR9,CRK, E175,E190,ATR42,
DSH8, CS1,CS3
 
melpax
Posts: 2070
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:13 am

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:07 am

I'd say that you'd see JFK & ORD Sunrise flights before any to Europe/UK, given that this would eliminate the hated LAX transfer, much quicker & easier to clear CPB at the final destination with no TSA ordeal.

Though the NZ flights to ORD & planned New York flights will be the next best thing with a quick no fuss transfer in AKL, Can see these flights becoming popular with time-sensitive business pax.
Essendon - Whatever it takes......
 
User avatar
csturdiv
Posts: 1994
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:33 am

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:30 am

melpax wrote:
I'd say that you'd see JFK & ORD Sunrise flights before any to Europe/UK, given that this would eliminate the hated LAX transfer, much quicker & easier to clear CPB at the final destination with no TSA ordeal.

Though the NZ flights to ORD & planned New York flights will be the next best thing with a quick no fuss transfer in AKL, Can see these flights becoming popular with time-sensitive business pax.


I've already eliminated LAX by going into DFW. Unfortunately my final destinations would never be on the radar for QF but DFW is so much better than LAX.
An American expat from the ORD area living and working in SYD
 
Kent350787
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:58 am

The upcoming JL switch to Haneda eliminates a couple of well timed one stoppers to the US east coast which also avoided LAX. I agree that US east coast should be the priority. I'm still to be convinced of any feasible European market apart from LHR.
S340/J31/146-300/F27/F50/Nord 262/Q100/200/E195/733/734/738/744/762/763/77W/788/789/320/321/332/333/345/359
 
Max Q
Posts: 8559
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:15 am

flightuk wrote:
Sunrise is a great idea, direct flights, what better?. However, it will fail and fail badly. I say badly because it is going to be a very costly exercise for Qantas. After 12 months or so people will just stop booking those ultra long haul flights. Early feedback from the passengers is not good. Business travellers will get too fatigued and holidaymakers will want their Dubai/Singapore stopover.



The same narrative was used when airlines started flying non stop transcons, across the Atlantic without stopping in Gander and Shannon, then it was too far to cross the Pacific unless you paused in HNL, ANC, TYO etc



Reality is, people adjust, theres a lot of whining about how long these flights are but
the convenience of not having to stop with all the associated hassles and the time savings of a non stop will always appeal to a large cross section of passengers



And those that want to stop will always have many options to do so
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
hinckley
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:48 pm

flightuk wrote:
Sunrise is a great idea, direct flights, what better?. However, it will fail and fail badly. I say badly because it is going to be a very costly exercise for Qantas. After 12 months or so people will just stop booking those ultra long haul flights. Early feedback from the passengers is not good. Business travellers will get too fatigued and holidaymakers will want their Dubai/Singapore stopover.

There is zero data to support these statements. Sunrise may in fact fail, but we can't tell one way or the other at this point. In general, one of the macro trends in commercial aviation is for more point-to-point flights (see A380 v 787). The flying public - especially business travelers - absolutely seem to prefer to avoid connections. OTOH, ULH flights are notoriously difficult for airlines due to the high cost of operations (tanking, additional crew, etc.). So although your conclusion may prove correct, your rational is, well, irrational.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Thu Dec 19, 2019 7:27 am

Anyone thinking that av geeks are techie types favouring evidence-based assessment is going to be let down, badly, by a.net. There’s extraordinary reluctance to accept that new-generation aircraft can do much longer sectors than the 744 generation. And complete refusal to accept that passengers will pay a premium for non-stop point to point services, even over 15+ plus sectors.

Meanwhile in the real world... there are lots of possibilities for the Sunrise fleet. Apart from LHR and JFK there is ORD. DFW has to be included – DFW-SYD is a ULH sector by most criteria. MIA has been mentioned. YYZ longer term? Not hard to imagine the A35K being used on SFO, LAX, YVR where something between A380 and 789 is optimum capacity (particularly if there’s serious freight demand). Joyce has mentioned major Asian destinations - presumably the ones that have high premium demand, so HND/NRT, HKG, SIN? And now CDG and FRA have been mentioned as potential European destinations in addition to LHR. Take your pick. From some combo of SYD, MEL, BNE and PER. It’s not hard to come up with enough sectors to require a fleet of a couple of dozen.
 
flightuk
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:08 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Mon Apr 13, 2020 5:22 pm

hinckley wrote:
flightuk wrote:
Sunrise is a great idea, direct flights, what better?. However, it will fail and fail badly. I say badly because it is going to be a very costly exercise for Qantas. After 12 months or so people will just stop booking those ultra long haul flights. Early feedback from the passengers is not good. Business travellers will get too fatigued and holidaymakers will want their Dubai/Singapore stopover.

