Qantas has a couple of dozen Airbus A350s on order, which will be used to operate the world’s longest nonstop flights, like Sydney to New York. There’s a lot to be excited about with these aircraft, but we’ll have to be patient.
These planes were first supposed to enter service in 2025. Then in early 2024, it was announced that these flights were pushed back to 2026. Now in early 2025, we’re being told that the first A350-1000 delivery should happen in late 2026, with Project Sunrise flights launching in 2027. 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
- Qantas ordered an additional 12 of these jets in mid-2023
We can now expect the first A350 to be delivered to Qantas in late 2026, though I imagine that timeline has the potential to slip even further. Initially Airbus had a delay with this jet due to getting the additional fuel tanks certified with European regulators. That hurdle has now been overcome, and the additional delay seems to come down to the classic “supply chain issues” excuse.
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. Qantas’ 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.
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, ultra long haul flights.
So don’t be surprised to see Qantas 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 that wouldn’t otherwise be possible (like Sydney to Paris).
Qantas Airbus A350-1000 passenger experience
Qantas’ A350-1000s will be specially configured for long haul flying, and will be in a very spacious configuration:
- Qantas’ A350-1000s 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 A350-1000s will feature a dedicated wellness zone
- 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 now expected to be delivered in late 2026, with service expected to start at some point in 2027. 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.
Qantas’ A350s will be in 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. I’m excited to see these planes in service, though unfortunately we’ll have to continue to be patient…
What do you make of Qantas’ Airbus A350 & Project Sunrise plans?
QANTAS Sunrise flights - delayed by years
QANTAS refurbishment of SYD Flagship biz lounge - delayed by years.
QANTAS A220 Darwin - Singapore flights - delayed.
QANTAS Wifi on international flights launch - delayed.
No one can take this airline seriously regarding time frames. Total joke.
After reading the post of Ben praising the new AirFrance F seats and then seeing these I can't understand how he would praise AF. These look like the same concept (seat + bed) but instead of having the seat nearly on the aisle with FAs and other pax bumping you when moving around the Qantas suits actually look comfortable and well designed.
Ben has terrible taste, and praises things based on emotions and personal preferences rather than reality. This is the man who worshipped Lufthansa's "first" class for over a decade!
It seems that the concept of a blog (with which he openly notes in his ranking posts as highly subjective) has eluded you.
Am I the only one who think's there's still way too many Y seats? To make money on them Qantas is going to have to charge roughly ~800 above what a chinese carrier costs, and economy passengers aren't going to be paying that?
I assume they’ve done the research and modeling and the demand is there but I cannot wrap my head around who is going to take/pay for this flight in economy.
You can do these flights the quickest with 1 stop in ~2 more hours than direct. While connecting is always a pain, at 20 hours I’d much prefer the break to get up and walk and refill my water. Even if you don’t need the...
I assume they’ve done the research and modeling and the demand is there but I cannot wrap my head around who is going to take/pay for this flight in economy.
You can do these flights the quickest with 1 stop in ~2 more hours than direct. While connecting is always a pain, at 20 hours I’d much prefer the break to get up and walk and refill my water. Even if you don’t need the break I just don’t see the ROI for <10% in travel time reduction on a nearly a full day of travel
Isn’t that because you’re a travel geek who loves flying and feels confident when transferring?
Before the launch of Perth-London non-stops, all the geeks on OMAAT were whining that they’d be a financial disaster because “everyone” would prefer to take two flights with a break in the middle. But Qantas tells us that the non-stop flights are their most profitable route.
Most ordinary leisure travellers want to get the flight over with, with minimum...
Isn’t that because you’re a travel geek who loves flying and feels confident when transferring?
Before the launch of Perth-London non-stops, all the geeks on OMAAT were whining that they’d be a financial disaster because “everyone” would prefer to take two flights with a break in the middle. But Qantas tells us that the non-stop flights are their most profitable route.
Most ordinary leisure travellers want to get the flight over with, with minimum hassle and stress. Having to connect to a 2nd flight in an airport where English may not be the first language is incredibly off-putting for the English grandparents taking a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Australia to see their grandkids. Etc.
And as someone who mostly travels for work, I also prefer to minimise connections: every connection is yet another opportunity for a missed flight, screwing-up my meeting schedule. Whereas with a non-stop, once I’ve made the flight I can relax.
YMMV
who else has ordered this plane? Airbus could not have planned just making 24 of these for Qantas?
