Since 2017, we’ve known about Qantas’ ”Project Sunrise” concept, whereby the airline will fly from Sydney (SYD) and Melbourne (MEL) to New York (JFK) and London (LHR), using special Airbus A350-1000ULR aircraft. These will be the world’s longest flights, and will see passengers spending nearly an entire day on an aircraft without stopping.
Continue reading: Qantas’ 10,573-Mile, 21-Hour Sydney To London A350 Flights Launch Late 2027
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
"London chosen over New York" ... *sigh* (Ok, we'll be patient.. stopover in AKL is... fine, for now.)
their marketing is hilarious here and im surprised youre not calling it out Ben. 33 inches of pitch on a 20 hour flight is literal insanity. Minimum pitch for Singapore-NYC is 38 inches and thats a shorter flight.
I guess they will get a revenue premium for F/J but like you said i cant imagine an economy traveler willingly choosing to pay more money rather than a chance to break it up and stretch their legs
Poor people don't deserve more than that I think. Same as people who can't afford to go to the world cup this year, they can watch it on the tv. And it's their fault that they didn't work hard enough to be able to afford it.
Not surprised London is first - that seems to be the real driver here moreso than New York. Its also the longer of the two flights, though I guess suggests maybe they should do NY first so they can have 2x the press and publicity for launching the longest flight in the world.
Anyways, assuming this does launch it may end the longest flight in the world race for a long time, as the only things I can think of longer that have even the potential demand would be AKL-LHR or GRU-NRT
I think it is insane to have regular economy seats on this route.
Qantas should just operate 3 cabins: first class, business class, and premium economy class.
For casual travelers who purchase economy class tickets, there is no reason to fly SYD-LHR or SYD-JFK non-stop and suffer endlessly in these Y seats.
SIN-NYC on SQ21,22,23,24 is a359-ULR two-class, business (lie-flat) and premium economy (recliner), so it's apples-to-oranges comparing SQ to QF in terms of seats/pitch, etc.
The reality is that flying Economy on 20+ hours nonstop, any airline, is freaking brutal.
I've taken SQ on those SIN-NYC routes in J, and even I started to get a little 'anxious' after 17 hours with a few more to go.
Also, Jplat, as usual, has an awful 'hot-take' on here... sheesh. Keep punchin' down, sir...
first, Airbus does not market the A350-1000 which QF has ordered as the ULR. That is a Qantas designation between their two versions of the 35K.
the enhancements that Airbus has made to the 35K are larger fuel tanks as well as increased max takeoff weight. Those two options are available to any 35K operator.
second, QF is gaining the range in part by reducing the number of seats on board, not unlike what SQ did with the A350-900ULR which was an Airbus specific designation but has been dropped because the A350-900 today is more capable than the 900ULR without blocking the forward cargo bin which the ULR had to do.
the A350-1000 is simply the most capable and fuel efficient widebody on the market and is still capable of 18 hour plus flights with over 300 passengers and the range goes down as airlines add more seats but can easily do 16 hours with over 350 seats.
Great for Qantas and Airbus for providing choices. People can connect if they want but history shows that some will choose a longer nonstop flight.
airlines that have the newest 35Ks will have a huge advantage in the marketplace; Airbus has done with the A350 what manufacturers always want to be able to do - provide a real performance distinction which their rivals cannot duplicate.
I'd like to take one of these flights (LHR or JFK) someday, but no way I'd consider it in the back of the bus. Seems like QF is going to have to discount those economy seats to get folks to purchase. Or they're hoping Aussies really don't like connections...
@ Tim Dunn -- "first, Airbus does not market the A350-1000 which QF has ordered as the ULR. That is a Qantas designation between their two versions of the 35K."
Might want to check Airbus' website:
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-06-worlds-longest-range-aircraft-the-airbus-a350-1000ulr-takes-to-the-skies
the A350-1000ULR moniker is QF's. Feel free to show me on the A350 site where Airbus uses that moniker for any version of the A350 or that QF has exclusivity on those performance enhancements.
They don't.
QF just took all of the capabilities of the latest 35Ks, reduced the seat count, and called it the A350-1000ULR.
Airbus is copying QF's nomenclature for a version that could be available to other carriers if other airlines chose to take the same options and reduce the seat count to get the same range but nobody else needs 12 aircraft with 20 hours of range.