There is zero data to support these statements. Sunrise may in fact fail, but we can't tell one way or the other at this point. In general, one of the macro trends in commercial aviation is for more point-to-point flights (see A380 v 787). The flying public - especially business travelers - absolutely seem to prefer to avoid connections. OTOH, ULH flights are notoriously difficult for airlines due to the high cost of operations (tanking, additional crew, etc.). So although your conclusion may prove correct, your rational is, well, irrational.



Point to Point may be a trend amongst business travellers, but not 16 - 18 hour legs, its just to much
 
flightuk
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:08 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Mon Apr 13, 2020 5:27 pm

Max Q wrote:
flightuk wrote:
Sunrise is a great idea, direct flights, what better?. However, it will fail and fail badly. I say badly because it is going to be a very costly exercise for Qantas. After 12 months or so people will just stop booking those ultra long haul flights. Early feedback from the passengers is not good. Business travellers will get too fatigued and holidaymakers will want their Dubai/Singapore stopover.



The same narrative was used when airlines started flying non stop transcons, across the Atlantic without stopping in Gander and Shannon, then it was too far to cross the Pacific unless you paused in HNL, ANC, TYO etc



Reality is, people adjust, theres a lot of whining about how long these flights are but
the convenience of not having to stop with all the associated hassles and the time savings of a non stop will always appeal to a large cross section of passengers



And those that want to stop will always have many options to do so


An eight-hour flight is not comparable to an 18-hour flight, its not the same argument at all.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1791
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:20 pm

flightuk wrote:
hinckley wrote:
flightuk wrote:
Sunrise is a great idea, direct flights, what better?. However, it will fail and fail badly. I say badly because it is going to be a very costly exercise for Qantas. After 12 months or so people will just stop booking those ultra long haul flights. Early feedback from the passengers is not good. Business travellers will get too fatigued and holidaymakers will want their Dubai/Singapore stopover.

There is zero data to support these statements. Sunrise may in fact fail, but we can't tell one way or the other at this point. In general, one of the macro trends in commercial aviation is for more point-to-point flights (see A380 v 787). The flying public - especially business travelers - absolutely seem to prefer to avoid connections. OTOH, ULH flights are notoriously difficult for airlines due to the high cost of operations (tanking, additional crew, etc.). So although your conclusion may prove correct, your rational is, well, irrational.



Point to Point may be a trend amongst business travellers, but not 16 - 18 hour legs, its just to much


You don’t know that at all. In fact, it would likely be very popular for Economy passengers as well. People love nonstops.
Whatever
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3641
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:09 pm

I honestly can only see JFK and LHR being Project Sunrise flights. QF has already announced ORD from BNE on a B789. However, the A35Ks would need Wi-Fi and AC outlets (USB in economy) to be competitive with a one-stop via AKL (for the flight to New York). However, I could see SYD-LAX being flown with a Project Sunrise frame as well, as well as SYD-DFW, as I don't believe these A380s will be flown to full end of life.

SYD-JFK: 3 frames for daily service
SYD-LHR: 3 frames for daily service (that's 9200 nmi)
SYD-DFW: 2 frames (or down-gauge to B789 and daily service)
SYD-LAX: 2 frames
MEL-LAX: 2 frames

I easily see 12-15 frames being needed (depending on if DFW goes down to a B789), with the long haul fleet being exclusively B789 and A35K, with A332/A333 frames being regional haul below 9 hours. (DFW could be re-timed to require just 2 frames.) Would the A35K have first class?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7536
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Tue Apr 14, 2020 5:16 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
I honestly can only see JFK and LHR being Project Sunrise flights. QF has already announced ORD from BNE on a B789. However, the A35Ks would need Wi-Fi and AC outlets (USB in economy) to be competitive with a one-stop via AKL (for the flight to New York). However, I could see SYD-LAX being flown with a Project Sunrise frame as well, as well as SYD-DFW, as I don't believe these A380s will be flown to full end of life.

SYD-JFK: 3 frames for daily service
SYD-LHR: 3 frames for daily service (that's 9200 nmi)
SYD-DFW: 2 frames (or down-gauge to B789 and daily service)
SYD-LAX: 2 frames
MEL-LAX: 2 frames

I easily see 12-15 frames being needed (depending on if DFW goes down to a B789), with the long haul fleet being exclusively B789 and A35K, with A332/A333 frames being regional haul below 9 hours. (DFW could be re-timed to require just 2 frames.) Would the A35K have first class?