Singapore is the single customer of the A350-900 ULR and has just 7 of them. The engineering packages (or technobrics as Airbus calls them) can be reused for other purposes and eventually make their way to main production aircraft.
I think it's more correct to say the airline pays a premium to have some engineering packages developed early just for them and applied to a uniquely configured aircraft that they think gives them a...
Singapore is the single customer of the A350-900 ULR and has just 7 of them. The engineering packages (or technobrics as Airbus calls them) can be reused for other purposes and eventually make their way to main production aircraft.
I think it's more correct to say the airline pays a premium to have some engineering packages developed early just for them and applied to a uniquely configured aircraft that they think gives them a differentiation factor.
After a while this differentiation vanishes as the capabilities of newly produced aircrafts catch up.
Apparently Turkish ordered some 1000s for flights down under. And from what I read on A.net, BA is looking at it.
There's no indication that Turkish's A35Ks are anything beyond the standard 319tonne variant.
That aircraft already offers 8900nm in standard configuration; so even if one factors in a typical 10-12%ish range variance, for prevailing winds and unpredictable weather, that's still enough range to reliably do IST-MEL.
If it was the -ULR version, one would think that Airbus wouldn't be silent nor coy about it.... seeing...
There's no indication that Turkish's A35Ks are anything beyond the standard 319tonne variant.
That aircraft already offers 8900nm in standard configuration; so even if one factors in a typical 10-12%ish range variance, for prevailing winds and unpredictable weather, that's still enough range to reliably do IST-MEL.
If it was the -ULR version, one would think that Airbus wouldn't be silent nor coy about it.... seeing that as of now, Qantas is still the only officially-announced customer for that model.
It's a pretty niche thing IMHO. I fly each year to Australia (in J for reference). This would have zero appeal, since I'm not near JFK. Fly to SFO, LAX, DFW, or IAH from my airport in first and connect in J. Or, fly the wrong way and have a longer time start to finish. Plus, the JFK-SYD fare is going to be much higher. Most in the US will have longer travel time, longer in-air time, and higher fares than extant routes. So, attractive to New Yorkers only?
Yeah it's niche. But for those people who live in New York, London or Paris, it's a premium some are willing to pay for a perceived comfort, and let's not forget the bragging rights of those happy few vs those poor people living in secondary citiss that are not served by those prestigious flights.
If the aircraft and frequency are right sized they can find their market. Singapore flies both non-stop and with a...
Yeah it's niche. But for those people who live in New York, London or Paris, it's a premium some are willing to pay for a perceived comfort, and let's not forget the bragging rights of those happy few vs those poor people living in secondary citiss that are not served by those prestigious flights.
If the aircraft and frequency are right sized they can find their market. Singapore flies both non-stop and with a refuelling stop to NY. Both markets have their merits and their clienteles.
One thing to note though, Perth has a lot of wealthy people due to the mining industry but those people don't come from here for the most part. So that's a lot of new money that wants to be spent going elsewhere. A lot of traffic originates in West Australia and is leisure oriented. At least that's how I explain the flight to Rome.
While I'm not sure the same business fundamentals will translate on the other coast, at least Sydney and Melbourne are massive and will likely be able to sustain this relatively low capacity.
"Concepts of a plan".
God forbid you mention delivery delays of the holy grail of airplanes.
@Ben
- of the 24 350-1000's QF has on order, only *12* of those are the A350-1000 ULR version, which has the factory-fitted 3rd auxillary tank. The other 12 are standard A350-1000LR's without the extra tank.
Another point to consider is that, at the present time, only the 12 A350-1000ULR's will have First Class. They are to be configured as four cabin (First, Business, Premium Economy and Economy) models. The standard A350-1000LR models will...
@Ben
- of the 24 350-1000's QF has on order, only *12* of those are the A350-1000 ULR version, which has the factory-fitted 3rd auxillary tank. The other 12 are standard A350-1000LR's without the extra tank.
Another point to consider is that, at the present time, only the 12 A350-1000ULR's will have First Class. They are to be configured as four cabin (First, Business, Premium Economy and Economy) models. The standard A350-1000LR models will be three cabin configurations of Business, Pemium Economy and Economy only (ie: no First Class).
The ULR's are slated initially for non-stops from SYD / MEL to London, New York, Capetown and Rio de Janeiro / Sao Paulo.
The other 12 UL's will be used on slightly shorter ULR routes. PER-CDG for instance will be eventually be operated with the A350-1000UL rather than the current B787-9. Other possible similar routes could be the oft-mentioned possible (but not confirmed) SYD / MEL to Frankfurt route. Santiago (SCL) Chile and or DFW / ORD could also be others.