The slots are QFs currently leased out to BA. Hence they’ll return at start of Winter 27 season timed to coincide with launch timescales.
Back in my airline days, I used to accompany shipments of horses on our Boeing 747 freighters. Horses are actually pretty good passengers, but after about 8 hours or so they get antsy (kick the sides of the stalls, vocalize, etc.) and want off the plane. My limit is only a little better than the horses. After about 12 hours I want off the plane, if only for an hour or so. So, you'll never find me on one of these ultra-long flights, even in First or Business. It's just too long of a journey in a pressurized tin can.
Agreed. What does Qantas know that Singapore Airlines does not.
There will be huge demand for business and first on this route, and very little for economy, yet Qantas will still charge a huge premium for economy flights on this route.
"Economy will feature 33″ of pitch, which is generous, and much more spacious than what you’d typically find in economy (where 31″ is the standard for long haul flights)"
Meanwhile, JAL is over here like, "What's the big deal?"
I don't think this is going to cut it on a flight on this length.
United has been flying pax SFO-SIN for years with 31’ seat pitch in economy, and narrower seats on the 787. That flight is only about four hours shorter. I think the Qantas seating should be fine.
Now we have ‘Son of Walter Mitty Dunn’ getting all precious about his beloved EU and all wound up because that ‘new’ York might miss out to London. The poor darlink …. 🙂
One cannot persuade Walter Mitty Dunn, to answer legitimate questions in regard to his posts. So what load of old gobbledygook is he going product in response to this Qantas article?
You sound like a really pleasant person. Who cares who coined the moniker, Airbus uses it in their press releases. Either way, it's a pointless distinction.
Aero, I remain a huge fan of the EU (and the UK), specifically, for their robust consumer and worker protections; at the same time, I consider Brexit one of the greatest geopolitical mistakes of the 21st century. (The others being Trump 2016 and 2024, Iraq 2003, Iran 2026, and Putin going into Ukraine, 2014 and 2022.) I'm sure Tim will get back to you, eventually.
Is there some point to this comment that I'm missing or do you just like the sensation of typing?
I believe the Qantas planes have an additional 20,000 liter fuel tank added, so this is not a feature other a350 operators have available to them unless they order this specific variation.
I think I would be homicidal after 21 hours non stop on a plane, especially in economy. Can you imagine how much instances of blood clots are going to jump?
Dont try John - Tim will remain obtuse on these things.
Despite there being another link from two weeks ago from Airbus itself talking about hte modifications of the A350-1000ulr compared to the current standard A350-1000 build
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2026-06-countdown-to-the-worlds-longest-commercial-flights-the-airbus-a350-1000ulr
From what I read, QF expects a 20% premium over "standard" pricing. They believe they can get that much. We'll see.
Personally I wouldn't mind flying that long...as long as its not in economy.
yes, the higher fuel tanks are available to other operators. QF did not pay for exclusivity for that feature.
The "ULR" is a combination of 322 tonne MGTOW and the 168,000 liter fuel tanks, both of which are available to other operators separately or together as on Airbus' A350-1000 website.
Really eager to try this. Too with the APD I'll be forced to fly economy. Let's see if I go bonkers.
No one said QF did pay for exclusivity.
What we are saying is there are multiple press releases where Airbus is calling this a variant. The company itself is doing this.
If they could make it 31" they would. They're not giving more seat pitch out of the goodness of their hearts
"33 inches of pitch on a 20 hour flight is literal insanity."
Qantas's current 18-hour PER-LHR flight has 32 inches of legroom in Y, so this is actually an improvement.
The existing PER-LHR route is 18-hours, and sells well in all 4 cabins. Travellers are willing to pay a premium for it, so it's one of QF's most profitable routes.
I understand Premium Economy is the most profitable part of the plane for QF on the route.
Airbus is using the same -1000ULR nomenclature that QF uses and yet it is not listed as a variant of the A350 on Airbus' website.
The A350-900ULR had unique features that were different from other -900s and Airbus designated the -900ULR as a separate variant.
Everything that allows the ULR to do what it does is available to other operators including the combination of the 2 configuration differences - higher weights and larger fuel tanks.
