Qantas has a couple of dozen Airbus A350s on order, some of which will be used to operate the world’s longest nonstop flights. This includes flights from Sydney and Melbourne to New York and London.
There’s a lot to be excited about with these aircraft, though it has taken some patience. While the planes were initially supposed to enter service in 2025, they’re now expected to debut in 2027. Fortunately there is some good progress being made, as the first new plane is taking shape. Let’s go over all the details of what we can expect with this addition to Qantas’ fleet.
In this post:
Qantas has 24 Airbus A350-1000s on order
Qantas has a total of 24 Airbus A350-1000s on order:
- Qantas ordered 12 of these jets in mid-2022; these were the A350-1000ULR variants, which have an extra fuel tank, allowing them to operate the world’s longest flights
- Qantas ordered an additional 12 of these jets in mid-2023; these will be “standard” A350-1000s, so they’ll be long range, but not ultra long range, and will have a different configuration
We can expect the first A350 to be delivered to Qantas in late 2026, with the first commercial flights expected in the first half of 2027. For what it’s worth, the delay of well over a year on this project was largely due to getting the additional fuel tanks certified with European regulators, and that’s in addition to the standard “supply chain” delays. I suppose that delay is nothing compared to what the Boeing 777X is dealing with.
The A350-1000 is the largest variant of the A350 family, and the plane has incredible economics and range. Qantas will be taking those capabilities to the next level. The airline is taking advantage of all the incremental improvements that have been made to this aircraft over the years, including a higher maximum takeoff weight, which also allows the aircraft to carry more fuel.
As mentioned above, Qantas’ first dozen A350s will also feature additional fuel tanks, to take advantage of that higher takeoff weight. Furthermore, thanks to Qantas’ premium heavy configuration, the airline will be keeping the weight of the plane down, further maximizing range.
What’s exciting is that Qantas’ first A350-1000ULR is now on the Airbus assembly line in Toulouse (TLS), following the completion of a major production milestone. All major airframe components, including the forward, center, and rear fuselage sections, have come together, along with the wings, tail section, and landing gear.
The plane will now be transfered to a new hangar, where it will have engines and flight test instruments installed, in preparation for extensive flight testing, which commences in 2026.
Qantas will use A350s for Project Sunrise flights
For years, Qantas has been working on what it calls “Project Sunrise,” which is the goal of operating nonstop flights from Sydney and Melbourne to New York and London. These flights will all be 10,000+ miles, could take 20+ hours, and will be the world’s longest flights. They’ll represent a huge reduction in travel time for these markets, and will likely be popular, especially with premium travelers.
Qantas initially just ordered 12 A350s, which would have covered the carrier’s needs for these flights. However, Qantas eventually doubled its order, so you can expect A350s to also be used for other premium, long haul flights. However, that second batch of A350s won’t have the extra fuel tanks, and are expected to be in a different configuration.
So don’t be surprised to see Qantas eventually fly A350s in some other existing markets (like Sydney to Los Angeles, especially when A380s eventually retire), as well as to some possible new markets.
Qantas Airbus A350-1000 passenger experience
Qantas’ A350-1000ULRs will be specially configured for long haul flying, and will be in a very spacious configuration:
- Qantas’ A350-1000ULRs will carry just 238 passengers, which is way fewer seats than you’ll find on most carriers’ A350s
- The planes will feature four classes of service, including six first class seats, 52 business class seats, 40 premium economy seats, and 140 economy seats
- 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)
- Qantas will be introducing a new first class suite and business class seat with a door on A350-1000s
- Qantas A350-1000ULRs will feature a dedicated wellness zone
- All Qantas A350-1000s will feature fast and free Wi-Fi, in partnership with Viasat
I’ve talked more about the cabin interiors in a separate post, because there’s lots to cover.
Among existing A350-1000 operators, Japan Airlines’ version of this jet is probably the closest comparison. It has 239 seats (one additional seat), and it has incredible first class suites, and it has the same business class hard product. Flying on this jet should be a treat.
