Project Sunrise

[tartare]

I see Qantas are about to start research flights.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-research-flights-to-test-non-stop-london-new-york-to-sydney-routes-20190822-p52jm3.html
How would they route SYD to LHR?
Take off and set heading 319 degrees and just keep going?
The Great circle route takes you across the South China Sea - right through the middle of China, up the top of Kazakhstan and down, across Western Russia then down through Estonia and the Baltic to Britain...

[patty50]

You’d be a long way from London if you put in 319 and left it for 20 hours.
Since you looked at the map you would’ve noticed the great circle route approaches London from the north east and the final heading would be 240.

[layman]

Perhaps this route? Proving(?) route from 30 years ago

http://www.gcmap.com/ - featured in the home page

[Fliegenmong]

Who else feels quite sure that the results found...will have already been ...uh...found...and relayed to the research team in advance??

[layman]

With the number of academics involved (probably gathering data for peer reviewed research papers), I’m optimistic the human results will be realistic.

Fuel burn & other ‘engineering’ issues I assume are solely for analysis by Qantas.

Regards
layman

[maggot]

As realistic as the epic pax positioning and a few days rest makes it
probably office types and TFOs that aren't knackered to start with
so even with good intentions (hmm) it's going to be bs

[WHBM]

So they are going to put just 40 pax in an aircraft of a different type and feel they can get results from this.

What about the impact on those pinioned in Economy window seats by those alongside who are asleep ? What about the capacity of the toilets with a full pax load ? Will they serve minimalist Economy catering to those at the back, or will everyone get something better ? Will you be told "your choice" has run out and only the veggie option is left now ? And 1,001 other issues which will not be replicated. Regarding the crew, these are apparently new aircraft delivery flights, so one way. Surely the crews should do both ways, with the proposed layover time.
The Great circle route takes you across the South China Sea - right through the middle of China, up the top of Kazakhstan and down, across Western Russia then down through Estonia and the Baltic to Britain...
I recall the nonstop LHR-SYD 747-400 from 30 years ago (gosh, really was that long ago) heading right overhead me as it departed London. If I recall correctly, it routed the "conventional" way, over The Gulf and the Indian Ocean. When you are going pretty much one side of the world to the other (I know it's not quite that) it doesn't matter hugely which way you point, and the winds become more significant. The Singapore-New York A350 sometimes routes over the Pacific, sometimes it comes overhead London.

[layman]

Statement of the obvious - research can rarely give a ‘final’ answer in anything -but it’s a start.

On only a quick look around, I didn’t find any papers directly referencing this type of empirical research.

The ‘only’ papers I found that are somewhat relevant were:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275335519_Modelling_of_Passenger_Movement_Behaviour_on_Long-haul_Flights

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096969971830317X

Reoeating the experimental conditions 3 times usually gives a higher confidence level.

Might it be like Singapore airlines and be all premium / business?

[Capt Fathom]

So they will fly 40 staff and crew, First and Business class to New York and London. Put them up in nice Hotels for a few days with a fist full of US Dollars and Pounds.
Then they will fly non stop home to SYD and then be asked;

“What do you think of that flight and how do you feel?”

:ugh:

[layman]

Perhaps people on here should read the research proposal before commenting?

“People on the aircraft will be fitted with wearable monitors etc etc ... “

regatds
layman

[Asturias56]

Some people on here will damn them what ever they do

Try and launch without testing? Damned!!!

Testing ?? Damned!!!!

Sure it may be uncomfortable for the few souls in Economy but if the price is right they'll be happy to pay for it - all the evidence shows that the economics for the airline are the go/no-go decision - the SLF will happily put up with anything...............

[WHBM]

Try and launch without testing? Damned!!!

Testing ?? Damned!!!!
And then there's unrealistic testing. Boeing have shown they are good at that. let's not emulate them.

[Brown Cow]

I wonder what the backup plan is if Boeing and Airbus both say they can’t make the distance

[SeenItAll]

I wonder what the backup plan is if Boeing and Airbus both say they can’t make the distance

I'm quite sure the frames will be able to make the distance. The only issue is going to be, "at what passenger load?" Unless the plane can hold enough pax who are paying the right price, a technical success will be an economic failure.

[Qantas 787]

Who else feels quite sure that the results found...will have already been ...uh...found...and relayed to the research team in advance??

Exactly. Any results will be positive and just used to get the pilots and cabin crew to agree.

The data for the passengers will be useless. Test it with a full economy cabin. Staff who are lucky to be on the junket will tow the line.

This is a classic publicity stunt to divert attention from the lack of investment in other aircraft.

[WHBM]

I'm quite sure the frames will be able to make the distance. The only issue is going to be, "at what passenger load?".Pax load is one thing. There's also "how much freight" as well. Cathay in particular commonly gross their 773ER out on substantial belly cargo loads to and from Hong Kong, on both legs of their competing flights. With a full pax load and bags, belly freight revenue is still commonly equal to the overall profit for the flight.

[maggot]

Pax load is one thing. There's also "how much freight" as well. Cathay in particular commonly gross their 773ER out on substantial belly cargo loads to and from Hong Kong, on both legs of their competing flights. With a full pax load and bags, belly freight revenue is still commonly equal to the overall profit for the flight.
Commonly on 9000nm flights?

[engine out]

Flt ops were trying to keep these flights away from the media, so they could be used for meaningful testing. As usual flt ops lose as the Qantas PR machine does it thing.

[C441]

Yes, this is Pprune, the mouthpiece of airline sceptics anonymous (including me at times! ), but I am confident that this little project can be worthwhile.
I'm told that one of the flights will be operated by a Fatigue Panel Captain and one by an AIPA CoM member Captain (who is definitely not of the alleged AIPA to management clique).
The data will be collated by AlertnessCRC who ran the PER-LHR and MEL-LAX study, again with the full support of AIPA (and please save yourself the typing on AIPA execs moving to management roles and thus rubber stamping these results in the company's favour).

At least it's being done.

[tartare]

Perhaps this route? Proving(?) route from 30 years ago

Great Circle Mapper (http://www.gcmap.com/) - featured in the home page
Noted - but that was going the other way.
Clearly some concern about crews, basing etc.
But epic flight this - I see Boeing have proposed a 777-8 variant to do it.
What mods might they make - less freight and additional belly tanks to boost the range?
Which means you need more Biz and First to offset the revenue loss?
Assume that prevailing westerly winds are going to be a big factor...?

[kiwi grey]

But epic flight this - I see Boeing have proposed a 777-8 variant to do it.
What mods might they make - less freight and additional belly tanks to boost the range?


The 777-8 has just been indefinitely postponed - officially by two years. It was going to be two years after the 777-9 that is now slipping to the right, so that would make any 777-8 more likely 2025 than 2024. It appears that a "777-8F" maycome before the passenger version in Boeing's plans, and that the -8 passenger version may never eventuate.

Leeham News is suggesting (https://leehamnews.com/2019/08/22/opportunity-and-challenges-of-a-787-10er/, paywalled) that Boeing may now be shifting towards a 787-10ER as their answer. Since Air NZ recently selected the 787-10 for Auckland to New York, it seems they may have been offered an as-yet-unreleased Increased Gross Weight version. It may be much easier for Boeing to build a 787-10ER based on existing plans for a 787-10IGW rather than try to deliver a variant of the 777-8 when that base aircraft just might not be a goer.

[Beer Baron]

Leeham News is reporting that Boeing may now be shifting towards a 787-10ER as their answer.
I guess it depends what source you read/believe. This article suggests Boeing are offering a 777-9 with compensation paid for the reduced load until the -8 would replace it. Then keep the -9 as an A380 replacement.
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-offer-qantas-special-777x-9s-project-sunrise/

[knobbycobby]

The test is useless.
It’s Only 3 flights. That is not science. Prior Fatigue studies sampled hundreds of flights.With multitudes of different crews.
The data is invalid with a meagre total of three.
The aircraft is not operating over to JFK or LHR direct so it’s not even representative of the pattern.
It’s only sampling one sector home and not even a consecutive number of flying the same pattern.
It would be like doing one day of an early start in domestic and saying that early starts are easy. Except the reality is you’d do a 4 day trip of earlies and do rosters full of them.
If CASA and or AIPA accept this rubbish then it just shows how corrupt the system is.
Of course it’s all reverse engineered window dressing just like the embarrassing polyester cheap Indonesian shirt test group.
At least the Polyester shirt test at least had a sample of 60!
Maybe CASA allow us to operate just one sector home then?

[CurtainTwitcher]

You would be AMAZED what you can do with data. Though long, there is an excellent blog post THE CONTROL GROUP IS OUT OF CONTROL (https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/). In it, the author describes a prestigious psychologist ,Daryl Bern, who tried his hand at "proving" parapsychology, and surprisingly, using the most rigorous methodology (Meta analysis of 90 randomised controlled trials) was able to demonstrate it existed. Bern's work is scrupulous.

Parapsychologists are constantly protesting that they are playing by all the standard scientific rules, and yet their results are being ignored – that they are unfairly being held to higher standards than everyone else. I’m willing to believe that. It just means that the standard statistical methods of science are so weak and flawed as to permit a field of study to sustain itself in the complete absence of any subject matter.

The point is, he kept upping the scientific bar as more "proof" is demanded, and delivered everything that was asked of him. Personally I don't believe parapsychology exists, however, I cannot use a scientific data argument to refute his work.

I have no doubt whatsoever, the "science" behind Project Sunrise will assure the regulators to a highly rigorous scientific standard, that indeed the operation is safe, just as parapsychology has been "proven".

[WingNut60]

I see Qantas are about to start research flights.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-research-flights-to-test-non-stop-london-new-york-to-sydney-routes-20190822-p52jm3.html
How would they route SYD to LHR?
Take off and set heading 319 degrees and just keep going?
The Great circle route takes you across the South China Sea - right through the middle of China, up the top of Kazakhstan and down, across Western Russia then down through Estonia and the Baltic to Britain...

Stretch that string down to the south a little and it only adds a few hundred km to the trip.

[Chris2303]

It's not a proving flight as in the "good old days when Pontius was a Pilate and iron men flew wooden aeroplanes"

It's a proving flight for the press and the lucky 40 to go on it.

The embarrassing thing would be to drop in somewhere obscure when plans went awry.

[Rated De]

You would be AMAZED what you can do with data. Though long, there is an excellent blog post THE CONTROL GROUP IS OUT OF CONTROL (https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/). In it, the author describes a prestigious psychologist ,Daryl Bern, who tried his hand at "proving" parapsychology, and surprisingly, using the most rigorous methodology (Meta analysis of 90 randomised controlled trials) was able to demonstrate it existed. Bern's work is scrupulous.



The point is, he kept upping the scientific bar as more "proof" is demanded, and delivered everything that was asked of him. Personally I don't believe parapsychology exists, however, I cannot use a scientific data argument to refute his work.

I have no doubt whatsoever, the "science" behind Project Sunrise will assure the regulators to a highly rigorous scientific standard, that indeed the operation is safe, just as parapsychology has been "proven".



The Chairman's lounge acceptance rate for regulators and politicians alike has far greater statistically relevant success rates...

[PlasticFantastic]

The Chairman's lounge acceptance rate for regulators and politicians alike has far greater statistically relevant success rates...
Rated, you'd be more persuasive when you call for Qantas and CASA to take a rigorous, evidence-based approach, if you even pretended to do the same yourself.

[cattletruck]

Whilst Alan is converting A321s to freighters, perhaps he could also send along these 787's to be fitted with drop tanks.

A secondary benefit could be had once the fuel is exhausted from these tanks they could then be filled with the passenger poo just before release - there must be some country we hate along the way on that long 19hr flight. He could also rename the project 'sunrise surprise'.

