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.
Qantas has been teasing this for nearly a decade, and the airline has now announced the first long haul route to get this service, along with the approximate launch date. However, more patience will be required, as this will only take flight 16 months from now, best case scenario.
In this post:
Qantas’ record breaking Sydney to London flights unveiled
Qantas has announced that it plans to launch nonstop flights between Sydney and London as of October 2027, with flights going on sale as of February 2027. This will represent the first-ever regularly scheduled nonstop flights between Australia’s East Coast and the UK.
Qantas notes how this announcement coincides with the first A350-1000ULR in Qantas livery being unveiled at Airbus’ facility in Toulouse. Qantas has been flying between Sydney and London since 1947, when the original “Kangaroo Route” (as it’s called) took four days, with seven stops, in Darwin, Singapore, Calcutta, Karachi, Cairo, Castel Benito, and Rome, on its way to the UK.
The new nonstop flights will cut up to four hours off the travel time compared to existing one-stop services. Even when the nonstop Sydney to London flight is launched, the airline still plans to maintain its one-stop services from Sydney to London via Perth (PER) and Singapore (SIN).
Qantas will launch this nonstop service once it has three A350-1000ULRs — two planes are needed to operate the route, and then they also need a spare. So you can expect the plane will enter service a bit earlier, operating regional flights, particularly for crew familiarization.
It’s not surprising to see Qantas launch Project Sunrise out of Sydney, though it’s interesting to see London chosen over New York (it has been confirmed that Sydney to New York will be the second route). Personally, I was thinking we’d see New York ahead of London, though I didn’t necessarily have a good reason for assuming that. I’m curious where Qantas is getting the Heathrow slots for this service from.
Here’s what Qantas Group CEO Vanessa Hudson had to say about this:
“Qantas was built on the belief that Australia’s distance from the rest of the world should never stand in the way. The pioneering spirit of generations of our people has forged that path ever since, and today is the most significant step in that mission in our 105-year history.”
“Since we first flew the Kangaroo Route in 1947, where we stopped seven times on the way to London, every generation of aircraft has taken a stop out of the journey. Today, we’re taking out the last one.”
“We made a commitment in 2017 that Qantas would conquer the final frontier of long-haul aviation and connect Australia’s east coast directly to London, something that has never before been possible. From October 2027, that promise becomes reality.”
Qantas A350-1000ULRs will have 238 seats in four cabins
Qantas has a total of 12 Airbus A350-1000ULRs on order, which feature extra fuel tanks, as well as a higher maximum takeoff weight than the standard A350-1000, which the airline also has on order.
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 32-34″ of pitch, which is 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. AeroLOPA also has a seat map of the new cabins, which is interesting to look at.
I have to say, as much as I enjoy flying, these flights are really getting to a length where I wonder if I might just prefer a connection, so I can stretch my legs. I guess if you’re in first or business class it’s hard to complain, though in premium economy or economy, this seems like quite the undertaking. But I guess that’s the beauty of choice, as there are also plenty of one-stop options.
Bottom line
Qantas has finally announced its first Project Sunrise route, as the airline will start flying between Sydney and London as of October 2027, with flights going on sale as of next February. The airline will operate this route with Airbus A350-1000ULRs, which is a unique aircraft type the airline has on order.
At around 10,0000 miles and with a flight time of around 20 hours, these will be the longest flights in the world.
What’s your take on Qantas’ plans to fly from Sydney to London? Would you like to take this flight, or would you rather connect?
Fly another airline!!!!
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.
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
“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.
Concepts of a plan. Easy talk now walk the walk .
Almost 24 hours on a plane? Hell no! I don't care what class of service. That's a hard no for me.
Ben, I believe Qantas has a bank of legacy slots at LHR that it’s been subleasing so likely reclaiming them.
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!
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?)
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.
Tim is indeed passionate about Delta Air Lines; but, don’t mistake disagreement on preferences as a lack of comprehension.
All very interesting, but how’s the seat certification going?
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...
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.
It will be, eventually, but Qantas is very Sydney-centric. That has been the case for many decades.
There's the Kangaroo route factor.
You don't want to diminish that with JFK or MEL.
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!
And that's why TG and SQ stop flying.
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.
I wouldn't call a 6% increase of pitch in economy as "much more spacious" though...
If WiFi and IFE are unexpectedly inoperable, 21 hours in a middle seat in economy would be anyone’s most memorable flight.
Really eager to try this. Too with the APD I'll be forced to fly economy. Let's see if I go bonkers.
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?
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.
"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
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...
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.
Wouldn’t the appropriate comparison be cattle? ;-)
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.
Meh, I'll wait until DELTA flies this route.
Then you will wait your whole life because that will never happen.
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.
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...
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.
@ 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...
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.
Airbus is the manufacturer. They brand is as A350-1000ULR.
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"
Indeed, I'm not sure why this dude is being anal.
Respectfully, you must be new here.
Why does your comment disappear when you sort by oldest first?
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...
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.
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.
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....
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.
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!
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...
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.
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...
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.
I found the flight - took me long enough. Flight UA ♾️ on Feb. 31st
(Tim, I think they got you…)
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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 guess they chose LHR to start with because that's the juiciest plum.
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.
"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.
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.
They doin’ any better in Belfast? Londonderry?