The -1000ULR nomeclature is Qantas' and Airbus is simply copying it in deference to Qantas and to highlight the -1000's capabililties.
There is nothing unique about the QF Sunrise aircraft that other airlines can't duplicate if the want but Airbus will not, as of now, call them A350-1000ULRs.
Airbus built this variant to meet Qantas' requirements, just like Boeing did with the 744ER. It is not an exclusive variant to Qantas, but they were the driving force in getting it developed and in service.
Indeed, I'm not sure why this dude is being anal. This is copied from the Airbus website "The A350-1000ULR is the fourth passenger variant of the best-selling A350 Family joining the A350-900, A350-900ULR and the A350-1000"
If WiFi and IFE are unexpectedly inoperable, 21 hours in a middle seat in economy would be anyone’s most memorable flight.
Listen, we all know why TD is taking the stance here that he is taking. DL has the A350 on order, UA does not. The word salad that he types is rooted in that single distinction. Making the point that DL *could* buy it if they wanted, and could fly 20 hour flights. And UA can't. Forgetting that there is no demand to fly in D1 from MSP to, well, anywhere.
I wouldn't call a 6% increase of pitch in economy as "much more spacious" though...
They could've gone with 34" in Economy and 40" in Premium Economy.
When these ultra long-haul flights took off (excuse the pun) in the mid-00s, Thai for example had 36" and 42" in Economy and Premium Economy respectively, while Singapore had 37" in Executive Economy all on their A345s!
Indeed, I'm not sure why this dude is being anal.
Respectfully, you must be new here.
I have noticed a bit of a difference in the direct of Project Sunrise listening to today's announcement from the QF CEO.
Qantas had always touted Sydney AND Melbourne from London and New York non stop with routes from each city launching as the A350-1000ULH's arrive.
But the CEO didn't mention Melbourne at all in todays announcement and instead said that after the 5th A350 arrives and both Sydney to LHR and JFK are launched the subsequent A350's will then be redeployed on current 787 ULH routes (ie Perth - London and DFW - Melbourne) freeing up the 787's for other routes.
I wonder if Project Sunrise is still on the horizon for Melbourne.
SQ still flies ultra long-haul, but seat pitch in Premium Economy is 38". Hopefully they increase it to 40" in their upcoming refurbishment project.
we honestly do not know what equipment DL has optioned on their 35Ks but they clearly want a long range aircraft that could do routes such as ATL to India even with current airspace restrictions in place.
You can argue that a standard 35K could do that - but that is an 18 hour flight.
Other operators will opt for the 35Ks highest options and create an aircraft with greater range than existing aircraft. the range is a product of the number of passengers carried even w/ all of the options.
It will be, eventually, but Qantas is very Sydney-centric. That has been the case for many decades.
While we pointed out where Airbus mentioned about the A350-1000ULR
@ Tim Dunn -- We're waiting to learn which EWR-LAX frequencies UA operates with 737-900ERs, please!! These are the important details!
There's the Kangaroo route factor.
You don't want to diminish that with JFK or MEL.
Son of Walter Mitty Dunn, your ignorance of the EU is as profound as your lack of knowledge in respect of the Northern Ireland troubles. You would be best advised to remain silent on both topics.
As can be seen a few posts below that Walter Mitty character’Dim Tim Dunn’ will argue that black is white even when provided with categorical evidence that he is wrong.
Furthermore, also equally concerning is that it would appear that we also have the son of Walter Mitty Dunn, who is posting under the 1990 Guest login. Gaud’elp us!
nowhere did I ever say that UA schedules 739s on EWR-LAX but they have operated them as replacements
It is amazing how you managed to ignore the part of my comment in which the comparison was made to the DL 763s; I accurately noted that the majority of DL TATL 763s are operated on routes or to cities competitive with UA 757s. are you going to go on record as saying that the UA 757 has a superior configuration to DL's 763s?
and since you took the topic to UA, would you like to tell us when we can expect UA to have the A350s that they have postponed for years. DL's 359s are already larger and more capable and fuel efficient than anything in UA's fleet and the 35Ks will only widen the gap.
that's right, UA's CEO is verbally trashing Rolls Royce in a perverse strategy to get them to bring down prices. Kirby's bullying strategies haven't work in multiple other places including w/ the FAA but we're supposed to think they will work here?