[Blueskymine]

So is the expert going to feature on these flights?

[Going Boeing]

So is the expert going to feature on these flights?

The “expert” correspondent has generated this bit of verbal garbage to try and keep his self managed position as The Aviation Oracle going.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-offer-qantas-special-777x-9s-project-sunrise/

[Arthur D]

The “expert” correspondent has generated this bit of verbal garbage to try and keep his self managed position as The Aviation Oracle going.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-offer-qantas-special-777x-9s-project-sunrise/

And you would know better because.............?

[Going Boeing]

And you would know better because.............?

Arthur, you obviously haven’t been following his missives over the years with many major faux pas.

[Bad Adventures]

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-faces-tough-new-york-london-non-stop-deadline-with-pilots-20190901-p52ms5.html

[RubberDogPoop]

...Since Air NZ recently selected the 787-10 for Auckland to New York, it seems they may have been offered an as-yet-unreleased Increased Gross Weight version. ...

You may have read more into that announcement they was actually there. The -10 has been selected for the 772 replacement, nowhere is it suggested that it was going to NYC - it can barely make LA.
Auckland - New York will be the job of the -9...
IGW is mooted for both versions up to 260T apparently...

[Rated De]

Has the sun already set on Sunrise?
Thankfully young Patrick and the reliable SMH deliver the timely piece. After all that advertising spend is vital for SMH!

Mr Joyce declined to say what it wanted from pilots and would offer in exchange. In the past the airline has generally highlighted that new aircraft and new routes creates opportunities for promotions and pay rises for pilots by opening up new positions on the flight deck.
More for less and if they don't acquiesce Little Napoleon can blame:

1. Pilots
2. Regulators (if CASA actually demand science first)
3. Manufacturers
4. Insert excuse

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-faces-tough-new-york-london-non-stop-deadline-with-pilots-20190901-p52ms5.html

[pilotchute]

Why does anyone even think Boeing remotely care what Qantas wants? They certainly care what Southwest and Emirates wants but Qantas I dont think they give a c@ap about.

[Rated De]

Why does anyone even think Boeing remotely care what Qantas wants? They certainly care what Southwest and Emirates wants but Qantas I dont think they give a c@ap about.

Precisely.

If an order were ever to materialise from Fort Fumble (other than for JQ) it might total 12 aircraft.
Outside home market myopia, Qantas is a shell of itself. Its presence in Europe an oddity.
Were an aircraft to be ordered, it will be off the shelf and already in service with many airlines worldwide.

Observers will remember the spin surrounding the "first" Qantas 787, the game changing aircraft. LN of 615 was hardly revolutionary and the journalists on their junket were told to look away from the hardstand area where Jetstar 787-800 sat on static display.



The reality is that it creates column inches in the daily rags, it gives the appearance of doing something and also provides a nice implied threat during contract season.

[engine out]

“It’s presence it Europe is an oddity”

Rated De, there are more Qantas planes in Europe than European planes in Aus. Last time I looked BA had one flight a day to Australia and nobody else any (except code share), Qantas at least doubles that. But I do agree both Boeing and Airbus probably don’t care about Qantas as it’s recent track record of converting orders is atrocious.

[Rated De]

“It’s presence it Europe is an oddity”

Rated De, there are more Qantas planes in Europe than European planes in Aus. Last time I looked BA had one flight a day to Australia and nobody else any (except code share), Qantas at least doubles that. But I do agree both Boeing and Airbus probably don’t care about Qantas as it’s recent track record of converting orders is atrocious.


British Airways has a solitary Australian flight, down from two a few years back.
Until the recent past, BA was run poorly by Little Napoleon's second cousin, Willie Walsh. Is there a pattern? /sarc. Although, Alez Cruz has managed to make it worse.

Until "terminal decline" was the Fort Fumble buzz word, there were four daily Qantas flights to London and another to Frankfurt.

[morno]

Really Rated De, your whole Little Napoleon thing is getting a bit stupid now, even immature :rolleyes:

Find me an airline in the world where everyone thinks the leader has done a terrific job and I’ll find you someone full of ****. Alan May have had his moments, but what’s the share price? What’s the profits?

Get over it buddy

[dragon man]

Really Rated De, your whole Little Napoleon thing is getting a bit stupid now, even immature :rolleyes:

Find me an airline in the world where everyone thinks the leader has done a terrific job and I’ll find you someone full of ****. Alan May have had his moments, but what’s the share price? What’s the profits?

Get over it buddy

To you it may , however there are many who agree with him and who are of the opinion that with the near monopoly domestically, the flogging of the staff and the lack of investment in new aircraft for long haul the airline could be in a lot better place. Lastly, is paying Joyce $85 million, yes, $85 million over ten years justified? If you think so then you would be the only one I know who does.

[PlasticFantastic]

British Airways has a solitary Australian flight, down from two a few years back.
Until the recent past, BA was run poorly by Little Napoleon's second cousin, Willie Walsh. Is there a pattern? /sarc. Although, Alez Cruz has managed to make it worse.

Until "terminal decline" was the Fort Fumble buzz word, there were four daily Qantas flights to London and another to Frankfurt.
And those four daily flights were loss-making. Now Qantas' LHR flights are profitable. What would you have done differently, to turn that around?

[dragon man]

And those four daily flights were loss-making. Now Qantas' LHR flights are profitable. What would you have done differently, to turn that around?

Maybe just maybe if they had gotten twin engine aircraft earlier like 2005 and some nice 777-300 ER aircraft then those 4 services might have been profitable. The one thru HongKong was always a problem as they had a restriction of 50% on HongKong originating traffic however when they pulled out other carriers increased frequency. I would suggest that London was a problem purely and simply because management had failed to purchase the correct aircraft. As pointed out above the game changer which is still coming in dribs and drabs to Qantas is a second generation game changer better managed airlines have ordered and are getting delivered A350s and shortly the new 777 which Tim Clark at Emirates raves about and calls an absolute peach. https://simpleflying.com/emirates-boeing-777x-nears-completion/
The fact is Qantas is sitting on the back of the power curve. Lastly Please read this as it applies IMO perfect ly to Qantas.
https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2019/08/06/air-france-a380-problems/
The planning guru in Qantas told Joyce they were a dog with fleas and not to bother doing the upgrade. Guess what happened to him? Sacked.

[CurtainTwitcher]

The formatting is better and plenty more discussion of on the 777 purchase (non) decision in the link. (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22committees/commsen/80cb805c-1853-4626-87f9-af8627a15880/0001%22)
Mr Joyce : I think it is a good example, that this is not the panacea or the holy grail that solves your international problems. He is
absolutely right: Air New Zealand have a large a large number of 777s and they recently replaced their 747s. But Air New Zealand are
going through the exact same problems as Qantas with its international operation. Air New Zealand recently reported that its international
business is losing over $50 million—a million dollars a week. Since Qantas is five times the size of that business internationally, that
is roughly the same proportion of the losses we are experiencing in our international business. The Australian dollar has affected us more
than the New Zealand dollar would have and we have got a lot more competition coming into this market. He says that the 777 has not
been the panacea for Air New Zealand and has not turned around their international business. Air New Zealand are going through a
comprehensive review of their business like we are.


Can I talk about the fleet decisions. My background has been in fleet planning for a number of different airlines. It is a topic I am very
passionate about and a topic I do know a bit about. If you go back on the history of this, it would be very easy for me, as the current CEO,
to blame the problems we have today on the previous decisions that were made on the fleet, because the fleet decisions were made back in 2000.
I think it was at that point that they made the decision to go with the A380s. People are glossing over the history of this. First of all, every airline's
fleet decisions are different. An aircraft that works for one airline may not necessarily work for another airline. Qantas has a unique operation
internationally. It has superlong-haul routes that operate all around the world and because we have these superlong-haul routes there are what
we call scheduling windows that work for the services for our biggest markets, which are to the UK and LA. For example, if you go to LA, at around
10 o'clock to midnight every night five or six Qantas aircraft all depart at the same time. Why is that? We like to get the aircraft out before midnight
because it is a good local time. We cannot move them any earlier. If we move them any earlier out of LA, they hit the curfew—for example, in
Sydney—or arrive at an unacceptable time at the other airports. That means we do not need frequency. We do not need another service to
Sydney between 10 and midnight every night out of LA.


The best aircraft for us is actually a bigger aircraft to allow us to grow. The A380 was the decision that we made in 2000 because it is the
best aircraft to LA. It has a lower seat-mile cost than the 777 because of its size. It is the same to London. If you look at a London schedule,
the timings that work to London are an early afternoon service out of Australia. It has to arrive in Singapore before midnight and it has to
depart Singapore at that time to get into London early in the morning—usually arriving at five o'clock. Other timing does not work. There is no
point in us adding more frequencies to the London market because it does not give us any benefits. Therefore, the A380 is the better aircraft t
o London and to LA because of those scheduling windows. Then I look at Asia. The next question is: 'Why didn't you go for the 777s into Asia?
That would have helped your operations there.' Certainly the 777 is a good vehicle but when we were making decisions back in 2008, the aircraft
did not have the range. Not only was it not the right size, in our mind, or have the right economics compared to the 380; it did not have the
range to go into North America or into Europe.



It was only in 2003-04 when Boeing produced the 777 300ER that the aircraft became a viable vehicle for us. At that stage we had already
committed to the A380 and we already were of the opinion that Boeing was going to produce a new aircraft, the 787. The 787 then became
a very interesting vehicle for us because not only is it a good vehicle into Asia also it has lower trip costs than the 777. Lower trip costs are
important because frequency into Asia does matter. The 787 is a smaller aircraft and allows us to put frequencies in, and we want to do is
service more destinations.



The 787 has another advantage: it is an aircraft we could use domestically. The 777 could not be used domestically. It is too big. It would
need major changes to the infrastructure at our domestic terminals. It is an aircraft within a domestic consideration that could have over 400
seats and it is too big to operate on a lot of domestic operations. As a consequence of that, we believe that the 787 was going to be a better
aircraft than the 777 and it gives us a leapfrog in technology, and that is why we went for the 787. It would be great if I could go back and
criticise the decision and say that we are fixing the fleet going forward to recover the international issues, but the truth is they are the right fleet
decisions, they were the right fleet decisions for Qantas's network and Qantas's operations, and I do fully support them.


CHAIR: Okay. It is unfortunately beyond your control that Boeing are not holding up their part of the deal in delivery.


Mr Joyce : Yes.


Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee 06/02/2012 (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22committees/commsen/80cb805c-1853-4626-87f9-af8627a15880/0001%22)

[PoppaJo]

They failed in London in the past because the product they offer is garbage. Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, Singapore all for the last decade have been out doing each other on the product front on the Supers out of all major capitals to Heathrow, in all classes. Qantas stood still and did nothing. The product is embarrassing. The service is rubbish. The entire experience is very inconsistent.

You really need to fly Qatar Suites to really get a understanding of how bad this carrier has become.

[dragon man]

They failed in London in the past because the product they offer is garbage. Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, Singapore all for the last decade have been out doing each other on the product front on the Supers out of all major capitals to Heathrow, in all classes. Qantas stood still and did nothing. The product is embarrassing. The service is rubbish. The entire experience is very inconsistent.

You really need to fly Qatar Suites to really get a understanding of how bad this carrier has become.

You are 110% correct.

[morno]

To you it may , however there are many who agree with him and who are of the opinion that with the near monopoly domestically, the flogging of the staff and the lack of investment in new aircraft for long haul the airline could be in a lot better place. Lastly, is paying Joyce $85 million, yes, $85 million over ten years justified? If you think so then you would be the only one I know who does.