Bottom line
Qantas has a total of 24 Airbus A350-1000s on order. The first jet is expected to be delivered in late 2026, with service expected to start in the first half of 2027. The first aircraft is now being assembled, so hopefully there aren’t additional significant delays. This is an exciting new aircraft for Qantas, as it will be used for Project Sunrise flights, directly connecting Sydney and Melbourne to New York and London.
The first 12 planes will be the A350-1000ULRs, with an extra fuel tank, and a super premium configuration, with just 238 seats. You can expect new products across all cabins, a wellness zone, and even fast and free Wi-Fi.
What do you make of Qantas’ Airbus A350 & Project Sunrise plans?
What I am very keen to see is which will be the first route to launch - JFK or SYD.
I recall at one of the investor conferences the CFO stated that each route will require three aircraft to maintain a daily service.
So I imagine there will be a significant gap between each route launching?
Sorry should read 'JFK or LHR to SYD'
20 hour flight means 24 hours door to door. That is a long time to hold a poop. So I think there will be a much larger proportion (most, if not all) of people needing to poop on this flight than any normal flight.
That means an exponential demand on toilets, particularly towards the end of the flight. I'm not sure they have designed with extra toilets so I can imagine 20-30 min waits...
20 hour flight means 24 hours door to door. That is a long time to hold a poop. So I think there will be a much larger proportion (most, if not all) of people needing to poop on this flight than any normal flight.
That means an exponential demand on toilets, particularly towards the end of the flight. I'm not sure they have designed with extra toilets so I can imagine 20-30 min waits and plenty of angst during descent.
Not to mention the state of those things by then.
the QF 35Ks have about 2/3 of the number of seats that other airlines will put on the same aircraft; I am sure Airbus has increased or can offer increased lav holding tanks.
It's not the holding tanks that worry me - it's how many toilets there are and how frequently they will be occupied. A 30 minute wait for a loo, holding in a poo, is not fun for anyone (especially anyone seated near the loos).
I have this nagging feeling the tech specs side sounds a little outdated as of now already... The F cabin is pretty and well thought, IMHO.
J & Y, on the other hand...
I could understand if they went Japanese-style with 2-4-2 and 34" pitch in Y as the bare minimum... But what they came up with sounds frankly brutal...
The market will tell...
I dunno, it's a long way to go with just 2 engines. I think I would prefer a stopover along the way & travelling on an A380...
What's funny is just how relative that has become... because even the standard production A350-1000 today, offers more range than the A340-500s that Singapore used, to launch the SIN-EWR nonstop in 2004!
Hoping we get a OMAAT review of this flight in the middle seat, back row of Economy
This seems like a great fantasy football punishment
Sleeping neighbors on all sides who make it awkward to get up and go to the bathroom
QF's 789s (no wifi and 3-3-3 Y lmao) were the testing ground to see how much they could sucker the Australian market on an ultra long haul. A lot of people fly Qantas simply because it's the flag carrier regardless of how bad the product is, and this is especially true for Y where QF's goal is to pull a 20% premium with its ultra long haul routes.
At least SQ has the dignity...
QF's 789s (no wifi and 3-3-3 Y lmao) were the testing ground to see how much they could sucker the Australian market on an ultra long haul. A lot of people fly Qantas simply because it's the flag carrier regardless of how bad the product is, and this is especially true for Y where QF's goal is to pull a 20% premium with its ultra long haul routes.
At least SQ has the dignity to not push Y on its ultra long haul planes (and the premium economy is often quite cheap due to lack of demand...)
Even in F, on a flight this long you'll be feeling quite filthy on the other end and the cabin crew will be very out of it.
Wifi was installed this week on the first QF 787 (ZNJ) and it’s in service. More to come
Why the LMAO at 3x3x3 seating on the 787? I don't get it. Name an airline (other than the original two launch customers that have now also adapted 3x3x3) that doesn't have this configuration?
WIFI, completely agree.
Qantas is able to make a success out of these routes for two main reasons - firstly, as you say the brand. Australia has a population of around 22m and Qantas Frequent Flyer has 13m members so that...