QF have said the A351 will be 4 class.

I could see FRA and CDG possibly those from PER?

Initially I agree probably LHR/JFK and maybe MEL-DFW which is probably a bit long for a 789, ORD is from BNE as the 789 can do that, SYD is just that b it to far for a 789, I would see 12 A351 initially for

SYD-LHR
MEL-LHR
SYD-JFK
SYD-ORD
SYD-DFW
MEL-DFW

Then likely down the track that the A380s get replaced by A351s. So they appear on A380 routes SYD/MEL-LAX and they also said having flexibility to use them into Asia where required so maybe HKG/HND. They would possibly still after the A380s a SIN-LHR while PER-LHR could use an A351 as well to give LHR the same type on all services.
 
flightuk
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:08 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:27 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
flightuk wrote:
hinckley wrote:
There is zero data to support these statements. Sunrise may in fact fail, but we can't tell one way or the other at this point. In general, one of the macro trends in commercial aviation is for more point-to-point flights (see A380 v 787). The flying public - especially business travelers - absolutely seem to prefer to avoid connections. OTOH, ULH flights are notoriously difficult for airlines due to the high cost of operations (tanking, additional crew, etc.). So although your conclusion may prove correct, your rational is, well, irrational.



Point to Point may be a trend amongst business travellers, but not 16 - 18 hour legs, its just to much


You don’t know that at all. In fact, it would likely be very popular for Economy passengers as well. People love nonstops.


People like non stops, but 18 hour non stops moves you into another territory altogether. Polls so far have shown extreme length non-stop flights to be popular with a very small demographic 21 -28-year-olds. Outside of this demographic, the popularity of these extremely long flights wains considerably.
 
hinckley
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Tue Apr 14, 2020 5:20 pm

flightuk wrote:
People like non stops, but 18 hour non stops moves you into another territory altogether. Polls so far have shown extreme length non-stop flights to be popular with a very small demographic 21 -28-year-olds. Outside of this demographic, the popularity of these extremely long flights wains considerably.

Could you please show us your data? Really, any data at all to back-up your comments, because from my perspective, you've got it upside-down. It's older business people who'll make ULH successful, not younger, casual travelers.

As I said in my earlier post, ULH flights are inherently difficult to make work financially due to tanking and staffing issues. They are almost always more costly to operate and that will likely mean higher fares. Higher fares = business travelers. I'm one of those guys. I'm 61, regularly fly ULH and always choose non-stops if available. East coast US to South Asia travel - as an example - is brutal. It's made slightly less so by getting to my destination as quickly as possible. I have no need for a two to three hour layover after traveling for 10 hours, just to begin a second 10 hour journey. I don't know any business person who feels otherwise. I may think very differently if I was sitting in the back of the plane, but thankfully business class was made for people like me and for flights like these.

Again I'll say it - whether there are enough business people to cover the inherent extra cost of ULH is a question that has yet to be answered. But I assure you, people like me - old business people - are hoping airlines can figure out how to make them work.
 
flightuk
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:08 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Tue Apr 14, 2020 8:21 pm

hinckley wrote:
flightuk wrote:
People like non stops, but 18 hour non stops moves you into another territory altogether. Polls so far have shown extreme length non-stop flights to be popular with a very small demographic 21 -28-year-olds. Outside of this demographic, the popularity of these extremely long flights wains considerably.

Could you please show us your data? Really, any data at all to back-up your comments, because from my perspective, you've got it upside-down. It's older business people who'll make ULH successful, not younger, casual travelers.

As I said in my earlier post, ULH flights are inherently difficult to make work financially due to tanking and staffing issues. They are almost always more costly to operate and that will likely mean higher fares. Higher fares = business travelers. I'm one of those guys. I'm 61, regularly fly ULH and always choose non-stops if available. East coast US to South Asia travel - as an example - is brutal. It's made slightly less so by getting to my destination as quickly as possible. I have no need for a two to three hour layover after traveling for 10 hours, just to begin a second 10 hour journey. I don't know any business person who feels otherwise. I may think very differently if I was sitting in the back of the plane, but thankfully business class was made for people like me and for flights like these.

Again I'll say it - whether there are enough business people to cover the inherent extra cost of ULH is a question that has yet to be answered. But I assure you, people like me - old business people - are hoping airlines can figure out how to make them work.