ANY DL 35K will be far larger and more capable than anything UA has - and DL will be getting its first 20 of them pretty quickly.
No wonder DL said it would take on UA over the Pacific.
In fact, UA will be one of the few major airlines over the Pacific that won't be flying the A350.
Ben, I believe Qantas has a bank of legacy slots at LHR that it’s been subleasing so likely reclaiming them.
Your meta-commentary may even be ‘too much’ for me… and I’m usually a ‘don’t yuck others yum’ kinda fella… sheesh! (Like, at least keep it on-topic! Got anything on QF?)
No. You said they did regularly, then failed to cite which flight numbers and when. Stop.
Jesus Tim - and I quote:
"Over at EWR, only 5 of UA's flights are on 787s and the rest of the flights are on 752 and, if you can believe it, 737-900ERs. UA doesn't even offer its own current generation product on half of its flights"
"They also use 757s and 737-900ERs on their EWR-LAX flights."
"again, half of UA's EWR-LAX flights are on 757s which have 2X2 business class and no premium economy as well as 737-900s in domestic configuration."
It was only after multiple people called you out on this mistake/lie that you went the "well they sub them in for maintenance" route.
and that changes the odds that UA will fly the A350 precisely how?
none of which changes that you and everyone else fail to address the issue that the UA 757 is an inferior aircraft to the DL 763 and that was the context - that you and others somehow manage to ignore.
Tim.
None of us cares if DL flies 767 or UA never flies the A350. Or 757 or TATL.
Stop deflecting with irrelevant fluff.
People are asking you for 2 specific answers.
1. The date. The answer should be nothing more than MM/DD/YYYY.
2. The flight number. The answer should be nothing more than UA ####
Therefore you should be able to answer THE question with 12 characters max NOT 6 paragraphs.
no, I am comfortably sitting here in my chair watching World Cup games. not a soul "has me"
and all anyone has to do, including Ben, is to show me a reference by Airbus on Airbus' website to an A350-1000ULR for an airline other than Qantas.
This aircraft has an RCT (non standard on the A350-1000). This is an entirely new tank. That is why there is a significant flight test campaign in progress.
The A350-900ULR is structurally identical to the A350-900, it simply has software modifications for additional fuel capacity (and an ultra light config). Not sure if you are getting these mixed up.
Almost 24 hours on a plane? Hell no! I don't care what class of service. That's a hard no for me.
It's not 4 cabins, it's three: business, premium economy, and economy. There is no first class on Qantas' Dreamliners.
What Qantas knows that Singapore doesn’t is exactly what corporate contracts it has with companies that have a must fly economy policy and send a bunch of them to London. I can think of a fair few corporates that would have several people on this plane almost every day. There’s so much one stop supply in the market that Qantas doesn’t bother competing on price, it can’t. Casual travellers will continue flying via the gulf and Asia as they always have done.
The back of this plane will be full of mid/senior managers who failed to clear a points upgrade; cursing their CEO, CFO and HR departments all the way to London.
I acknowledged that the A350-1000 is enhanced by larger fuel tanks but also that they are available to other airlines.
no, the A350-900ULR is not structurally identical to standard 359s. The ULR's forward cargo holds are blocked. that does not exist on any -1000 version.
and, yes, it was because of the tail tanks that the A350-1000 underwent/is undergoing further testing, just as the XLR did for its fuselage tanks.
1990, please be advised that there is a limit to my patience these days. This means that I do not suffer fools gladly.
Tim Dunn, has proven himself to be the biggest fool who posts on this platform. When others presume to lecture one about subjects which they quite obviously do not comprehend, then one finds it extremely difficult to be tolerant of their ignorance.
I'd never consider these flights. If I was flying SYD to LHR, I'd fly through PER and save a lot if cash. I will never visit the NYC area in my remaining time, so SYD to JFK makes no sense. I can today connect in DFW, IAH, LAX or SFO save both time and money. Indeed why would anyone want to fly SYD-JFK at a much higher cost unless their destination was the NYC area?
“I will never visit the NYC area in my remaining time, so SYD to JFK makes no sense.”
Welp, folks, This comes to mind isn’t interested, so… cancel the route! (No, better yet, just fly nonstop CMH-SYD. Far better load-factor… /s
Tim is indeed passionate about Delta Air Lines; but, don’t mistake disagreement on preferences as a lack of comprehension.