Isn’t the whole job of a CEO to make money for the airline? To increase the value of the company in the share price? Is he not doing that now?

He’s not there to advance your career, he’s there to run a frigging airline. I’m sure he still goes home and sleeps at night even though he hasn’t made a friend in you.

I’m not going to comment on his remuneration. Hell if someone was going to pay me $85m I’d take it too, who cares what some FO who’s cranky he hasn’t been promoted to Captain thinks. Be thankful you have a job, I’m sure there are many who would love to be in your position.

[PlasticFantastic]

Maybe just maybe if they had gotten twin engine aircraft earlier like 2005 and some nice 777-300 ER aircraft then those 4 services might have been profitable. The one thru HongKong was always a problem as they had a restriction of 50% on HongKong originating traffic however when they pulled out other carriers increased frequency. I would suggest that London was a problem purely and simply because management had failed to purchase the correct aircraft. As pointed out above the game changer which is stillcoming in dribs and drabs to Qantas is a second generation game changer better managed airlines have ordered and are getting delivered A350s and shortly the new 777 which Tim Clark at Emirates raves about and calls an absolute peach. https://simpleflying.com/emirates-boeing-777x-nears-completion/
The fact is Qantas is sitting on the back of the power curve. Lastly Please read this as it applies IMO perfect ly to Qantas.
https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2019/08/06/air-france-a380-problems/
The planning guru in Qantas told Joyce they were a dog with fleas and not to bother doing the upgrade. Guess what happened to him? Sacked.
Sure, if you go back far enough, to the 2000 decision on the A380, that might have worked. Although, the transcript that CurtainTwitcher quoted shows that the A380 has its benefits for QF too.

However, Rated was expressly criticising Joyce's handling of the Europe routes, so the better question might have been what would he have done differently in Joyce's shoes? T

A350, as you've suggested, is a red herring in that discussion - if what you're arguing is that QF should scrap the A380 on LHR and replace it with the A350, then that's basically the PER/Sunrise strategy, just with the marginally smaller 787 on PER. The 777X might be a peach when it arrives, but it's not here yet, and QF are actively considering being one of the first airlines to get it.

We've discussed the Air France comparison before. I disagree that Air France's situation with the A380 is perfectly comparable to QF's. But YMMV.

[Asturias56]

They failed in London in the past because the product they offer is garbage. Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, Singapore all for the last decade have been out doing each other on the product front on the Supers out of all major capitals to Heathrow, in all classes. Qantas stood still and did nothing. The product is embarrassing. The service is rubbish. The entire experience is very inconsistent.

You really need to fly Qatar Suites to really get a understanding of how bad this carrier has become.

In my experience I'd also look at their Frequent Flyer Programme - the last time I flew LH on QF most of the passengers in Business seemed to have upgraded using FF points ................

They were never as good as SQ but they were a damn site better than BA.

[PlasticFantastic]

They failed in London in the past because the product they offer is garbage. Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, Singapore all for the last decade have been out doing each other on the product front on the Supers out of all major capitals to Heathrow, in all classes. Qantas stood still and did nothing. The product is embarrassing. The service is rubbish. The entire experience is very inconsistent.

You really need to fly Qatar Suites to really get a understanding of how bad this carrier has become.
Qatar has an amazing product, and Etihad's is pretty good (their First is amazing as well).

But Emirates is pretty average in every class, and is the only one of the three that seems to have worked out well in Australia - Etihad is a basket case and has had to cut capacity, and Qatar has a pretty small presence.

I think QF should have upgraded the A380 sooner - business in particular is pretty poor. But, the new hard and soft products are definitely competitive.

[dragon man]

Isn’t the whole job of a CEO to make money for the airline? To increase the value of the company in the share price? Is he not doing that now?

He’s not there to advance your career, he’s there to run a frigging airline. I’m sure he still goes home and sleeps at night even though he hasn’t made a friend in you.

I’m not going to comment on his remuneration. Hell if someone was going to pay me $85m I’d take it too, who cares what some FO who’s cranky he hasn’t been promoted to Captain thinks. Be thankful you have a job, I’m sure there are many who would love to be in your position.

Firstly, I’m not an angry FO but an angry Captain who over 40 years has watched one of the most innovative and top ten airlines in the world be turned into a second rate carrier who has no respect for its staff nor customers. If you are happy for obscene amounts of money in pay and bonuses to be paid to management while they outsource jobs to contract labour companies while those staff exist on welfare so be it, we beg to differ. Only time will tell whose correct.

[nike]

The 777X might be a peach when it arrives, but it's not here yet, and QF are actively considering being one of the first airlines to get it


9 customers to date have placed orders for 344 777X going back to Lufthansa in 2013.

Bit of a reach to say QF are considering being one of the first....

[morno]

Firstly, I’m not an angry FO but an angry Captain who over 40 years has watched one of the most innovative and top ten airlines in the world be turned into a second rate carrier who has no respect for its staff nor customers. If you are happy for obscene amounts of money in pay and bonuses to be paid to management while they outsource jobs to contract labour companies while those staff exist on welfare so be it, we beg to differ. Only time will tell whose correct.

As someone once said to me, and I live by it (seems to work, I care very little sometimes), “If you can’t do anything about it, don’t get all worked up over it”.

You can stay angry and bitch and moan that it should be done differently, but at the end of the day, is it actually achieving anything? Put your energy into better things like doing your best to provide your passengers with the best you can offer.

[PlasticFantastic]

9 customers to date have placed orders for 344 777X going back to Lufthansa in 2013.

Bit of a reach to say QF are considering being one of the first....
If they order, QF would be one of the first to operate the -8X model. And, I'd call first 10 airlines in the world to operate a type 'one of the first', since there are a heck of a lot more than that. As for ordering v operating - I think actually flying it is the more important measure, compared to signing a contract for it.

​

[What The]

Boy, the Angels are busy tonight.
Must be contract season.
No one
and certainly not Alan Joyce
is worth 90 million dollars in 10 years
keep drinking the kool aid peg smokers

[Asturias56]

"Firstly, I’m not an angry FO but an angry Captain who over 40 years has watched one of the most innovative and top ten airlines in the world be turned into a second rate carrier"

That's the issue - in 40 years the business has changed out of all recognition - in 1980 it was Friends and relations traffic to/from Europe with a few well heeled tourists. Now it 's half a billion tourists slopping about in all directions from everywhere to everywhere. You had a 747 fleet that did long haul with an occasional stop- now you have thousands of 737's and Airbus's going point to point. The real cost of flying has plummeted and no passenger looks at anything but the cost anymore. Some of the world's largest airlines have just disappeared - PanAm, TWA, NW.................. QF management have to deal with the world as it is, not as it was. Sure they 've made mistakes but they're still there and so are you - count your blessings mate, it could be a lot worse........

[JamieMaree]

Absolutely.
Dragon Man, Angry Rat, et al need to get over it.
Qantas is a business not a trust to preserve the history of Qantas. For better or for worse Joyce is running a business. The Agro on this site have got to accept that the shareholders as opposed to the dreamers and the disgruntled employees and of course that Pygmy, Rated De, are accepting and approving of how the company is being run. Like it or not, Joyce has the runs on the board: Virgin, ANZ, other world airlines? He may not be the best but he is a long way from being the worst.
Qantas is not being run as an employee incentive program. Nor is it being run as a National Trust history commemorative program.
PanAm,Ansett,Northwest, Eastern, Continental, AiirCalifofrnia,Western,Compass,TWA,CPair, need I mention any more? The point is Qantas is still surviving under Joyce and the others are gone or struggling.
So Angry Rat, Dragon Man and the rest, bite your bum and be thankful you are still employed and not on the airline pilot unemployed market!

[hotnhigh]

Keep drinking people. Interesting how blind individuals are in The street.
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/stock-buybacks-were-once-illegal-why-are-they-legal-now-sHh6HZjtyk2styG-qLgnQg/
https://investorplace.com/2019/06/7-reasons-stock-buybacks-should-be-illegal/

[morno]

Keep drinking people. Interesting how blind individuals are in The street.
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/stock-buybacks-were-once-illegal-why-are-they-legal-now-sHh6HZjtyk2styG-qLgnQg/
https://investorplace.com/2019/06/7-reasons-stock-buybacks-should-be-illegal/

That’s nice. I notice in both articles, they mention that stock buybacks used to be illegal. Let’s say that one more time, used to be illegal. That means they’re not now. So who cares.

Your company is making money and you have jobs. Tell me where the problem is.

[DHC4driver]

To be fair though, share buybacks only became legal THIRTY SEVEN years ago so it’s still quite relevant and there is also a chance they may make it illegal again which will transform the industry for sure 😉

[pilotchute]

Yeah repealing Glass Steagall was a great idea too.

[hotnhigh]

Your company is making money and you have jobs. Tell me where the problem is.
Was that cola or lemonade flavour morno.
So the 744 will be gone in under 18 months, the early 330s have a time frame of 18 months before they are a big door stop unless airbus says "here's the new maintenance plan for the jets we thought were actually throw away items at this stage of life."
The 737s are approaching beyond mid life crisis and what does QF have to look forward too? Please tell. And how much do those plans cost?
Oh wait.......
A pilots job is to not just listen but also question. They don't like that terminology in the street. Hence you see why they have been removed from the precinct. And if any of the happy clappers has a change of heart whilst enjoying the surrounds of the street, they'll be thrown off the rooftop for not towing the line. Only one reason for share buybacks.
https://simplywall.st/stocks/au/transportation/asx-qan/qantas-airways-shares/news/alan-joyce-is-the-ceo-md-executive-director-of-qantas-airways-limited-asxqan-and-they-just-sold-33-8-of-their-shares/
I'm sure others can supply the names.

[Rated De]

That’s nice. I notice in both articles, they mention that stock buybacks used to be illegal. Let’s say that one more time, used to be illegal. That means they’re not now. So who cares.

Your company is making money and you have jobs. Tell me where the problem is.


The legality of the practice is not at issue.
That the management can find no other use of cash than re-purchasing their shares is curious.
After all, with debt so cheap (and interest rates at 3,000 year lows) why bother investing in plant and equipment when you can simply buy your own shares on market and pump the EPS.
Investment horizons being what they are, the EPS pump is rather conveniently tied to Executive remuneration, whereas the impact on operating cost and margins with a new fleet may take time to materialise.
Alan Joseph Joyce has been a substantial shareholder...

As fund manager Roger Montgomery highlighted last year, the CAP EX required to maintain a fleet age of around 11 years necessitates a spend per annum of $1.7 billion dollars.

Whichever way you spin it, investment bank UBS notes Qantas’s “fleet age has increased from 7.7 years in 2015 to a current 10.2 years”. They also note that the fleet is now older than the last peak
of nine years in 2007. According to the same report, Qantas has introduced just nine new aircraft or 3.7 per cent of group seat capacity over the last three years and so a minimum of $1.4bn a year will be required to maintain
a constant fleet age, with an additional $300m spend on the nonaircraft asset base making $1.7bn. That matches depreciation, but depreciation is based on historical costs so it is still probably undercooking how much is needed to
keep the fleet fresh, new and competitive.

So clearly there is nothing better the region's most well remunerated CEO can find to spend net positive cash flow on than buying back shares...

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

As a consequence of that, we believe that the 787 was going to be a better
aircraft than the 777 and it gives us a leapfrog in technology, and that is why we went for the 787.
And gave them to Jetstar, while keeping for ourselves all the old bangers that were causing us grief.