The study was conducted by Dr P.L Lewis of the Stripforth Aviation College. There is no link to the report on the internet as it has not been published for general release as yet. The report was presented at the Aviation Show MEASA held on the 14 - 15th October 2019 in Dubai. You really must do your homework!!
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1791
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:44 pm

flightuk wrote:
hinckley wrote:
flightuk wrote:
People like non stops, but 18 hour non stops moves you into another territory altogether. Polls so far have shown extreme length non-stop flights to be popular with a very small demographic 21 -28-year-olds. Outside of this demographic, the popularity of these extremely long flights wains considerably.

Could you please show us your data? Really, any data at all to back-up your comments, because from my perspective, you've got it upside-down. It's older business people who'll make ULH successful, not younger, casual travelers.

As I said in my earlier post, ULH flights are inherently difficult to make work financially due to tanking and staffing issues. They are almost always more costly to operate and that will likely mean higher fares. Higher fares = business travelers. I'm one of those guys. I'm 61, regularly fly ULH and always choose non-stops if available. East coast US to South Asia travel - as an example - is brutal. It's made slightly less so by getting to my destination as quickly as possible. I have no need for a two to three hour layover after traveling for 10 hours, just to begin a second 10 hour journey. I don't know any business person who feels otherwise. I may think very differently if I was sitting in the back of the plane, but thankfully business class was made for people like me and for flights like these.

Again I'll say it - whether there are enough business people to cover the inherent extra cost of ULH is a question that has yet to be answered. But I assure you, people like me - old business people - are hoping airlines can figure out how to make them work.


The study was conducted by Dr P.L Lewis of the Stripforth Aviation College. There is no link to the report on the internet as it has not been published for general release as yet. The report was presented at the Aviation Show MEASA held on the 14 - 15th October 2019 in Dubai. You really must do your homework!!



Well, Qantas begs to differ from you. Their PER-LHR flight, DFW-SYD flights are very successful.

Other airlines have very long 16-18 hour flights that do well too.

Everyone I know will pay a premium to go nonstop and being nonstop plays a big role in whether or not they will take the trip at all.

They are expensive to run, but the flights will not fail due to lack of people willing to fly the route. It will come down to cost - that simple. Unfortunately, your thoughts on this aren’t accurate and are quite flawed from reality.

We recently flew 16:10 in economy. At that point, there was no difference in 16 or 18 hours.
Whatever
 
flightuk
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:08 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Tue Apr 14, 2020 10:21 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
flightuk wrote:
hinckley wrote:
Could you please show us your data? Really, any data at all to back-up your comments, because from my perspective, you've got it upside-down. It's older business people who'll make ULH successful, not younger, casual travelers.

As I said in my earlier post, ULH flights are inherently difficult to make work financially due to tanking and staffing issues. They are almost always more costly to operate and that will likely mean higher fares. Higher fares = business travelers. I'm one of those guys. I'm 61, regularly fly ULH and always choose non-stops if available. East coast US to South Asia travel - as an example - is brutal. It's made slightly less so by getting to my destination as quickly as possible. I have no need for a two to three hour layover after traveling for 10 hours, just to begin a second 10 hour journey. I don't know any business person who feels otherwise. I may think very differently if I was sitting in the back of the plane, but thankfully business class was made for people like me and for flights like these.

Again I'll say it - whether there are enough business people to cover the inherent extra cost of ULH is a question that has yet to be answered. But I assure you, people like me - old business people - are hoping airlines can figure out how to make them work.


The study was conducted by Dr P.L Lewis of the Stripforth Aviation College. There is no link to the report on the internet as it has not been published for general release as yet. The report was presented at the Aviation Show MEASA held on the 14 - 15th October 2019 in Dubai. You really must do your homework!!



Well, Qantas begs to differ from you. Their PER-LHR flight, DFW-SYD flights are very successful.

Other airlines have very long 16-18 hour flights that do well too.

Everyone I know will pay a premium to go nonstop and being nonstop plays a big role in whether or not they will take the trip at all.

They are expensive to run, but the flights will not fail due to lack of people willing to fly the route. It will come down to cost - that simple. Unfortunately, your thoughts on this aren’t accurate and are quite flawed from reality.

We recently flew 16:10 in economy. At that point, there was no difference in 16 or 18 hours.


Only time will tell, study or no study. Anyway, let's just hope things return to some sort of normality without too much damage being done to the major carriers. The current situation makes Sunrise seem like a nice problem to have!!
 
hinckley
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Tue Apr 14, 2020 11:14 pm

flightuk wrote:
The study was conducted by Dr P.L Lewis of the Stripforth Aviation College. There is no link to the report on the internet as it has not been published for general release as yet. The report was presented at the Aviation Show MEASA held on the 14 - 15th October 2019 in Dubai. You really must do your homework!!