“Indeed why would anyone want to fly SYD-JFK at a much higher cost unless their destination was the NYC area?”
Um... because there are a whole lot of people whose destination is the NYC area.
What ‘mericans don’t get is that Antipodeans have been used to flying long sectors their whole lives. The 17 hour EK AKL-DXB is survivable because they have superb IFE and catering even in steerage class. Some will happily pay to avoid the hassle of a transfer stop. Some will prefer a cheaper flight and a stopover in Asia.
34” was Air NZ’s default economy pitch until the bean counters introduced 777 sardine class. And I switched to EK.
"London chosen over New York" ... *sigh* (Ok, we'll be patient.. stopover in AKL is... fine, for now.)
Now we have ‘Son of Walter Mitty Dunn’ getting all precious about his beloved EU and all wound up because that ‘new’ York might miss out to London. The poor darlink …. 🙂
One cannot persuade Walter Mitty Dunn, to answer legitimate questions in regard to his posts. So what load of old gobbledygook is he going product in response to this Qantas article?
Aero, I remain a huge fan of the EU (and the UK), specifically, for their robust consumer and worker protections; at the same time, I consider Brexit one of the greatest geopolitical mistakes of the 21st century. (The others being Trump 2016 and 2024, Iraq 2003, Iran 2026, and Putin going into Ukraine, 2014 and 2022.) I'm sure Tim will get back to you, eventually.
their marketing is hilarious here and im surprised youre not calling it out Ben. 33 inches of pitch on a 20 hour flight is literal insanity. Minimum pitch for Singapore-NYC is 38 inches and thats a shorter flight.
I guess they will get a revenue premium for F/J but like you said i cant imagine an economy traveler willingly choosing to pay more money rather than a chance to break it up and stretch their legs
Poor people don't deserve more than that I think. Same as people who can't afford to go to the world cup this year, they can watch it on the tv. And it's their fault that they didn't work hard enough to be able to afford it.
Also, Jplat, as usual, has an awful 'hot-take' on here... sheesh. Keep punchin' down, sir...
SIN-NYC on SQ21,22,23,24 is a359-ULR two-class, business (lie-flat) and premium economy (recliner), so it's apples-to-oranges comparing SQ to QF in terms of seats/pitch, etc.
The reality is that flying Economy on 20+ hours nonstop, any airline, is freaking brutal.
I've taken SQ on those SIN-NYC routes in J, and even I started to get a little 'anxious' after 17 hours with a few more to go.
"33 inches of pitch on a 20 hour flight is literal insanity."
Qantas's current 18-hour PER-LHR flight has 32 inches of legroom in Y, so this is actually an improvement.
Not surprised London is first - that seems to be the real driver here moreso than New York. Its also the longer of the two flights, though I guess suggests maybe they should do NY first so they can have 2x the press and publicity for launching the longest flight in the world.
Anyways, assuming this does launch it may end the longest flight in the world race for a long time, as the only things I can think of longer that have even the potential demand would be AKL-LHR or GRU-NRT
I think it is insane to have regular economy seats on this route.
Qantas should just operate 3 cabins: first class, business class, and premium economy class.
For casual travelers who purchase economy class tickets, there is no reason to fly SYD-LHR or SYD-JFK non-stop and suffer endlessly in these Y seats.
Agreed. What does Qantas know that Singapore Airlines does not.
There will be huge demand for business and first on this route, and very little for economy, yet Qantas will still charge a huge premium for economy flights on this route.
The existing PER-LHR route is 18-hours, and sells well in all 4 cabins. Travellers are willing to pay a premium for it, so it's one of QF's most profitable routes.
I understand Premium Economy is the most profitable part of the plane for QF on the route.
I'd like to take one of these flights (LHR or JFK) someday, but no way I'd consider it in the back of the bus. Seems like QF is going to have to discount those economy seats to get folks to purchase. Or they're hoping Aussies really don't like connections...
From what I read, QF expects a 20% premium over "standard" pricing. They believe they can get that much. We'll see.
Personally I wouldn't mind flying that long...as long as its not in economy.