Why the LMAO at 3x3x3 seating on the 787? I don't get it. Name an airline (other than the original two launch customers that have now also adapted 3x3x3) that doesn't have this configuration?
WIFI, completely agree.
Qantas is able to make a success out of these routes for two main reasons - firstly, as you say the brand. Australia has a population of around 22m and Qantas Frequent Flyer has 13m members so that says a lot.
- secondly, significant Qantas has feed at the australian destination end. Yes, you can absolutely fly emirates one stop from London to Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane but Qantas will have the monopoly on one stop from say London to Alice Springs, Kalgoorlie, Broome, Canberra.
One more first class on the list then
Dont hold your breath waiting for a redemption, though. With only six seats in each cabin it's going to be extraordinarily unlikely.
Henry’s loaded. If he wants first, he’ll buy first, like a gentleman.
I am quite sure that Airbus does not call the Project Sunrise aircraft A350-1000ULRs.
Unlike the A350-900ULR, the longer range of the Project Sunrise A350-1000 was created by increasing the maximum takeoff weight to 322 tonnes/710k lbs and increasing the fuel capacity to 168k liters/44k gallons by adding fuel tanks to the rear of the aircraft - different from what they did on the A350-900ULR.
Both of those enhancements are available to all A350-1000...
I am quite sure that Airbus does not call the Project Sunrise aircraft A350-1000ULRs.
Unlike the A350-900ULR, the longer range of the Project Sunrise A350-1000 was created by increasing the maximum takeoff weight to 322 tonnes/710k lbs and increasing the fuel capacity to 168k liters/44k gallons by adding fuel tanks to the rear of the aircraft - different from what they did on the A350-900ULR.
Both of those enhancements are available to all A350-1000 customers after the fuel tanks are certified; this aircraft will be used for flight testing.
Airbus has produced far fewer A35Ks over the last couple years relative to 359s because a number of 35K customers including DL have opted for the higher takeoff weight and fuel capacity.
DL is not trying to turn their 35Ks into 20 hour aircraft but still will have 18+ hour aircraft with likely 60 more seats than QF will have on their long range 35Ks.
I am not aware of any other airlines that are taking the newest version of the 35Ks with extra tankage and weights and also using reduced capacities; the JL configuration does not use the newest versions of the 35K.
It speaks volumes about the economics of the 350 that airlines can take anywhere from 50-100 seats off what airlines put on the same model even with "normal sized" premium cabins and the economics still work.
You should tell that the the people at Airbus that put the URL decals on that green fuselage.
and now show me on Airbus' site where they call it the -1000ULR, Scudder
It is an incredible plane but the fuel system and MTOW is not exclusive to QF.
There are multiple airlines that are awaiting the enhanced 35Ks.
Airbus learned with the -900ULR that they can either incorporate enhancements into the standard -900s - which has been done on weight but not fuel capacity - or they can eat the cost of development...
and now show me on Airbus' site where they call it the -1000ULR, Scudder
It is an incredible plane but the fuel system and MTOW is not exclusive to QF.
There are multiple airlines that are awaiting the enhanced 35Ks.
Airbus learned with the -900ULR that they can either incorporate enhancements into the standard -900s - which has been done on weight but not fuel capacity - or they can eat the cost of development or bill SQ for it.
With the -1000, they made the enhancements that are on the Project Sunrise 35Ks available to all 35K customers after those enhancements are certified and other airlines including DL are taking advantage of them but shooting for an 18 hour rather than a 20 hour airplane by taking about 75 more passengers (DL's configuration is not confirmed yet)
Tim, I don't know about Airbus's site, but it is literally PAINTED ON THE PLANE there in Toulouse.
au contraire, Airbus's own press release shows they are marketing it as A350-1000ULR: https://www.airdatanews.com/qantas-a350-1000ulr-production-sunrise/
Do you stand corrected?
@ X XY -- Did you know Delta is more profitable than United in every single way?
now show me where Airbus calls it the -1000ULR.
I can see the graphic Ben posted. and other sites call it the -1000ULR.
