For nearly a decade, Qantas has been teasing how it will launch nonstop flights from Australia’s East Coast to London (LHR) and New York (JFK), under its ”Project Sunrise” concept. Initially, the idea was that these flights would be operated out of Sydney (SYD) and Melbourne (MEL), which is why the airline ordered 12 Airbus…
Continue reading: Qantas Quietly Shifts Airbus A350-1000ULR Strategy, Shuns Melbourne
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
I think this is to optimize revenue until the regular A35Ks get delivered. If the 789s are getting 100% load factors with very high yield , that means they are leaving money on the table by not utilizing bigger aircraft. And the 789s freed up can start new ULH routes with less premium/demand destinations.
There's a reason Qantas is referred to as "The Spirit of Mascot" within Australia...
you remember quite correctly.
SYD is not point to point for QF; it is a hub but they were willing to split the heavily O&D traffic and beyond connections between SYD and MEL and that appears to be changing.
The unstated message is that economics of 225 seat 787s on ultra long haul routes are not great and there is a greater chance of profit of adding a few more seats but also carrying much more cargo even from PER.
bad news for the people of MEL
You mentioned A350-1000ULR 17 times.
Tim's not going to be happy because in his mind the ULR doesn't exist. But surely Tim can answer other questions about 737 too.
@ Tim Dunn -- We're waiting to learn which EWR-LAX frequencies UA operates with 737-900ERs, please!! These are the important details!
Really quality article with a deep dive into Project Sunrise: https://www.analyticflying.com/p/how-to-think-not-feel-about-qantass (I don't write for the page, just discovered it)
They dive into the reasons Qantas is pursuing this project and the details behind why they think they can make it work
Skipping Melbourne is a smart decision for now. They could always change. I doubt BA will start nonstop LHR-MEL or DL will start JFK-MEL service.
Like it or not, Melbourne is second fiddle. Geographically, to NY, Melbourne flight fly over Sydney giving them an edge.
LHR or JFK needs these specific ULR. Nothing else will do just as the A318 was the only plane that could do London City/JFK. Qantas is wise to start slow, carefully choose ULR routes, and make sure they have enough spares.
Departure and arrival times matter. Before LAX-SIN flights arrived at 6 am when the A340-500 was used. That wasn't the most convenient as some one stops that got in at 2 pm.
1024
1157
1389
1450
1602
1783
1991
2045
2118
2264
2301
2477
2519
2680
2734
2811
2895
2942
2976
2999
I wonder if they'd consider going double-daily on SYD-LHR. A lot of people will have strong enough feelings about arriving in the morning or evening that they'll book a one-stop that conforms to their preference over a nonstop that doesn't. I have to assume that LHR is a much larger market than JFK, though SYD-JFK can sell connections to MEL while MEL-LHR is better through PER/SIN/DXB than SYD.
Could do something like:
Westbound
Flight 1 - 8:00 p.m. departure (SYD); 7:30 a.m. arrival (LHR)
Flight 2 - 9:00 a.m. departure (SYD); 8:30 a.m. arrival (LHR)
Eastbound
Flight 1 - 11:30 p.m. departure (LHR); 5:30 a.m. arrival (SYD)
Flight 2 - 10:30 a.m. departure (LHR); 4:30 p.m. arrival (SYD)
“Fair dinkum cobber” …. Now that is one very interesting link which you provided us with betterbub, thank you so much.
Walter Mitty Dunn, would do well to analyse that analysis and learn from it. Clear and concise English in a truly informative narrative. Perhaps Walter’s failure to emulate such straightforward principles caused his much reported sacking from Delta?
Many "very long haul" routes are advertised as nonstop and flies nonstop most of the time but we'd randomly see airlines announcing a technical stop "due to weather". Other not so transparent factors, is airlines blocking off a number of seats, or not taking a full load of cargo so that they can continue to persist in the "nonstop" market. I speculate they have some routes like this.
Eskimo, perhaps Walter’s failure to emulate such straightforward data reporting principles caused his much reported sacking from Delta?