[Asturias56]

I'm pretty sure that Qantas management are quite aware of the relative cost/benefit of new aircraft cp increased maintenance/fuel burn - but current oil price forecasts are pretty flat

The average fleet age is 10 years - higher than it was but these aircraft are good for at least 20 years service so no need to go out and replace the lot . Better to buy steadily - or wait (like BA and Ryanair) for the airline market to soften and buy then. The QF fleet is a lot younger than a lot of big airlines

There isn't much evidence that the SLF care what they fly in - as long as you keep the interiors up to date - otherwise how would the DC-9 (sorree B. 717) stay in service?

[das Uber Soldat]

Oh man, rated De is not going to like that post.... At least you didn't say anything good about jq I suppose.

[Asturias56]

No but then I don't suffer from envy at people who have shiny new metal to fly

If you want a young fleet join Aeroflot.....................

[Asturias56]

PS with a new 777-900 stickered at $ 440 million you might want to spread the load over a few years...............................

[capricorn23]

I see a big “testosterone attitude” on this issue, SYD-LHR no stop, with a sure mention on the Guinness Book of records.
Industry asks and Regulators follow, as it happened with the “new” (already old) FTL, when EASA asked scientists to reasearch into human on duties/flight times performnce: “scientist” gave the green flag, so the new rules were adopted... the problem here is that, thanks to the technology, we can get “updated” machines which can fly that route, but what about the”human factor”: has been “updated” it too?...I’m not sure. I retired eight years ago as a B744 captain and I remember quite well my “physical feelings” when flying from South-east Asia into LHR...”just” 13 Hours (14 in wintertime)...inbound to Lambourne, the ATC comes in: “flight xyz, leave LAM in heading 270”...then after a while: “flight xxx, descent to 6000ft, QNH 1005, turn left heading 180, reduce speed to 210 kts, change 118.5” (or something like that)... I remember the high stress not to confuse the Numbers, that is not to put the speed number into the heading window and viceversa, And this was just when ATC announced: “No delay expected”, which in LHR means:expect 20 minutes delay.
Now, I wonder what could be the “pilot performance” after 20 hours flight times, (maybe woken-up 25-26 hours earlier), maybe with 30-40 minutes delay, a CAT III approach and a go-around...how many “bites “ will have left in the pilots brain to accomodate a potential abnormal situation? For the flight safety sake, pilots unions should speak up soon.

[Seaview2]

Well a start would be running it with more than the usual 4 pilots if they are serious about the operating crew getting proper rest. See my earlier post.

[dragon man]

Well a start would be running it with more than the usual 4 pilots if they are serious about the operating crew getting proper rest. See my earlier post.

Great idea, but Qantas want a standard 4 man crew 1 Captain, 1 FO, 2 SO.

[tartare]

So - to take account of human factors - what would the most conservative commentators here see as an appropriate cockpit crew for a SYD-LHR non-stop flight were it to go ahead?
x2 Captains, x2 FOs?

[Global Aviator]

I see a big “testosterone attitude” on this issue, SYD-LHR no stop, with a sure mention on the Guinness Book of records.
Industry asks and Regulators follow, as it happened with the “new” (already old) FTL, when EASA asked scientists to reasearch into human on duties/flight times performnce: “scientist” gave the green flag, so the new rules were adopted... the problem here is that, thanks to the technology, we can get “updated” machines which can fly that route, but what about the”human factor”: has been “updated” it too?...I’m not sure. I retired eight years ago as a B744 captain and I remember quite well my “physical feelings” when flying from South-east Asia into LHR...”just” 13 Hours (14 in wintertime)...inbound to Lambourne, the ATC comes in: “flight xyz, leave LAM in heading 270”...then after a while: “flight xxx, descent to 6000ft, QNH 1005, turn left heading 180, reduce speed to 210 kts, change 118.5” (or something like that)... I remember the high stress not to confuse the Numbers, that is not to put the speed number into the heading window and viceversa, And this was just when ATC announced: “No delay expected”, which in LHR means:expect 20 minutes delay.
Now, I wonder what could be the “pilot performance” after 20 hours flight times, (maybe woken-up 25-26 hours earlier), maybe with 30-40 minutes delay, a CAT III approach and a go-around...how many “bites “ will have left in the pilots brain to accomodate a potential abnormal situation? For the flight safety sake, pilots unions should speak up soon.

Seriously it’s your job and I don’t mean any offence. Sometimes it’s not easy but 4 crew (or more) operations is designed to mitigate this regardless of duty time.

I would be more concerned with all the back of the clock red eye, earlies to lates to earlies, yadda yadda yadda contstantly going on around the world with 2 crew!

As I’ve said before it’s not really ground breaking when you compare it to the ole SQ direct Newark or the new service.

[tartare]

Great idea, but Qantas want a standard 4 man crew 1 Captain, 1 FO, 2 SO.
...in addition to my question above - how would QF see this working - with apologies for very simplistic scenario below?
Captain and FO do take off, climb out and part of cruise - go to sleep.
SOs take over - monitor the aircraft for the middle of the flight.
Captain, FO wake up, do descent and landing?

[JamieMaree]

Dic*head!
QF has been using Capt, FO, 2x SOs as a 4 man crew successfully since 1983.
The real question is whether the Project sunrise aircraft creates any need to change this.
Captain and FO do the takeoff and landing.
The concept of takeoff crew and landing crew is a concept that other airlines have adopted.

[tartare]

Dic*head!
QF has been using Capt, FO, 2x SOs as a 4 man crew successfully since 1983.
The real question is whether the Project sunrise aircraft creates any need to change this.
Captain and FO do the takeoff and landing.
The concept of takeoff crew and landing crew is a concept that other airlines have adopted.



Sigh - no need for the insult buddy.
It was an innocent question - which you still haven't answered.
What would you see as an appropriate flight deck crew for a flight like this?

[patty50]

In one of the many other threads mentioning this someone worked out a sensible break pattern for 1CA 2FO 2SO.

Breaks for 1CA 1FO 2SO seem unworkable.

[tartare]

Interesting.
I had a look at the AusALPA website and could see lots of references to fatigue rules, but nowt specifically on Project Sunrise unless I'm missing something.
Is there a formal AusALPA position on this yet?
I assume you all think the QF insistence on one captain, one first officer and two second officers is due to cost, not wanting to set a precedent?
An extra FO wouldn't seem to be too much of an ask.
Wiki mentions SQ carried six crew Newark - Changi - without breaking down who did what.

[Going Boeing]

QF’s argument is that Long Haul F/O’s are command rated - between the Captain & F/O, there is always a command endorsed pilot on the flight deck. Both are in the control seats below 20,000’ so, with the planned ULR flight times, there is an excessive amount of seat time if the crew complement remains at 4.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

...in addition to my question above - how would QF see this working - with apologies for very simplistic scenario below?
Captain and FO do take off, climb out and part of cruise - go to sleep.
SOs take over - monitor the aircraft for the middle of the flight.
Captain, FO wake up, do descent and landing?

QF requires either the Captain or FO to be on watch. The FO (in long haul at least) has a command endorsement on type, the SO doesn’t.

[pilotchute]

No such thing as an SIC rating these days

[The Green Goblin]

No such thing as an SIC rating these days

Its called Cruise relief.

So it’ll be on your licence as A330(CR) or A380(CR) etc etc

[tartare]

Surely the incremental cost of having an extra FO on the jet wouldn't be that much?
And they'd have enough FOs to do so?

[What The]

Little Tino has just lit a fuse

[dragon man]

So now it’s out there officially from Tino, shiny jet syndrome, fly 21 hours with a 4 man crew for 787 money and we will give you some more promotions. Well Tino from where I sit stick it where the sun don’t shine.

[OnceBitten]

No project sunrise is the word on the street but obviously Tino has taken it upon himself to pi## off the Pilot group to cause a conflict so he has a group to blame when the fail of the project is released in December.

Project Surprise! (not).

[Rated De]

So now it’s out there officially from Tino, shiny jet syndrome, fly 21 hours with a 4 man crew for 787 money and we will give you some more promotions. Well Tino from where I sit stick it where the sun don’t shine.



Thank you to the Qantas pilots sharing the dribble from Little Tino.
His track record at Ansett with respect to aircraft introduction is less than shiny.
Funny that his chaperone at Qantas had similar "experience" at Ansett.
Not to be deterred they are at it again..

Perhaps draw a line under it Tino, see how the "business case" stacks up at Jetstar.

[Angle of Attack]

That email was complete amateur hour.....I found it hilarious

[Angle of Attack]

The fact is there will be no project sunrise you only have to look at the 2 currently available aircraft to see its financially unviable, even if the pilots paid them to crew it......idiots...

[Rated De]

That email was complete amateur hour.....I found it hilarious


It was rather rank.

With a surname like that, the implied threat conjures up images of a sloppily dressed Mafia type leveraging "protection" money out of small business in the NY boroughs.

[capricorn23]

[QUOTE=Global Aviator;10566070]

Seriously it’s your job and I don’t mean any offence. Sometimes it’s not easy but 4 crew (or more) operations is designed to mitigate this regardless of duty time.

I would be more concerned with all the back of the clock red eye, earlies to lates to earlies, yadda yadda yadda contstantly going on around the world with 2 crew!

As I’ve said before it’s not really ground breaking when you compare it to the ole SQ direct Newark or the new service.

Sure it’s (was) my job, but after 25 years of long haul flights, I can witness that quite often we ended up the flight with 4 pilots with the same level of fatigue, no matter who rested first or second, which wasn’t nice in case of any negative occurrence in the last part of the flight, let’s be honest.
I know that SQ makes the SIN-EWR since years, but what does it mean in terms of safety margins? So far it was safe, but that kind of fatigue you don’t get rid of with just a good (?) sleep, it’s the cumulative effect of it which has not been investigated in depth. We are exploring still an uncharted territory where there are not “truths” yet, just opinions...as it’s mine, of course. Just as a ”crazy contribution”, why not, for example, have the pilots going (on random basis) a psychometric test, or better, half an hour in a sim (with a couple of abnormal situations) after one of such extra-long flights, to test the readiness and alertness of the crews? Am I too paranoic?

[Global Aviator]

Capricorn - Yep I do agree with you, I was just pointing out that I believe there are operations out there that are just as bad if not worse. It’s the way the game has gone.

I would prefer 4 pilots and the end of a ULH sector than 2 pilots operating max duty red eyes. I know we are talking about project banananananna ramamama, but just pointing out reality.

Then there is the next gen business jets the Globals and Gulfs whose ranges are now really being stretched, talk about crew rest.

Anyway as I said was not having a go, it’s reality if they make an aircraft that can do it, it will be crewed.

[gtseraf]

[QUOTE=Global Aviator;10566070]

Seriously it’s your job and I don’t mean any offence. Sometimes it’s not easy but 4 crew (or more) operations is designed to mitigate this regardless of duty time.

I would be more concerned with all the back of the clock red eye, earlies to lates to earlies, yadda yadda yadda contstantly going on around the world with 2 crew!

As I’ve said before it’s not really ground breaking when you compare it to the ole SQ direct Newark or the new service.

Sure it’s (was) my job, but after 25 years of long haul flights, I can witness that quite often we ended up the flight with 4 pilots with the same level of fatigue, no matter who rested first or second, which wasn’t nice in case of any negative occurrence in the last part of the flight, let’s be honest.
I know that SQ makes the SIN-EWR since years, but what does it mean in terms of safety margins? So far it was safe, but that kind of fatigue you don’t get rid of with just a good (?) sleep, it’s the cumulative effect of it which has not been investigated in depth. We are exploring still an uncharted territory where there are not “truths” yet, just opinions...as it’s mine, of course. Just as a ”crazy contribution”, why not, for example, have the pilots going (on random basis) a psychometric test, or better, half an hour in a sim (with a couple of abnormal situations) after one of such extra-long flights, to test the readiness and alertness of the crews? Am I too paranoic?