I just haven't seen that Airbus calls it the ULR.
the -1000 has a slightly higher fuel capacity than the -900ULR but, as I noted, Airbus comes up w/ the higher fuel capacity on the -1000 differently than on the -900ULR.
Ben,
as hard as it is for you...
now show me where Airbus calls it the -1000ULR.
I can see the graphic Ben posted. and other sites call it the -1000ULR.
I just haven't seen that Airbus calls it the ULR.
the -1000 has a slightly higher fuel capacity than the -900ULR but, as I noted, Airbus comes up w/ the higher fuel capacity on the -1000 differently than on the -900ULR.
Ben,
as hard as it is for you to accept, flying to every nook and cranny on the planet is not the most profit maximizing strategy for an airline - or at least UA has not proven it to be more valuable than gaining more corporate traffic and flying more revenue than any other airline on earth.
DL is a for-profit airline and they fulfill their role very well esp. considering that they pay their employees very well, something other airlines including those in the Middle East and those that yap on endlessly about all the pollution they generate, I mean, ASMs they fly
You stand corrected. Welcome.
https://aircraft.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta126/files/2023-02/Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A350-900-1000.pdf
Looks to me that every one of the references to the ULR is for the -900ULR.
Feel free to tell me the page number where you find -1000ULR
also, there is no 322 tonne weight version in that document so far as I can see because it is still being certified.
Speaking to the A350’s economics, it’s possible QF is expecting to be able to charge significant fare premia on these non-stop flights though. Part of their evaluation as to these flights’ expected profitability may rely on this expectation of fare premia. We don’t know of course what their expectations are, nor do they know how accurate their expectations may be. I’m just saying that expecting to be able to operate these flights with less seats...
Speaking to the A350’s economics, it’s possible QF is expecting to be able to charge significant fare premia on these non-stop flights though. Part of their evaluation as to these flights’ expected profitability may rely on this expectation of fare premia. We don’t know of course what their expectations are, nor do they know how accurate their expectations may be. I’m just saying that expecting to be able to operate these flights with less seats is not just testament to the A350’s cost premium, but also the revenue premium QF expects to get by operating non-stop.
I didn't see Delta mentioned anywhere in this article, and yet you mentioned it twice.
The ULR designation is just a marketing name by Qantas specific to their use and not officially used by Airbus.
"In essence, while the aircraft has real, physical modifications that give it an ultra-long range capability, the "ULR" part of the name is primarily a commercial and operational identifier used by Qantas."
"Airbus has produced far fewer A35Ks over the last couple years relative to 359s because a number of 35K customers including DL have opted for the higher takeoff weight and fuel capacity."
You're just making that up.
There's not even a single airline that has yet opted for the 2nd-highest option (319 tonnes) which still offers 18hr range, and that's been available for years. So why would these unnamed carriers be waiting, to the point...
"Airbus has produced far fewer A35Ks over the last couple years relative to 359s because a number of 35K customers including DL have opted for the higher takeoff weight and fuel capacity."
You're just making that up.
There's not even a single airline that has yet opted for the 2nd-highest option (319 tonnes) which still offers 18hr range, and that's been available for years. So why would these unnamed carriers be waiting, to the point of slowing down production, for an even longer ranged aircraft with slightly reduced cargo capabilities?
immortal,
the 319 tonne was announced about the time the 322 tonne and extra fuel system was also announced; few airlines opted for the 319 because a better system became available.
feel free to let us know the number of 35Ks in the backlog relative to the 359. the 322 tonne and 168k liter fuel system is available as an option on every 35K once the system is certified and those two things...
immortal,
the 319 tonne was announced about the time the 322 tonne and extra fuel system was also announced; few airlines opted for the 319 because a better system became available.
feel free to let us know the number of 35Ks in the backlog relative to the 359. the 322 tonne and 168k liter fuel system is available as an option on every 35K once the system is certified and those two things together are what make the Project Sunrise aircraft do what they will do.
Many airlines will be taking advantage of either or both of those options
and, yes, Mike O, QF added that designation and Airbus painted what QF wanted on the plane.
"few airlines opted for the 319 because a better system became available."