.. and to those who eschew an ULH 18-19 hour flight, please be aware that Australia is horrendously far from everywhere -yet our population are used to flying ULH. The current flights to London are close to 24 hours (including a stop in SIN on QF / SQ or DXB etc on the middle eastern sets (EK, QR. EY).
Plenty of punters are happy to fly such routes, even in Economy.
lol 18+ hours in Y… that’s brutal.
Singapore can get away with just Y+ and J.
Singapore's LAX nonstops are 17 hours+ west bound, and have featured regular-coach since 2020.
Also, Singapore-JFK was launched with a standard A350-900, offering regular coach, before it was converted to the A350-900ULR that does not.
18+ hours in economy was proved viable by Chinese carriers' US flights that are not allowed to use Russian airspace and had to add a technical stop. That include 3U3838 LAX-HGH-TFU 18 hours; MF850 JFK-HGH-FOC 19 hours; HU730 BOS-BRU-PEK 19.5 hours (used to be BOS-SEA-PEK 20 hours); CA818 IAD-LAX-PEK 22 hours (until end of Feb, now direct 16 hours using 748). In all the above passengers had to stay in the plane during the technical...
18+ hours in economy was proved viable by Chinese carriers' US flights that are not allowed to use Russian airspace and had to add a technical stop. That include 3U3838 LAX-HGH-TFU 18 hours; MF850 JFK-HGH-FOC 19 hours; HU730 BOS-BRU-PEK 19.5 hours (used to be BOS-SEA-PEK 20 hours); CA818 IAD-LAX-PEK 22 hours (until end of Feb, now direct 16 hours using 748). In all the above passengers had to stay in the plane during the technical stop, and to make matters worse obviously these stops add to more than an hour when they can't recline seats. Yet they get decent load factors with the right price.
These aircraft will essentially be fuel tankers that happen to have a few passengers on board. For a flight like SYD-LHR/JFK, the amount of fuel needed simply to cover the distance requires considerable extra fuel just to carry all that weight. Essentially, fuel is used to carry fuel. And the premium configuration will mean that the fuel burn per passenger will be much higher than usual. All that’s to say that even with a next-gen...
These aircraft will essentially be fuel tankers that happen to have a few passengers on board. For a flight like SYD-LHR/JFK, the amount of fuel needed simply to cover the distance requires considerable extra fuel just to carry all that weight. Essentially, fuel is used to carry fuel. And the premium configuration will mean that the fuel burn per passenger will be much higher than usual. All that’s to say that even with a next-gen aircraft like the A350-1000, these flights will be incredibly inefficient and emissions-heavy. Not the direction aviation should be going in given the climate situation.
So, let’s do the math. Qantas’ A350-1000 burns about 529 kg of fuel per passenger on the Sydney-London nonstop, while a typical one-stop route (like via Singapore) burns 440 kg per passenger—a 20% difference, not the apocalyptic inefficiency you’re suggesting. Plus, your ‘fuel is used to carry fuel’ argument applies to every long-haul flight, not just this one. Meanwhile, skipping a stop eliminates extra takeoff, taxiing, and airport emissions. But sure, let’s pretend taking two...
So, let’s do the math. Qantas’ A350-1000 burns about 529 kg of fuel per passenger on the Sydney-London nonstop, while a typical one-stop route (like via Singapore) burns 440 kg per passenger—a 20% difference, not the apocalyptic inefficiency you’re suggesting. Plus, your ‘fuel is used to carry fuel’ argument applies to every long-haul flight, not just this one. Meanwhile, skipping a stop eliminates extra takeoff, taxiing, and airport emissions. But sure, let’s pretend taking two flights is somehow better for the environment.
Long-haul aviation in general benefits only a tiny fraction of the human population while contributing disproportionately to the airline industry’s carbon emissions. Long-haul flying will have to be reduced. If you’re a frequent overseas flyer, particularly in premium classes, you’re going to have to change your behavior. Sorry, no getting around it.
Right, because the solution to aviation emissions is… less aviation? Long-haul flights make up about 2% of global CO₂ emissions, but they also support international business, trade, and economic development. Meanwhile, airlines are actively investing in SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel), next-gen aircraft, and operational efficiencies to reduce emissions without grounding global travel. If you’re serious about sustainability, pushing for better technology and policy solutions makes more sense than scolding premium travelers for existing.