That is a great idea, I reckon the regulators, bean counters and management types will NEVER accept such a test, because it will PROVE that the levels of fatigue we operate at now are dangerous. No, the industry is adopting the head in the sand approach to this ticking time bomb. My opinions are based on 30 years of experience. Of course a newly minted management degree outweighs this.

[tartare]

On a current tour of duty up to London, what sort of a break do you get when you arrive?
Do you get a night in the crew hotel, then back on the jet the next day to fly back down to SYD?
Then how long do you have off before doing it again (and before anyone gets shirty - I'm just asking to find out and get a sense of the fatigue issue).
Hypothetically, what would people here see as a reasonable turnaround on a non-stop tour of duty SYD-LHR-SYD.

[engine out]

It’s about 56 hours rest in London and if operating out of Eastern bases you have 48 hours rest in Perth before that sector and 48 hours after before operating back to the east. I’m not sure how long break is for Perth based crew between trips. However you also generally get 8 hours worth or breaks on the flight and I always arrive feeling fairly fresh.

[dragon man]

I reckon you couldn’t get enough money on it that they get 10/11 hour flight deck duty time here and within 5 years they will be back saying that applies to all sectors and you can have 1 SO on Aus/Lax and all Aus to Asia sectors.

[Capt Colonial]

I reckon you couldn’t get enough money on it that they get 10/11 hour flight deck duty time here and within 5 years they will be back saying that applies to all sectors and you can have 1 SO on Aus/Lax and all Aus to Asia sectors.

Considering our colleagues over at Jetstar operate with two-crew where we operate with three crew I’d say you onto something Dragon Man! That will be in the following E.A.s etc of course!
Thin Edge of a Very Big Wedge!

[dragon man]

Considering our colleagues over at Jetstar operate with two-crew where we operate with three crew I’d say you onto something Dragon Man! That will be in the following E.A.s etc of course!
Thin Edge of a Very Big Wedge!

With no Vaseline.

[Seaview2]

This was the idea of a schedule to run 5 crew 1 Cpt 2 FOs and 2 SOs. It’s one way it can be done and keep some semblance of the current flight deck duty times limits. The compliment also allows proper rest to continue in the event of a diversion. Did this a while ago and guessed the flight time but if it’s an hour shorter than below it still works fine.

Using 5 pilots on this leg is still less than the 7 they currently use now to get the QF1 from Syd to Lhr (3 Syd-Sin and 4 Sin-Lhr).

Sorry cant display the link to the post as I haven’t done 10 posts yet. So instead I need to waste more space and put it here. Apologies to anyone who has already read it. Not my policy, perhaps a moderator can delete what’s below and insert the link to post 57 on the So you need a new fleet Leigh thread:

1 Cpt 2 F/Os and 2 S/Os which would be a similar cost and in my opinion safer as much less time will be spent on the deck vs 4 pilot and it gives the ability to plan long breaks and more beneficial sleep periods much better.

Re dealing with the regulator and the pilots association. At the moment the longest planned flight deck time allowed is 8.5 hours in Qf Long Haul. Running Sunrise 4 pilot smashes that out of the park. The below keeps it reasonably close whilst still being reasonably cost effective especially vs 2 Cpts 2 F/Os.

There must always be at least one pilot with a command endorsement on the flight deck at any one time. At the moment a Cpt and F/O (Long Haul) in Qantas hold that endorsement. S/O does not. As such always need a Cpt or F/O on the flight deck.

Also one of the most challenging things about this flight will be the fatigue in the second half and maintaining concentration. The below roster would ensure that towards the end of the flight there is always one pilot who has been on the flight deck for a period longer than the other so someone is always in the “loop” rather than just having the crew both swap at the same time. Also towards the end of the flight the rest/change over periods are shorter so less risk of errors due to the fatigue of long stints at the controls involving controlled rest etc. Doing it this way ensures there is a fresh crew member is at the controls on average every 2.8 hours (with longer breaks at the start and shorter toward the end).

The last comment that I would make is for this to work everyone would need to know their role beforehand and turn up for work accordingly. More about that later.

The following assumes:

22hr flight time. 30 min taxi.
1 hr report. 0.5 hr stand down for 24 hr tour of duty. It can be pretty easily adjusted if required depending on the flight time. But in this example:

TOD 24 hrs

Off blocks 22.5hrs

Captain (obviously there for takeoff and landing) = C1
Take Off and Landing First Officer = F1
Cruise First Officer = F2
Second Officers = S1 & S2

Roster as follows:

C1 & F1
Taxi (20mins) and first 2:40hrs for total 3hrs in seat. (All times below are time in flight deck seat). Time for coffee to wear off!

C1 or F1 (most tired goes off) & S1
4hrs

F2 & S1
3.5hrs

F2 & S2
3.5hrs

C1 or F1 who went on break first & S2
3.5hrs

C1 or F1 who went on break first & S1
0.5hrs

F2 & S1
1hr

F2 & S2
1-1.5hrs (F2) 1.5hrs (S2)

C1 & F1 One comes back before the other so both not swapping together at their discretion.
2-2.5hrs (C1) 2-2.5hrs (F1) including 10 minute taxi.

Total time in seat:
C1 9-9.5hrs
F1 9-9.5hrs
F2 9-9.5hrs
S1 9hrs
S2 8.5hrs

Longest break in order to get a normal sleep period:
C1: 11hrs or 13hrs depending on 1st or 2nd break taken.
F1: 11hrs or 13hrs depending on 1st or 2nd break taken.
F2: 7 hours at start. 4 hours in middle. More broken as not doing takeoff or landing. Doesn’t drink coffee before flight and knows to turn up to work ready to sleep.
S1: 7 hrs.
S2: 10.5 hrs. Also doesn’t drink coffee before the flight and know to turn up to work ready to sleep.

Total time off each approx at least 13 hrs.

For this to work the roles would need to be designated before the flight with a schedule written similar to what other ULR operators do. The Captain and FO should figure out before the flight who wants to go off first so they know how tired to be at the beginning of the duty. That way everyone knows how to plan their rest.

This is the only way I can see which Sunrise can be crewed. 4 pilot just has everyone in the seat too long with too many broken breaks especially with 1 Cpt 1 F/O and 2 S/Os. 5 crew is complicated but not impossible. Easy spreadsheet app for the iPad and could be adapted slightly on the day depending on flight and departure times. It ensures that all the crew have had someone else on duty for a period when they get on duty so someone is always in the loop and the take off and landing pilots both have a big stretch off to get a proper sleep like in a normal 24 hour period. Hopefully this would satisfy the regulator and the AIPA. Also in the event of a medical diversion there is better opportunities to extend and get still have adequate rest.

Lastly yes this would add slightly more weight needing 3 crew rest areas but as the holds will not have much more than pax bags in them there will be plenty of space considering the size of the jet so perhaps creative use of this space for a crew rest area which doesn’t add much more weight than a 2 crew rest could be devised.

[ANCDU]

Considering our colleagues over at Jetstar operate with two-crew where we operate with three crew I’d say you onto something Dragon Man! That will be in the following E.A.s etc of course!
Thin Edge of a Very Big Wedge!

i think you might find that our Jetstar cousins have introduced SO’s on most of their 787 flights now, couldn’t tell you what limit they use for 2 crew though.

[Rated De]

So has the sun set on Project Sunrise?

Like Red Q, a Terminal Decline of Qantas International, JQ HK, a game changing alliance with EK and a Dubai hub all down the memory hole?
Will Qantas actually commit the CAP EX?
Will they actually admit their "project" in the end amounts to buying an off the shelf aircraft?

The question might now be posited, who cops the blame?

The pesky pilots who wouldn't do more for less?
The manufacturer who would only offer a product off the shelf, not committing to a few billion in R& D for Qantas to order 12...
The Regulator, who despite Chairman's Lounge membership and upgrades, just can't give Qantas what the "business case" demands like a 30 hour day...

[PlasticFantastic]

So has the sun set on Project Sunrise?

Like Red Q, a Terminal Decline of Qantas International, JQ HK, a game changing alliance with EK and a Dubai hub all down the memory hole?
Will Qantas actually commit the CAP EX?
Will they actually admit their "project" in the end amounts to buying an off the shelf aircraft?

The question might now be posited, who cops the blame?

The pesky pilots who wouldn't do more for less?
The manufacturer who would only offer a product off the shelf, not committing to a few billion in R& D for Qantas to order 12...
The Regulator, who despite Chairman's Lounge membership and upgrades, just can't give Qantas what the "business case" demands like a 30 hour day...


Rated, Qantas has consistently stated that it would make a decision by the end of the year, once it had an answer on all of these questions. It has the answer on Airbus and Boeing's offer, and appears to have been quite happy with the specs. On the others, it is working with CASA and the unions on crewing, both of which will take time. There is literally no new news here - why don't we wait and see what happens, rather than hypothesising or constructing narratives in advance?

[dragon man]

Rated, Qantas has consistently stated that it would make a decision by the end of the year, once it had an answer on all of these questions. It has the answer on Airbus and Boeing's offer, and appears to have been quite happy with the specs. On the others, it is working with CASA and the unions on crewing, both of which will take time. There is literally no new news here - why don't we wait and see what happens, rather than hypothesising or constructing narratives in advance?

Why shouldn’t he, this is a rumour site and for me personally I enjoy reading other peoples thoughts and then been able to look back down the track and see who was closest to been correct.

[Angle of Attack]

At last a decent response from AIPA, it’s 787 conditions or better or invest otherwise, you little beauty.

[dragon man]

At last a decent response from AIPA, it’s 787 conditions or better or invest otherwise, you little beauty.

I would have thought better as a minimum for an aircraft that will be 50% heavier and flight deck duty times that will increase by 40%.

[PlasticFantastic]

I would have thought better as a minimum for an aircraft that will be 50% heavier and flight deck duty times that will increase by 40%.
Agreed! I would have assumed that the starting point for AIPA would be 787 + X.

[C441]

Agreed! I would have assumed that the starting point for AIPA would be 787 + X.
There’s still effectively two long haul awards.
Why start with the 787 award when the A330 conditions provide for a lower hourly rate? :rolleyes: :)

[Beer Baron]

Perhaps you misread the email or relied on the quote above but what was actually written was...
On this basis, the AIPA CoM has directed that there will be no reduction to the terms and conditions for the operation of the B787 aircraft. (My bold)

So this is not an indication of what they would accept for the ‘Sunrise’ aircraft. I am sure they will be pushing for better terms and conditions on whatever aircraft that may turn out to be.

[ilikecheese]

So this is not an indication of what they would accept for the ‘Sunrise’ aircraft. I am sure they will be pushing for better terms and conditions on whatever aircraft that may turn out to be.

That was my understanding too.
Am I correct in saying that the premise for the company acquiring more 787 aircraft was predicated on renegotiating the current contract?

[ConfigFull]

Agreed! I would have assumed that the starting point for AIPA would be 787 + X.

787-plus will be significantly less than A330 as it is. The flat rate is a disaster for anything beyond Hawaii.

[dragon man]

The company want a lowering of some 787 conditions as an offset to by the sunrise aircraft.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

The company want a lowering of some 787 conditions as an offset to by the sunrise aircraft.

And I want a helicopter and a red Ferrari.

What we want is not always reasonable or entitled to be taken seriously.

[rep]

And which conditions do they want lowered?

[Blueskymine]

Just because they offer lower conditions, doesn’t mean you have to move fleet.

[CaptCloudbuster]

The company want a lowering of some 787 conditions as an offset to by the sunrise aircraft.