Lol. Of course. The double secret poll that was not published. Dah. How about a link to Stripforth Aviation College's faculty? Wait! Just a link to Stripforth Aviation College will do! :lol:
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5092
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Wed Apr 15, 2020 3:40 am

flightuk wrote:
Sunrise is a great idea, direct flights, what better?. However, it will fail and fail badly. I say badly because it is going to be a very costly exercise for Qantas. After 12 months or so people will just stop booking those ultra long haul flights. Early feedback from the passengers is not good. Business travellers will get too fatigued and holidaymakers will want their Dubai/Singapore stopover.

Evidance that "early feedback is not good"? From what I hear {accodantolly only] from business types that it is great.
It is too early to make any reasonable estimates of how popular it will be.

Gemuser
 
flightuk
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:08 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Fri Apr 17, 2020 12:39 pm

Gemuser wrote:
flightuk wrote:
Sunrise is a great idea, direct flights, what better?. However, it will fail and fail badly. I say badly because it is going to be a very costly exercise for Qantas. After 12 months or so people will just stop booking those ultra long haul flights. Early feedback from the passengers is not good. Business travellers will get too fatigued and holidaymakers will want their Dubai/Singapore stopover.

Evidance that "early feedback is not good"? From what I hear {accodantolly only] from business types that it is great.
It is too early to make any reasonable estimates of how popular it will be.

Gemuser


The study was conducted by Dr P.L Lewis of the Stripforth Aviation College. There is no link to the report on the internet as it has not been published for general release as yet. The report was presented at the Aviation Show MEASA held on the 14 - 15th October 2019 in Dubai. You really must do your homework!!
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5092
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:15 am

flightuk wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
flightuk wrote:
Sunrise is a great idea, direct flights, what better?. However, it will fail and fail badly. I say badly because it is going to be a very costly exercise for Qantas. After 12 months or so people will just stop booking those ultra long haul flights. Early feedback from the passengers is not good. Business travellers will get too fatigued and holidaymakers will want their Dubai/Singapore stopover.

Evidance that "early feedback is not good"? From what I hear {accodantolly only] from business types that it is great.
It is too early to make any reasonable estimates of how popular it will be.

Gemuser


The study was conducted by Dr P.L Lewis of the Stripforth Aviation College. There is no link to the report on the internet as it has not been published for general release as yet. The report was presented at the Aviation Show MEASA held on the 14 - 15th October 2019 in Dubai. You really must do your homework!!

Therefore NO evidance, yet.

Gemuser
 
flightuk
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:08 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:42 pm

Gemuser wrote:
flightuk wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
Evidance that "early feedback is not good"? From what I hear {accodantolly only] from business types that it is great.
It is too early to make any reasonable estimates of how popular it will be.

Gemuser


The study was conducted by Dr P.L Lewis of the Stripforth Aviation College. There is no link to the report on the internet as it has not been published for general release as yet. The report was presented at the Aviation Show MEASA held on the 14 - 15th October 2019 in Dubai. You really must do your homework!!

Therefore NO evidance, yet.

Gemuser


Please learn to spell correctly, evidence does not have an A in it. Honestly, I don't know how people like you are allowed on these forums!!
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5092
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Thu Apr 23, 2020 12:43 am

flightuk wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
flightuk wrote:

The study was conducted by Dr P.L Lewis of the Stripforth Aviation College. There is no link to the report on the internet as it has not been published for general release as yet. The report was presented at the Aviation Show MEASA held on the 14 - 15th October 2019 in Dubai. You really must do your homework!!

Therefore NO evidance, yet.

Gemuser


Please learn to spell correctly, evidence does not have an A in it. Honestly, I don't know how people like you are allowed on these forums!!

Why? You understood what I ment. I am a bad speller, live with, I've had to for over 60 years! [BTW my email program no longer supports spell check!]

Gemuser
 
flightuk
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:08 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Sat Apr 25, 2020 10:30 pm

Gemuser wrote:
flightuk wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
Therefore NO evidance, yet.

Gemuser


Please learn to spell correctly, evidence does not have an A in it. Honestly, I don't know how people like you are allowed on these forums!!

Why? You understood what I ment. I am a bad speller, live with, I've had to for over 60 years! [BTW my email program no longer supports spell check!]

Gemuser


Gemuser, I apologise for being rude. And you are right, there is no specific evidence to support my claim. Stay safe :thumbsup:
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5092
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Project Sunrise - Feasible destinations

Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:23 pm

Thank you

Gemuser

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Oliver2020 and 11 guests

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