AGAIN, based on WHAT?
There is not a single other airline that's officially verified to be taking the 322 tonne version. Airbus has not clarified what (if any) "Sunrise" modifications they'll roll into the standard production A350-1000 version, or if they'll offer 322 tonnes for it. And every 319 tonne A350-1000 already has the N.P.S. modifications built into them.
So once again,...
"few airlines opted for the 319 because a better system became available."
AGAIN, based on WHAT?
There is not a single other airline that's officially verified to be taking the 322 tonne version. Airbus has not clarified what (if any) "Sunrise" modifications they'll roll into the standard production A350-1000 version, or if they'll offer 322 tonnes for it. And every 319 tonne A350-1000 already has the N.P.S. modifications built into them.
So once again, where do you get this idea that airlines are holding off for this derivative. There's no evidence for that.
please show us press releases from airlines that detail the specific weights and fuel tank capacities on the aircraft they order.
Relatively few people other than pilots for an aircraft type know the specific capabilities for in-service aircraft.
Even for new order aircraft, many airlines are not going to detail the technical details of their orders in part for competitive reasons.
As much as you want to believe otherwise, Airbus developed the increased...
please show us press releases from airlines that detail the specific weights and fuel tank capacities on the aircraft they order.
Relatively few people other than pilots for an aircraft type know the specific capabilities for in-service aircraft.
Even for new order aircraft, many airlines are not going to detail the technical details of their orders in part for competitive reasons.
As much as you want to believe otherwise, Airbus developed the increased fuel tankage and take off weights to offer as options for all airlines after those two things are certified.
Airbus would not spend the money to win an order for a fleet of 12 aircraft from one airline and QF would not pay for that development.
There are airlines that have opted for either the 322T MGTOW or 188k L fuel system or both
other airlines including DL are reducing seats but not to the same degree in combination with the weight and fuel enhancements to have a very long range 18+ hour aircraft even if that is shorter than what QF will have
If Qantas actually start flying LHR-SYD before September ’26, I might give the F suite a squirt. I will have to drop into SIN on that trip so it might well be on the return leg.
Probably it will get certified before the 777X.
Flew QF9 this week (PER to LHR). 17.5 hour flight in PE. It was a pleasant experience thanks to a lovely crew and a nicely modified 787-9 seat. Looking forward to MEL-LHR on an A350 in 2027!
"They’ll represent a huge reduction in travel time for these markets"
Really? If you fly via Singapore to London then the stopover is pretty short, you're probably only saving 3-4 hours which isn't great if you're in economy and trapped on the plane for the entire trip
Does anyone feel like they rushed the design of the new cabins? For example, CXs new First Class would be a revolutionary next-gen product while Qantas remains status quo. I mean by the time these a/c start taking the skies, new, cutting edge products will be out by then. So you might as well get ahead of the curve and plan something for that is ready for the future rather than just come up with something for today.
Having flown JFK-SIN many times I personally prefer a layover in AUH or HKG. Only adds 3-4 hrs to the trip. Doesn’t help that SIN 350 non-bulkhead seats are terrible for someone 6’3 though, so maybe I wouldn’t mind this flight as much if it is more comfortable to rest.
I’ve always found SQ biz to be overrated in general. I just don’t understand the fascination.
PeteAU, I’m pretty sure nothing will ever be good enough for you, in particular. If you can’t enjoy SQ Business Class, I mean, yikes, mah man.
This is really exciting. Currently, Qantas flies from JFK to SYD with their 787, but with the stopover in AKL. Once they start running the a35K-ULR, I’ll make a point to book a trip with them. Won’t be cheap, even in mere Business, but it’ll be so nice to not have a stop in LAX, SFO, DFW, AKL, etc. Good on ya!
The stopover at AKL is hardly onerous. And I’d rather cross the US border at DFW or SFO than have to deal with the douchey asshats at JFK.
PeteAU, no way, nonstop is objectively far superior, if you’re actually going SYD-NYC.
As for you denigrating the people at your destination, that’s probably another horrible idea of yours, but you do you.