Have another read of what was actually demanded. I had to. Quite a development!

Move productivity required even after 30% given on an agreement with the ink still wet before any more 787’s ordered in addition to Project Sunrire.

[-438]

Hasn’t Qantas just taken delivery of another 787 Sim (2 787 Sims in Sydney plus about 50% use of Jetstar sim in Melbourne). Pretty poor planning by Qantas if they are only going to have a fleet of 14 aircraft!

Considering 3 737 Sims for 80 aircraft??

[dragon man]

They have two sims with a rumoured third coming to Brisbane . They have the remaining optioned aircraft at a never to be repeated price, they will order them IMO. It’s all about bullying the pilots with shiny jet syndrome.

[pilotchute]

Just do a press release and say the third sim is a "game changer" and everything is ok

[dragon man]

787-plus will be significantly less than A330 as it is. The flat rate is a disaster for anything beyond Hawaii.

You got it, but we are told that as 82% voted for it it was a great deal. Welcome to the brave new world of fleet pay based on the 787 with no overtime.

[SandyPalms]

He’s trying it on. Last time they ordered more, they got a “comfort” letter about Jetconnect. There is no boogie man this time, so they are trying it on again. Thankfully no one is biting.

They will order planes irrespective of the T&C’s of the pilots. They just managed to prove to everyone that they will never do anything in good faith. It’s now confirmed, adjust your behaviour accordingly. Might see if I can buy into a fuel company in the Pilbara. I think that email just increased their revenue by at least 300%.

[ConfigFull]

You got it, but we are told that as 82% voted for it it was a great deal. Welcome to the brave new world of fleet pay based on the 787 with no overtime.

82% were sold something that (way out of their depth) negotiators decided people wanted, from a union with zero strategy.

[dragon man]

82% were sold something that (way out of their depth) negotiators decided people wanted, from a union with zero strategy.

With no mandate other than the vote plus the threat of no backpay if you reject it.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

I’ve submitted the solution to Alan, 5 second officers - think of the money saving.

[Rated De]

I’ve submitted the solution to Alan, 5 second officers - think of the money saving.



Careful there Rex, ever ready for a "game changing" advancement, Little Napoleon and Tino la Spiv might seize that idea...

[Street garbage]

I was told that the stated opening position of Qantas was that they wanted Project Publicity at B787 rates MINUS 10%....."quantum of productivity improvements" indeed.
Let the beatings continue until moral improves.
Hopefully tomorrow's SH EBA Vote results will be a fair indicator to the company what we think of this.

[ruprecht]

I’ve submitted the solution to Alan, 5 second officers - think of the money saving.



They can't all have the fish.

[Capt Colonial]

This was the idea of a schedule to run 5 crew 1 Cpt 2 FOs and 2 SOs.


I like the concept and the maths!

However, having done SYD-LAX, SYD- ARG, SYD-SCL, SIN-LON as well as DFW in various configurations as an S/O, F/O and Capt on different Long-Haul fleets, is the potential problem if one or two Pilots don’t get to sleep when prescribed!

Looking at the diurnal variation from any start point that’s a possibility in Project Sunrise. Having witnessed the reality in different ranks, I know the probability in historic and current Long-Haul Flight Operations!

The effect when a Pilots out-of-synch (no ability to sleep) on the rest of the Flight Crew can be uncomforting to say the very least. How that transcribes inside a 24hr TOD could be harmful.

Not detracting from your viewpoint at all, however perhaps Risk Mitigation (at least in the short-term) maybe better prescribed with Six Pilots (Watch Qantas Scream!) until the Pilot Group and Safety Experts have enough Scientific and Operational Data to re-evaluate the exact requirements!

[Seaview2]

I like the concept and the maths!

maybe better prescribed with Six Pilots

Couldn’t agree more. Just kinda making the point that even with 5 pilots they would all be doing 9ish hours in the seat. The talk of doing it with only 4 pilots would be ridiculously dangerous.

Even 6 pilots would be less then the 7 it currently takes to get the QF1 from Sydney to London every day.

Just trying to figure a way where company and pilots win re only operating with 4 and still be reasonably cost effective.
Hopefully somewhere during the 11 or 13 hour break in the my 5 crew scenario above the Landing Cpt and Fo would manage to get enough sleep to be safe at the end.

Having done a lot of ULR both at Qantas and Emirates I found it worked quite well at EK when before a duty you knew which break you would be on and be rested accordingly as opposed to Qf where you usually don’t. Yes didn’t always manage to sleep but it gave me the best chance. If Sunrise goes ahead then I think something similar would be necessary.

Cheers.

[Buckshot]

And another key difference there is that Emirates is also 2 CA, 2 FO for ULR (and 3 man complement is 2 CA, 1 FO)

[dragon man]

Short haul EBA voted down 68 to 32, how good is that. Congratulations to all who voted against it.

[ScepticalOptomist]

I look forward to the company email... :D

[Capt Colonial]

Short haul EBA voted down 68 to 32, how good is that. Congratulations to all who voted against it.
Yes, outstanding. Credit where Credit is due, however!
A certain up and coming CEO at the Flying Kangaroo, in timing that could be construed to be exceptionally poor, launches a missive at the Pilot group and by his own words manages to do what AIPA, QPA, or the Pilot group itself has not done for decades, and that is, uniting the Pilots in a common industrial cause's against a common industrial adversary.

Well done TLS exceptional work!

[ruprecht]

...manages to do what AIPA, QPA, or the Pilot group itself has not done for decades...

Including the QPA in that list as if it's an actual thing.

Cute...

[JamieMaree]

Short haul EBA voted down 68 to 32, how good is that. Congratulations to all who voted against it.


Happy to withdraw my comments which were based on a misleading post.
It has since been clarified that the vote was 68% v 32%, assuming it was from a traditional voter participation.

[cloudsurfng]

Well you would be incorrect.

[DHC4driver]

What a pathetic result! By my estimate the eligible voters should be in the order of 400 +/-.
100 voted. What does the other 300 think? Don’t they care? Are they to scared to vote? Don’t want to put their hand up to be counted in one camp or the other. I know the system says the EBA was voted down but it it far from a decisive victory for all those who are purporting it was a dud deal.
Talk about sending a message.........NOT!


Thats 68 percent mate. A lot more than 400 voted

[engine out]

I believe it was about 470+ pilots that voted no

[Capt Colonial]

I believe it was about 470+ pilots that voted no







"Any agreement needs to recognise the importance of the pilots’ role in the business, balance risk and reward while acknowledging the impact work has on home life"

It will be interesting to observe the developments next by Qantas Corporate and Qantas H.R. in consideration of recent timelines forwarded for Project Sunrise.

Will AIPA place Project Sunrise negotiations on hold pending discussions to ratify an acceptable Short Haul E.A in line with the philosophy above?

Given resources/resourcing and a pending AIPA election, I suspect that the industrial machinations and whole environment may be very interesting towards the end of the year.

[Rated De]

"Any agreement needs to recognise the importance of the pilots’ role in the business, balance risk and reward while acknowledging the impact work has on home life"

It will be interesting to observe the developments next by Qantas Corporate and Qantas H.R. in consideration of recent timelines forwarded for Project Sunrise.

Will AIPA place Project Sunrise negotiations on hold pending discussions to ratify an acceptable Short Haul E.A in line with the philosophy above?

Given resources/resourcing and a pending AIPA election, I suspect that the industrial machinations and whole environment may be very interesting towards the end of the year.

The permutations being played out in Fort Fumble are similar to those being played by Cruz et al in Waterside.
It is the same playbook. BALPA is not playing their part, not responding to the punitive threats, largely leveled at their leadership (like staff travel bans) rather the membership has driven the union to action.

The problem for that playbook is that is relies on all stakeholders doing their part.
The Stream Lead has driven much of the narrative. Perhaps his value is diminished if the outcome is no longer assured?

That the union dynamics will change, introduces asymmetry and for once the grub Oldmeadow doesn't have it.
Having written that, perhaps the obvious play from IR is a rushed re-packaging in order to push a deal over the line at 50% plus one vote..

Interesting times

[Conductor]

It is amazing that 32% voted YES for that proposed POS SHEA. Wow.....

[Angle of Attack]

Lot of turnover and new hires in short haul Conductor so I guess that partly explains it, don’t forget the Self Interest option with lots of crew about to leave to Longhaul and wanting to get backpay. Anyone that has been in short haul more than a heart beat definitely knows not to vote YES on the first ballot, they caused it and we will continue it, hell they could have offered 10% per year pay rise but it still would have struggled because of their past track record of immediately offering a better deal after a NO vote. Somehow I reckon they pre planned this one though because the initial offer was pretty much worse than the same EBA with 3%.

[The_Equaliser]

Current SHEA was voted down by a greater margin at the first attempt, 79/21% if my memory is correct. In fact the last few SHEA have also been voted down at the first attempt. Some with an agenda to pursue will try and make more of this result than should be made!

[Rated De]

Current SHEA was voted down by a greater margin at the first attempt, 79/21% if my memory is correct. In fact the last few SHEA have also been voted down at the first attempt. Some with an agenda to pursue will try and make more of this result than should be made!


A repacked deal, rolled in a bit more glitter...
Only needs 50% + 1 vote.

BA pilots are 90% plus.

That a third of pilots accepted the deal means finding the 18% is not insurmountable for a well resourced, nefarious and skilled IR team.

[The_Equaliser]

No. It’s actually because QFSH pilots already have the best remuneration and conditions of any domestic narrow body pilots in Australia. A few tweaks will probably see the SHEA get voted up. Yes you only get what you negotiate, but the market can’t be ignored completely.

[Capt Colonial]

No. It’s actually because QFSH pilots already have the best remuneration and conditions of any domestic narrow body pilots in Australia. A few tweaks will probably see the SHEA get voted up. Yes you only get what you negotiate, but the market can’t be ignored completely.

I am not sure I entirely agree with the statement above.

Remuneration: Yes...?
Conditions: Not Necessarily So!

You see, the AIPA commissioned an independent survey of current and former short-haul pilots in February 2018.
Around 80% of current short-haul members completed the survey along with 200 long haul members who have previously spent time on the 737.

This survey informed the AIPA negotiating team of the issues that pilots wanted addressing.

The survey results showed pilots wanted improvements to three key areas:

• Personal leave – (Conditions)

• Work/life balance – (Conditions)

• Risk v reward

Perhaps another good example was Flexi Lines.
Interestingly both Qantas and AIPA saw the introduction of Flexi lines being beneficial to pilots.
The AIPA sought the inclusion of a minimum quota in the number of Flexi lines that pilots could access. Qantas refused this.

So, my friends in SH see the rejection in that the Work-Life Balance has not been achieved at the specific required points.

Younger members are seeking time to facilitate a home life and
Older members needing to scale back flying by use of Flexi Lines or Mo/Mo and
Efficient and Effective General Rostering and Stability to achieve the two points above.

Any agreement needs to recognise the importance of the pilots’ role in the business, balance risk and reward while acknowledging the impact work has on home life.

[Chad Gates]

No. It’s actually because QFSH pilots already have the best remuneration and conditions of any domestic narrow body pilots in Australia. A few tweaks will probably see the SHEA get voted up. Yes you only get what you negotiate, but the market can’t be ignored completely.

I’m not sure about that. A friend of mine in JQ tells me we are about the same in remuneration and my understanding is he has far better conditions. The only downside on his side is he can’t bid. I suppose it could be lies, but according to him, we are on similar coin.

[Keith Myath]

I’m not sure about that. A friend of mine in JQ tells me we are about the same in remuneration and my understanding is he has far better conditions. The only downside on his side is he can’t bid. I suppose it could be lies, but according to him, we are on similar coin.