@ Tim Dunn -- "first, Airbus does not market the A350-1000 which QF has ordered as the ULR. That is a Qantas designation between their two versions of the 35K."
Might want to check Airbus' website:
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-06-worlds-longest-range-aircraft-the-airbus-a350-1000ulr-takes-to-the-skies
the A350-1000ULR moniker is QF's. Feel free to show me on the A350 site where Airbus uses that moniker for any version of the A350 or that QF has exclusivity on those performance enhancements.
They don't.
QF just took all of the capabilities of the latest 35Ks, reduced the seat count, and called it the A350-1000ULR.
Airbus is copying QF's nomenclature for a version that could be available to other carriers if other airlines chose to take the same options and reduce the seat count to get the same range but nobody else needs 12 aircraft with 20 hours of range.
You sound like a really pleasant person. Who cares who coined the moniker, Airbus uses it in their press releases. Either way, it's a pointless distinction.
Indeed, I'm not sure why this dude is being anal. This is copied from the Airbus website "The A350-1000ULR is the fourth passenger variant of the best-selling A350 Family joining the A350-900, A350-900ULR and the A350-1000"
Meh, I'll wait until DELTA flies this route.
The slots are QFs currently leased out to BA. Hence they’ll return at start of Winter 27 season timed to coincide with launch timescales.
Back in my airline days, I used to accompany shipments of horses on our Boeing 747 freighters. Horses are actually pretty good passengers, but after about 8 hours or so they get antsy (kick the sides of the stalls, vocalize, etc.) and want off the plane. My limit is only a little better than the horses. After about 12 hours I want off the plane, if only for an hour or so. So, you'll never find me on one of these ultra-long flights, even in First or Business. It's just too long of a journey in a pressurized tin can.
"Economy will feature 33″ of pitch, which is generous, and much more spacious than what you’d typically find in economy (where 31″ is the standard for long haul flights)"
Meanwhile, JAL is over here like, "What's the big deal?"
I don't think this is going to cut it on a flight on this length.
If they could make it 31" they would. They're not giving more seat pitch out of the goodness of their hearts
United has been flying pax SFO-SIN for years with 31’ seat pitch in economy, and narrower seats on the 787. That flight is only about four hours shorter. I think the Qantas seating should be fine.
Is there some point to this comment that I'm missing or do you just like the sensation of typing?
I believe the Qantas planes have an additional 20,000 liter fuel tank added, so this is not a feature other a350 operators have available to them unless they order this specific variation.
Dont try John - Tim will remain obtuse on these things.
Despite there being another link from two weeks ago from Airbus itself talking about hte modifications of the A350-1000ulr compared to the current standard A350-1000 build
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2026-06-countdown-to-the-worlds-longest-commercial-flights-the-airbus-a350-1000ulr
yes, the higher fuel tanks are available to other operators. QF did not pay for exclusivity for that feature.
The "ULR" is a combination of 322 tonne MGTOW and the 168,000 liter fuel tanks, both of which are available to other operators separately or together as on Airbus' A350-1000 website.
No one said QF did pay for exclusivity.
What we are saying is there are multiple press releases where Airbus is calling this a variant. The company itself is doing this.
Airbus is using the same -1000ULR nomenclature that QF uses and yet it is not listed as a variant of the A350 on Airbus' website.
The A350-900ULR had unique features that were different from other -900s and Airbus designated the -900ULR as a separate variant.
Everything that allows the ULR to do what it does is available to other operators including the combination of the 2 configuration differences - higher weights and larger fuel tanks.
The -1000ULR nomeclature is Qantas' and Airbus is simply copying it in deference to Qantas and to highlight the -1000's capabililties.
There is nothing unique about the QF Sunrise aircraft that other airlines can't duplicate if the want but Airbus will not, as of now, call them A350-1000ULRs.
Airbus built this variant to meet Qantas' requirements, just like Boeing did with the 744ER. It is not an exclusive variant to Qantas, but they were the driving force in getting it developed and in service.
I think I would be homicidal after 21 hours non stop on a plane, especially in economy. Can you imagine how much instances of blood clots are going to jump?
Really eager to try this. Too with the APD I'll be forced to fly economy. Let's see if I go bonkers.
If WiFi and IFE are unexpectedly inoperable, 21 hours in a middle seat in economy would be anyone’s most memorable flight.