Sadly what most Aussies don’t understand is that Victoria (the state) has turned itself into a Marxist outpost of North Korea. High yield traffic has moved to Perth and Brisbane. Until the communists are removed from Victoria and the state can get back to its rightful place as Australia’s premium city. It’s not just Qantas that have withdrawn from the first class market in Melbourne, SIA and Cathay have also downgraded the city and others will do the same. Certain residents of cities in the US should look at Melbourne and be very worried.
feel free to provide the link and the reference to a model that is offered to all airlines or confirmation of airplanes that are being built by any other airline besides QF
At least the random number generator had the right guardrials this time and not listing numbers for UAX flights or repositioning/charters.
"Shun" is a strong word that really doesn't apply. Qantas is focusing on its global hub.
Here's a strategy make it more affordable to fly to Australia. Currently from the USA it is the single most expensive trip it's absolutely mind boggling how expensive.
Assuming the budget is a zero-sum game, who is the winner in this Marxist leftist economy, and why is ultra longhaul uber premium aircraft a necessity for this group of people?
The current state government is totally on the nose, Harold, and the voters are sick to death of them. They're corrupt, detached from reality, and their end is nigh come the election in November. I would call them "Marxist", but they have become insufferably, intractably "Progressive", and no good ever comes of that. Melbourne is crime-ridden, the public service is wasteful, bloated, and mediocre. There's nothing "snowflake" about it, they have to go.
Same could be said with the A350-900ULR. But you also refuse to acknowledge that too.
@Tim Dunn how about this reporting from Aviation Week?
“Airbus Chief Commercial Officer Benoit de Saint-Exupéry said the manufacturer is talking to other airlines that have shown an interest in the aircraft. However, most routes can be operated with the standard -1000 or the -900 or the competing Boeing aircraft.”
V/F
He screwed up on another random number post and someone called him out.
Check out his reply from the UA pilot timed out post.
LOL Tim what a joke.
Airbus specifically marketed the -900ULR; SQ happened to be the only airline that took it.
Airbus lists the max takeoff weight and fuel capacity that are reportedly part of the "-1000ULR" as available on the -1000 on Airbus website. that was not the case with the -900.
Ok Tim.
Show us the website.
No random letters please.
And don't forget
@ Tim Dunn -- We're waiting to learn which EWR-LAX frequencies UA operates with 737-900ERs, please!! These are the important details!
Giving random numbers doesn't get you off the hook for being a lier.
"Here's a strategy: make less money"
not sure how that pitch is going to go at Qantas HQ but let me know
So if Qantas flies to NYC direct from SYD without a stop in AKL, how is that not a good use of this jet. Am I missing something? The 789 can’t do it all hence the stop in AKL right?
Open to being educated
Thank you VF, yet more proof, if proof was ever needed, that the numb skull Walter Mitty Dunn, has been proven wrong again.
How pathetic and dishonourable that he cannot acknowledge his failures, one has to wonder if that was why Delta reportedly fired him?
Interesting, the 350KULRs have just 2 more seats than their 787s, with 28 more premium seats and 26 less Y. So, swapping in the former in place of the latter might make sense on premium heavy routes. I said it before, the SYD-JFK route is questionable in that prices will be and need to be higher. This, to me, guarantees that it will only be attractive to NYers and people who can fly n/s to JFK but not n/s to DFW, IAH, LAX, or SFO. If you are flying ??? to SYD, why would you fly ???-JFK-SYD for a higher price when you can fly ???-DFW/IAH/LAX/SFO-SYD. In many cases total in air time will be the same and the current hubs give you less time on the long leg. So, dropping MEL makes sense if that holds. Just my speculation, I hope for QF I'm dead wrong.
Melbourne is Qantas' second biggest hub with numerous international and domestic flights.
@Sadbuttrue - you can make legitimate criticisms about a state government that has been in place for many, many years but this is just overblown histrionics. North Korea?
For non-Australians, this might be news. But every local avgeek and his dog knows QF has been Sydney-centric for [checks records]....decades.