If you are a QF SH FO and your mate is a JQ CP, then yes, the coin would be about the same.

[Chad Gates]

737 Capt and A320 Capt.

[Rated De]

737 Capt and A320 Capt.

Quite right Chad.

Landed unit cost (pilot in seat) is very similar.
It is the spin that creates the myth of remuneration supremacy.

[C441]

…..And now back to Project Sunrise…..or maybe that's the link in this thread.
Sunrise to be operated on the "short"haul award!
It could probably be done as a 6 day trip!:rolleyes:

[Sparrows.]

Landed unit cost (pilot in seat) is very similar.
It is the spin that creates the myth of remuneration supremacy.

No myths, just facts.

Base pay, 75hrs a month or 900hours a year, 3% pay rises over 30 years.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/793x775/c68ae4e8_afd0_4933_a63f_9155574162fe_1eddd6c3f9b69c02357ba78 70845d7f0860bbd06.jpeg

[Chad Gates]

No myths, just facts.

Base pay, 75hrs a month or 900hours a year, 3% pay rises over 30 years.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/793x775/c68ae4e8_afd0_4933_a63f_9155574162fe_1eddd6c3f9b69c02357ba78 70845d7f0860bbd06.jpeg




75x304.06x12 is 273ish. Even if you add a 3% increment it’s still at least 20k less. The first line of that table is incorrect. I’m dubious as to the veracity of the rest of it.
Anyway, back to Project Sunrise.

[CurtainTwitcher]

Sparrows, does your extremely simple model account for the difference in the rate of promotion between the two? What is the expected time to Capt at JQ, what is the time at QF?

I would suggest that JQ would provide a better short term outcome cash income, with a lower total remuneration over a full working career. However a JQ Captain has gained a very valuable commodity - experience through rapid promotion, is able to tap the extremely lucrative tax free contracts not available to First Officers. Which seat would you rather be sitting if a major slowdown occurred?
Historically he pilots who have always come out on top during crises are those that are most valuable to an airlines, Captains, checkers and trainers.

Truth is opportunity cost is very expensive. Quick promotion and valuable experience that can command a large premium on the open market or better pay in the longer term is the tradeoff between the two groups within QF. The point is there is no "better" option, just different ones with differing market employability profiles.

This general feature of opportunity cost of training and experience was first identified more that 240 years ago by Adam Smith in 1776 in the Wealth Of Nations (http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN4.html).

10.1.25 The probability that any particular person shall ever be qualified for
the employment to which he is educated, is very different in different occupations.
In the greater part of mechanic trades, success is almost certain; but very
uncertain in the liberal professions. Put your son apprentice to a shoemaker,
there is little doubt of his learning to make a pair of shoes: But send him
to study the law, it is at least twenty to one if ever he makes such proficiency
as will enable him to live by the business. In a perfectly fair lottery, those
who draw the prizes ought to gain all that is lost by those who draw the blanks.
In a profession where twenty fail for one that succeeds, that one ought to
gain all that should have been gained by the unsuccessful twenty. The
counsellor at law who, perhaps, at near forty years of age, begins to
make something by his profession, ought to receive the retribution, not only
of his own so tedious and expensive education, but of that of more than
twenty others who are never likely to make any thing by it.
How extravagant soever the fees of counsellors at law may sometimes
appear, their real retribution is never equal to this.

Compute in any particular place, what is likely to be annually gained, and what is likely
to be annually spent, by all the different workmen in any common trade, such as that
of shoemakers or weavers, and you will find that the former sum will generally exceed
the latter. But make the same computation with regard to all the counsellors and students
of law, in all the different inns of court, and you will find that their annual gains bear but a
very small proportion to their annual expence, even though you rate the former as high,
and the latter as low, as can well be done. The lottery of the law, therefore, is very far
from being a perfectly fair lottery; and that, as well as many other liberal and honourable
professions, is, in point of pecuniary gain, evidently under-recompenced.

[rockarpee]

Back to Sunrise thanks

[Rated De]

No myths, just facts.

Base pay, 75hrs a month or 900hours a year, 3% pay rises over 30 years.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/793x775/c68ae4e8_afd0_4933_a63f_9155574162fe_1eddd6c3f9b69c02357ba78 70845d7f0860bbd06.jpeg




Is that the landed unit cost or a remuneration comparison?
With respect to the earlier post, total unit cost of labour requires more than a simple remuneration comparison based on hourly rate.

That is the reason why those IR types focus your attention on "hourly rate"


As Curtain Twitcher highlighted a simple remuneration comparison ignores many permutations like time in rank.

With respect to Project Bananarama, didn't Tino La Spiv, in a thinly veiled threat to Qantas pilots, suggest that more "investment" in JQ might result unless pilot provide more concessions were forthcoming?
If so Tino, probably best to ignore the landed (total cost) of pilot in seat as that sure isn't what it is claimed to be...

[Asturias56]

I've saved a copy of those tables... I 'll take them out in 20 years time as people will never believe that QF pilots thought they'd be on $A400,000 - $A 500,000 a year ...........

IF the airline survives it won't be paying those rates -.......................

[ScepticalOptomist]

The airline will still be here, and there are some on those figures today...

[Asturias56]

I'm not so sure - in my travelling life-time QF have declined to become a niche international player - I can't see how they can compete with the Asian airlines long term

Domestic you can protect ....... until Ryanair Australia turn-up

[Beer Baron]

I can't see how they can compete with the Asian airlines long term

Domestic you can protect ....... until Ryanair Australia turn-up
Well they have been competing with the likes of SingAir, Cathay, Malaysian, JAL, for more than 40 years so it seems they can survive the long term.

And since this thread is about Project Sunrise, how many Asian carriers will they have to compete with on direct London or New York flights???

As for the threat of a new low cost entrant into the domestic market, well we have seen what happened to the last few, why would Ryanair be any different?

[dragon man]

Qantas will survive long term IMO , they have basically a monopoly on domestic services , a massive loyalty scheme and as aircraft are able to do direct services from Australia to either Europe or the USA the competition from Asian and the middle eastern airlines declines. The question for Qantas pilots will be how much they allow the company to screw their wages and conditions.

[Australopithecus]

Additionally, there are no more gates or terminal space for a new entrant. That takes care of domestic.
Internationally, sunrise means no competition unless the bilateral nation has a partner willing to commit. .

[Asturias56]

Comparing the 1972 route map with the 2019 one almost all of Europe has gone, the Middle East has gone, no flights to the sub-continent, and been there has been partial replacement by flights to East Asia

I take the points about domestic - but never underestimate just what people will put up with to save $10.............

Internationally Chinese airlines will continue to grow and might bring serious pressure on those Chinese routes.

To my mind Project Sunrise is quite a clever response to their problems - if your main market is UK or US to Australia then by flying direct you are doing something your main opposition (SQ, Qatar, Emirates etc) can't compete on and may never be able to compete on.

Not too sure about the benefits of the vast QF Loyalty scheme - I suspect it puts bums on seats but is diluting the income - especially when those points are used to upgrade to Business or Prem Econ.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1022x749/quantas_1972_52866679f537c4ac2fda510ba99bd43373340c34.png
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1990x996/quantas_2019_16d2f697182c25f85b08e5ec792a0e454ddda318.png

[Troo believer]

Comparing the 1972 route map with the 2019 one almost all of Europe has gone, the Middle East has gone, no flights to the sub-continent, and been there has been partial replacement by flights to East Asia

I take the points about domestic - but never underestimate just what people will put up with to save $10.............

Internationally Chinese airlines will continue to grow and might bring serious pressure on those Chinese routes.

To my mind Project Sunrise is quite a clever response to their problems - if your main market is UK or US to Australia then by flying direct you are doing something your main opposition (SQ, Qatar, Emirates etc) can't compete on and may never be able to compete on.

Not too sure about the benefits of the vast QF Loyalty scheme - I suspect it puts bums on seats but is diluting the income - especially when those points are used to upgrade to Business or Prem Econ.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1022x749/quantas_1972_52866679f537c4ac2fda510ba99bd43373340c34.png
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1990x996/quantas_2019_16d2f697182c25f85b08e5ec792a0e454ddda318.png
Qantas makes money out of the points they sell. Do you think they give them away? One can’t survive without the other. As for project Sunrise (browneye) it’s a certainty. I’ll bet my left .. on it. Why else would Qantas promote 3 flights which will attract massive publicity if it wasn’t going to happen. It will happen but which aircraft they choose I’ve no idea. You wouldn’t go down this path of self promotion unless you already know the outcome. I predict an announcement after the LHR-SYD flight which ties in nicely with the 100th year anniversary. It’s a fait accompli. It’s so obvious you’d have to be an Ostrich not to see it.

[Global Aviator]

Well said Troo... If QF want bananarama to happen it will! Subject to to aircraft capabilities.

Divers will accept Ts & Cs at some point, let’s face it the % cost of pirates ain’t that much in the grand scheme of things.

What will be interesting is reading this thread after 6 months of operations to read what the naysayers are banging out.

As has been said the PER - LHR has the same criticism before wheels up, now look at that...

Straya.........

[Going Boeing]

Qantas makes money out of the points they sell. Do you think they give them away? One can’t survive without the other.

When points are redeemed for a seat on a flight, the FF division pays an amount to QF Domestic or International roughly equivalent to a staff fare - you wouldn’t want more than 10% of the passengers on each flight to be FF redemptions as you won’t cover costs.

This always makes the FF scheme very profitable but it doesn’t generate much cash for the airline.

[B772]

Boeing would be disappointed with the B777-9 static frame test result after a cargo door blew off during final load testing.

[AerialPerspective]

Comparing the 1972 route map with the 2019 one almost all of Europe has gone, the Middle East has gone, no flights to the sub-continent, and been there has been partial replacement by flights to East Asia

I take the points about domestic - but never underestimate just what people will put up with to save $10.............

Internationally Chinese airlines will continue to grow and might bring serious pressure on those Chinese routes.

To my mind Project Sunrise is quite a clever response to their problems - if your main market is UK or US to Australia then by flying direct you are doing something your main opposition (SQ, Qatar, Emirates etc) can't compete on and may never be able to compete on.

Not too sure about the benefits of the vast QF Loyalty scheme - I suspect it puts bums on seats but is diluting the income - especially when those points are used to upgrade to Business or Prem Econ.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1022x749/quantas_1972_52866679f537c4ac2fda510ba99bd43373340c34.png
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1990x996/quantas_2019_16d2f697182c25f85b08e5ec792a0e454ddda318.png

Well, for a start there were routes to/from the subcontinent and the ME because the aeroplanes didn’t have the range. Back then in the late 70s a one stop to London was SYD-MEL-PER-BOM-LHR and they were flying half a dozen 747s to Europe every day not always full.

Destinations like BOM and BAH were not for profit reasons but essentially for refuelling en route.
Before suggesting Qantas has shrunk, check out who of their competitors from that era still fly those routes... no KLM, no Lufthansa, no Alitalia, no Olympic, no British Airways to speak of, no Air France and a few more to boot.

Somehow all these route comparisons ignore the lack of other majors who flew the same routes. Geez, when some of those routes were being flown they were by the 707-338C!!!

QF didn’t fly to DFW, LAX, JFK or others back then either.

[CaptCloudbuster]

You wouldn’t go down this path of self promotion unless you already know the outcome. I predict an announcement after the LHR-SYD flight which ties in nicely with the 100th year anniversary. It’s a fait accompli. It’s so obvious you’d have to be an Ostrich not to see it.



RedQ? (https://www.executivetraveller.com/qantas-to-ground-asian-based-red-q-airline-before-it-launches)

Jetstar HK? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetstar_Hong_Kong)

You mightn’t.....