Right, because the solution to aviation emissions is… less aviation? Long-haul flights make up about 2% of global CO₂ emissions, but they also support international business, trade, and economic development. Meanwhile, airlines are actively investing in SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel), next-gen aircraft, and operational efficiencies to reduce emissions without grounding global travel. If you’re serious about sustainability, pushing for better technology and policy solutions makes more sense than scolding premium travelers for existing.
You’re going to have to change your travel behavior. Sorry, that’s the reality of the situation. I’m ending this conversation.
bro doesn't understand how the world works. You seem like the type to not vaccinate against measles because you don't know anyone who has contracted the infection. Telling people they shouldn't fly from the comfort of your smart phone or laptop that was produced because of international cooperation seems hugely naive.
Please tell me more about how you are a shining example of how to live a life and why the rest of us shouldn't fly long haul..
"while contributing disproportionately to the airline industry’s carbon emissions."
Which contributes about 2.5% to the world's total carbon emissions.
So while you, and a bunch of kooks who glue themselves to runways, may lose sleep over that, the rest of the world does not. Because no one's going to dismantle global connective systems over that. Even in your wildest dreams.
Only 11% of the global population has ever been on a plane. Of those, only 1% are frequent fliers. Aviation isn’t as central in meeting global needs as you’re implying.
Matthew, it seems as though you live in a bubble. Air travel is essential and is directly involved in giving you the power to comment on posts on a premium travel blog.
Please come up with a better alternative, and then we can all live according to your philosophy.
"Only 11% of the global population has ever been on a plane."
That is not even REMOTELY true.
Back in 2017, it was already double that. Today, it's closer to 40% global, and 82% developed countries (ye 2023).
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/boeing-ceo-80-percent-of-people-never-flown-for-us-that-means-growth.html
And while I shouldn't have to tell you this, you don't exactly show a great aptitude for the obvious: so be informed that global policy isn't (nor hasn't, won't, and ever will be) shaped by the...
"Only 11% of the global population has ever been on a plane."
That is not even REMOTELY true.
Back in 2017, it was already double that. Today, it's closer to 40% global, and 82% developed countries (ye 2023).
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/boeing-ceo-80-percent-of-people-never-flown-for-us-that-means-growth.html
And while I shouldn't have to tell you this, you don't exactly show a great aptitude for the obvious: so be informed that global policy isn't (nor hasn't, won't, and ever will be) shaped by the experiences of the most destitute.
Sad, but true.
By far the easiest and most impactful low hanging fruit in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is reducing the world’s appetite for meat, particularly cattle. Livestock account for nearly 10x as much emission as all flights.
Reducing global meat production by ~10% would offset ALL greenhouse emission from flights.
This requires no infrastructure development or investment (like producing green energy sources), but a very minimal lifestyle change in wealthy nations.
If you want to get...
By far the easiest and most impactful low hanging fruit in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is reducing the world’s appetite for meat, particularly cattle. Livestock account for nearly 10x as much emission as all flights.
Reducing global meat production by ~10% would offset ALL greenhouse emission from flights.
This requires no infrastructure development or investment (like producing green energy sources), but a very minimal lifestyle change in wealthy nations.
If you want to get on a soap box, focus on facts and practicality.
Oops, I'm just picking myself off the floor. I hope I read things correctly because it seemed like you were providing Qantas with some qudos.
20 hours in economy sounds brutal. Heck even in J/F this is getting long. I guess there must be a market for this.
If there's demand and assuming they'll be charging a premium, wouldn't it be better to have 3 classes with premium economy as the lowest class of service a la SQ?
J/F is long indeed but not much longer than ~18h40 on SQ between NYC and SIN.
Wouldn’t want to do it in Y though.
@Ben we're all looking forward to your review from your trip on the maiden flight!
Why 33" in economy when JAL does 34", and why 2-4-2 in premium economy when Emirates does theirs in 2-3-2?
They should've also experimented with curtains in first to reduce weight from the overhead lockers.
Or they could have eliminated armrests like the new Air New Zealand biz product.
22 hours its just nuts the range of these planes.
20+ hours in economy? Hell no, give me the connection vs DVT.
Economy in that long of a flight‽ Yeesh, no thanks!
Nice interrobang
when I was a kid we occasionally had to go on journeys of 24+ hours not including layovers. Sometimes there just aren't any alternatives to the pain. My dad would much rather sacrifice a layover than deal with 3 horribly jetlagged kids in an unfamiliar airport