What might not be well known is QF's Lufthansa-like tendency, which blossomed under former CEO Joyce, of over-promising in their numerous announcements, and subsequently under-delivering [e.g. promising the world's 'best premium economy seat' which turned out to be so-so.] There is literally nobody surprised (in Australia) that Melbourne has been shafted yet again. Disappointed - yes. Surprised - no.
it is beyond comprehension the amount of attention that some people love to give me.
and yet AI is smart enough to build the criteria in a number generator that you want to give it
I can't see AKL-JFK sticking around once SYD-JFK in place.
The silver lining might be some bolstering/diversification of MEL routes - daily DFW, +JNB
QANTAS - Sydney's international airline. If they could abandon every other city , they would.
Unfortunately Australia is not immune to brain washing of the mediocre by Murdoch and his gangs. Same as the US and UK.
Bunch of people who get their talking points beamed straight into their heads rather than coming up with their own opinion
As a Melburnian it annoys me but the reality is that Sydney is the richer city, the catchment area is bigger, it’s the first place foreigners think of because of the bridge and the opera house and and fireworks. In spite of the terrible coffee it is always going to be the focus.
My experience is an ASX200 company is of all the work being done in Melbourne but all the decisions getting made in Sydney. When I was working that job I spent a lot of time flying to Sydney to get face time with the my senior management.
Sydney’s where the corporate contracts are signed and where the higher yielding passengers are.
On the supply side Melbourne is a lot more competitive. SYD is slot controlled and has a curfew and no room to expand. Melbourne is 24/7, has more runway capacity and is building more international passenger handling capacity (next up is a big expansion of the international check in area).
When international airlines start in Australia they come to Melbourne first because they can get slots. This means there’s always a lot of cheaper seats eating into Qantas pricing power. So Melbourne gets the short end of the stick, but the coffee is good.
Well, yeah, in terms of priority, Sydney is like NYC; Melbourne is like Chicago or Los Angeles (a second city).
By the way, are you *that* John? You know, the one that often tells me to…
Honestly as an avgeek I’m super excited about project sunrise. As a human being, however, I’m bored to death of qantas’ gooning here.
Take off the gimp suit, Australia. QF is a sadist.
ULH flying is very expensive...so Qantas will start with Sydney, the other 6 will go on PER LHR and SYD AKL LHR....both these routes are currently payload restricted using 787.
What they are essentially saying is that six of those A350-1000ULRs will be used for the ultra long-haul services from Sydney directly to London and New York that were originally planned. However, instead of using the other six to launch direct services to those cities from Melbourne, they plan to deploy them on existing ultra long-haul 787-9 routes, like PER-LHR and SYD-AKL-JFK, and free up those 787s for other routes instead, effectively sidelining Melbourne from Project Sunrise.
One thing everyone agrees on is that this flights will be at a premium and definitely more expensive than anything qantas is offering now. Thats how competitive advantages work.
For me, it's a conservative strategy: to test how customers receive the proposal and then gradually expand the destinations.
As I guy who chooses Melbourne over Sydney, I get it. I can stay in digs in the former that are much pricier in the latter. Head to the MCG on Boxing Day. Now, if they could get the airport train done.
Aa one with no expertise, I speculate that flying the 35K to ORD might make sense. I think a standard 35K can do it, but, maybe, project sunrise planes until they get those. It's an AA hub. And, outside of being very attractive to those with ORD as start or end point, I suspect those in MKE, IND, CVG, CLE, PIT, etc. would prefer this over DFW, IAH, LAX, or SFO connections, allowing QF to skim off some DL and UA pax. It would, of course, reduce QF SYD-DFW and SYD-LAX traffic, as will SYD-JFK. But, that might be desirable as both routes use a 380 at times. Switch those to 35Ks or 789s, and you can reduce your cost per seat mile and phase out the 380.
Walter, you elicit the attention only because you fail to acknowledge relevant questions asked of you.
You point blank and repeatedly refuse to provide checkable information or corroboration of your statements.
You rudely dismiss out of hand any comments which might disagree with your narrative.
You have apparently made false claims about being a pilot, thereafter, totally ignoring all requests for clarification.
You have been proven to be totally wrong on several occasions and yet you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge your shortcomings.
One can only conclude that you are nothing more than an attention seeking old has been, who’s only use is as a click generator for Ben.
"Until the communists are removed from Victoria and the state can get back to its rightful place as Australia’s premium city". A One Nation - Australian Political Party with views similar to MAGA - voter has entered the conversation. Quite apart from mixing state & city, it's obvious you have no idea about the meaning of the term 'communists'. Google can be helpful if you have time time
The AKL-JFK route is more than a one trick pony for Qantas and it certainly will still have a place in their logic once Project Sunrise comes on board...
1. Auckland provides a strategic unbiased base for Qantas to allow the AU East Coast ports to serve the New York direct marker, without having to put this through one particular AU port, with well timed connections from several ports all landing at a suitable time to catch the connection to New York. Since this route has come on board, Qantas have increased their frequency of flights from SYD, MEL, BNE, along with ADL and OOL too I believe, primarily with the intention of supplying this route. Consequently Qantas now has the most daily seats across the Tasman too.
2. They're also able to grab a bit of the NZ market on the way through as well, which has consequently led to Air NZ admitting their flagship route is hurting them financially. This pressure on their nearest competitor in Oceania is exactly what any airline wants.
With Cam Wallace involved and him knowing what will hurt Air NZ most, if this route remains profitable for them I foresee this route staying for a while, if not growing over time through more support from additional AU port connections & volume
Makes sense. PER-LHR with the Iran kerfuffle and narrow slot the Georgia etc now stops in SIN because 787-9 doesn’t have the legs to deal with any untoward delays. A35K-ULR can fly full and with freight and not blink. Likewise on the westbound JFK-AKL 787-9 is often constrained, not so A35K.
Also NSW state government paid Qantas some kind of bounty to give Sydney exclusivity on Sunrise for a number of years. That means excluding Melbourne obvs.
Anyone thought about the 2032 Olympics in Brisbane, Australia? And the current developments of Brisbane Airport as maybe the primary entry point into Australia
Or they finally learned their lesson and realized they can’t have a full roster of planes occupied with no spares and zero redundancy to recover from an increasingly destructive climate…
That and it seems like launching from Sydney to test demand, determine pricing and yields before expanding to Melbourne would be a superior strategy.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms you can make of Sydney (let alone SYD the airport) and ways that Melbourne is arguably better / cooler / more cultured. But Sydney is NOT a city of bad coffee. That's just Melbourne propaganda.
modok, an extremely easy to understand example of how to answer a perfectly legitimate question with a sensible answer. Thank you, let us hope that others will follow your example.
TD, I checked a few of these flight #s, wasn't going to waste time checking them all. All I found were flights that either were milk runs between far enough destinations but operated on two flights, or they were simply just flights to hubs.
To counter, I'm just going to make up a stat and say that DL flies 717s from ATL to LAX! Cause why not?
Melbourne again is being ignored by Qantas just like our federal government has favoured Sydney over Melbourne for as long as I can remember.
Pathetic. There’s nothing worse when an airline sells a vision and the quietly pulls the rug. Psthetic
Which ever way you look at it Melbourne does not have a curfew and thus is more flexible in the event of weather events and time lost . The flight and fuel load is decided almost 24 hrs before arrival . New York JFK and the continental US are often at capacity and delays occur regularly.
Melbourne customers do have a choice of getting a crowed domestic flight to Sydney with a bus often standing room only to plan to be at the international terminal 2 hours before departure. This is approximately 4 hrs of extra time that roughly equals the time that the direct flight saves Sydney customers.
These words are wasted on a Sydney centric mentality.
MEL should be your primary entry point to Australia. Both BNE and SYD have physically separated international and domestic terminals. ADL is even better than MEL, but has far less flights.