[JPJP]

I'm not so sure - in my travelling life-time QF have declined to become a niche international player - I can't see how they can compete with the Asian airlines long term

Domestic you can protect ....... until Ryanair Australia turn-up

The good news is this - “In your travelling life” doesn’t seem to have included the modern global airline industry. Or, you’re a poor version of an IR mouthpiece for your boss.

Aus $400K is normal for a 737 Captain. Tell Alan that he may have to readjust his goals. Again.

It’s going to be amazing.



https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/700x467/421fd921_afcf_490e_b14f_11642ed310ed_b26845e043e7aa225ef7bc9 ced46d097a6dedab6.jpeg

[Asturias56]

"In your travelling life” doesn’t seem to have included the modern global airline industry"

regretfully I still seem to spend an awful lot of time flying about the globe....................:(.

TBH things have changed and keep changing - I can remember when the height of sophistication was a pull down screen on the forward bulkhead to watch an out of focus movie. That has improved - but check-in and security have become far worse. Real prices have plummeted - but so have standards of passenger treatment. Airlines run much more fuel efficient jets and the fuel price is much lower than the 80's but they still seem to lose money most of the time......................

Pilots always think they are underpaid and their T&C are awful - but it's one of the few industries were some people actually PAY (or work for nothing) their employers to build up experience (in the legal profession this went out around 1970)

I just see constant pressure on costs - from shareholders, banks etc and that means a change in the business model - go onto the Fragrant Harbour thread and read how the CX guys have had their T&C chipped away over the last 10-15 years and you'll get a flavour of what will happen at QF in the next 20.

[Rated De]

I just see constant pressure on costs - from shareholders, banks etc and that means a change in the business model - go onto the Fragrant Harbour thread and read how the CX guys have had their T&C chipped away over the last 10-15 years and you'll get a flavour of what will happen at QF in the next 20.

What cost do you refer to?

If you refer to operating costs, that is low hanging fruit.
However, if you want a glimpse into the future, reform of the back office is where things will change.
Until that time, pilots will be under pressure but operating revenue is generated from operating, not administering.
With an aging western economy and substantial barriers to entry (money, time and aptitude) airlines have a relationship problem; their relationship with their staff, particularly operationally critical staff like pilots will change, eventually.

Wander around Cathay Pacific city, Waterside or the aptly named Coward Street.
Floors of staff all doing who knows what. They have to be carried in the seat cost of the the CGU (Qantas term Capital Generating Unit-Accountant speak for aircraft)

[Asturias56]

They'll just hire people from other countries claiming that the in-place staff are hidebound relics of the last Century

They'll throw around big buck numbers for earnings in the media to influence the guy in the street (see BA currently in the UK), they'll bang on about how few days you work and the perks...................

These people are not nice

[Street garbage]

"In your travelling life” doesn’t seem to have included the modern global airline industry"

regretfully I still seem to spend an awful lot of time flying about the globe....................:(.

TBH things have changed and keep changing - I can remember when the height of sophistication was a pull down screen on the forward bulkhead to watch an out of focus movie. That has improved - but check-in and security have become far worse. Real prices have plummeted - but so have standards of passenger treatment. Airlines run much more fuel efficient jets and the fuel price is much lower than the 80's but they still seem to lose money most of the time......................

Pilots always think they are underpaid and their T&C are awful - but it's one of the few industries were some people actually PAY (or work for nothing) their employers to build up experience (in the legal profession this went out around 1970)

I just see constant pressure on costs - from shareholders, banks etc and that means a change in the business model - go onto the Fragrant Harbour thread and read how the CX guys have had their T&C chipped away over the last 10-15 years and you'll get a flavour of what will happen at QF in the next 20.

So a 30% "chip away last LH EBA"..read "productivity increase"..wasnt enough for you?
I heard the opening statement from our ex AIPA president in the recently opened LH EA is for the Project Publicity a/c to be flown at B787 minus 10%...what would that make the productivity gain?
Have a look at how much the BA CEO makes. 1.3 million pounds. Cost saving should begin at Coward St...
And if you think people pay for GA flying, you are obviously stuck in the early 1990's.

[Rated De]

They'll just hire people from other countries claiming that the in-place staff are hidebound relics of the last Century

They'll throw around big buck numbers for earnings in the media to influence the guy in the street (see BA currently in the UK), they'll bang on about how few days you work and the perks...................

These people are not nice

No you are correct, they are not nice.

Let them throw around the big numbers, the British Airways campaign is cut from the same playbook.

Problematic for all airlines is supply.
Demographics are creating big headaches, the barriers (cost) of entry and reduced terms and conditions make the industry far less attractive.
These issues will continue to generate real problems that will never be admitted but the market will adjust: either terms improve to induce supply or the cancellation rates grow.

[tartare]

See below:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12268734

[tartare]

Some more detail on the Project Sunrise research flights (or whatever you want to call them) in today's New Zealand Herald.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12268868

[C441]

Some more detail on the Project Sunrise research flights (or whatever you want to call them) in today's New Zealand Herald.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12268868

As someone with more than a little interest in the plans I'd be interested to read how accurate the article is but can only read the first half dozen lines without paying for a subscription
(which I'll rarely use again). Any chance you can PM me a PDF?

[Chris2303]

Some more detail on the Project Sunrise research flights (or whatever you want to call them) in today's New Zealand Herald.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12268868

If I may be so bold - please don't link articles behind a paywall..........

[Angle of Attack]

Hong Kong used to be the bees bees as usual anything associated with China turns to **** rather rapidly, enter at own risk!

[tartare]

If I may be so bold - please don't link articles behind a paywall..........

My apologies.
I didn't realise.
Summary of main points:

Three flights over the next three months.
About a sixth the usual number of passengers and crew on board
Captain Lisa Norman in command
78 likely to use 40 per cent less fuel than historic 74
40 passengers and crew on what is private flight.
Qantas using the new cloud-based Constellation system, to analyse millions of pieces of data and recommend flight tracks.
Airline has a huge amount of information about the route from A380s.
Headwinds stronger coming out of JFK into LAX and then over the Pacific light and variable
Getting closer to Australia hits jetstream headwinds.
Running different routes to see what is the most optimised
Stay high track straight across US passing between San Francisco and Los Angeles and then cut down over Hawaii.
Or head as far south as New Mexico.
As everyone will be in biz class nose-heavy load affects pitch and increases fuel burn.
TOW 235 tonnes, 19 tonnes under MTOW.
Takeoff middle of next month - crew based in NYC for four days to acclimatise.
Melatonin and cognitive ability to be monitored.

[Rated De]

My apologies.
I didn't realise.
Summary of main points:

Three flights over the next three months.
About a sixth the usual number of passengers and crew on board
Captain Lisa Norman in command
78 likely to use 40 per cent less fuel than historic 74
40 passengers and crew on what is private flight.
Qantas using the new cloud-based Constellation system, to analyse millions of pieces of data and recommend flight tracks.
Airline has a huge amount of information about the route from A380s.
Headwinds stronger coming out of JFK into LAX and then over the Pacific light and variable
Getting closer to Australia hits jetstream headwinds.
Running different routes to see what is the most optimised
Stay high track straight across US passing between San Francisco and Los Angeles and then cut down over Hawaii.
Or head as far south as New Mexico.
As everyone will be in biz class nose-heavy load affects pitch and increases fuel burn.
TOW 235 tonnes, 19 tonnes under MTOW.
Takeoff middle of next month - crew based in NYC for four days to acclimatise.
Melatonin and cognitive ability to be monitored.



Is that what is proposed as scientific proof?

Management pilot? Management crew? for three flights with 40 hand picked passengers..

Sounds like sufficient sampling with a sample size of three. Each event a month apart, with hand picked crew and passengers.
That ought satisfy an inept regulator that there is "real science" supporting long term health impacts.
If that is what the line crew fly, then fantastic, a month in New York is a real bonus.
40 passengers makes for superior and seamless service in all cabins.

/sarc

One might hope the cabin crew and pilot union reject out of hand the "data" it is unadulterated marketing BS.

[dragon man]

Hammer nail and head.

[maggot]

Chief pilot in waiting flying?
totally legit study

Also
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/384x288/y89yyqo_c303d4c0a0b3c4ad0070650c14b48391ff67e9ff.jpg

[Street garbage]

Yep, a litre of koolaid before descent should do the trick.."I feel great! I feel great!"..

[engine out]

No management pilots. A Fatigue group representative Captain on one, a normal line Captain on one and a AIPA rep the Captain on the other. The FO are all normal line pilots as are the SO’s. Fatigue monitoring for ten days before and after and reaction tests every 2 hours in flight. Yes it’s not a large data set but better than no data set.

[maggot]

No management pilots. A Fatigue group representative Captain on one, a normal line Captain on one and a AIPA rep the Captain on the other. The FO are all normal line pilots as are the SO’s. Fatigue monitoring for ten days before and after and reaction tests every 2 hours in flight. Yes it’s not a large data set but better than no data set.

Nah a small irrelevant and easily manipulated data set is indeed worse than none.

[CurtainTwitcher]

The only way to run these is to preregister the the criteria end points prior to running the experiment. There is a large push for studies to do exactly this in modern science. A significant proportion of medical & psychological research has been found to be faulty even though poportially i gives the external appearance of going through a rigorous scientific process. It is all too easy to come to a conclusion after collecting and analysing the data.
The preregistration revolution (https://www.pnas.org/content/115/11/2600)AbstractProgress in science relies in part on generating hypotheses with existing observations and testing hypotheses with new observations. This distinction between postdiction and prediction is appreciated conceptually but is not respected in practice. Mistaking generation of postdictions with testing of predictions reduces the credibility of research findings. However, ordinary biases in human reasoning, such as hindsight bias, make it hard to avoid this mistake. An effective solution is to define the research questions and analysis plan before observing the research outcomes—a process called preregistration. Preregistration distinguishes analyses and outcomes that result from predictions from those that result from postdictions. A variety of practical strategies are available to make the best possible use of preregistration in circumstances that fall short of the ideal application, such as when the data are preexisting. Services are now available for preregistration across all disciplines, facilitating a rapid increase in the practice. Widespread adoption of preregistration will increase distinctiveness between hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing and will improve the credibility of research findings.


One psychologist has even gone to the extent of "proving" paranormal psychology using unimpeachable and rigorous science to make the point using standard scientific methods. He has passed every conventional scientific hurdle: THE CONTROL GROUP IS OUT OF CONTROL (https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/)
Bem, Tressoldi, Rabeyron, and Duggan (2014), full text available for download at the top bar of the link above, is parapsychology’s way of saying “thanks but no thanks” to the idea of a more rigorous scientific paradigm making them quietly wither away.

You might remember Bem as the prestigious establishment psychologist who decided to try his hand at parapsychology and to his and everyone else’s surprise got positive results. Everyone had a lot of criticisms, some of which were very very good (http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2011/01/10/the-psychology-of-parapsychology-or-why-good-researchers-publishing-good-articles-in-good-journals-can-still-get-it-totally-wrong/), and the study failed replication several times (http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/controversial-esp-study-fails-yet-again-120912.htm). Case closed, right?

Earlier this month Bem came back with a meta-analysis of ninety replications from tens of thousands of participants in thirty three laboratories in fourteen countries confirming his original finding, p < 1.2 * -1010, Bayes factor 7.4 * 109, funnel plot beautifully symmetrical, p-hacking curve nice and right-skewed, Orwin fail-safe n of 559, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

The bottom line in all this is science in the service of business, usually Medical & pharmaceutical, but not limited to these has let itself become a tool of generating desired outcomes. Science can be used to obtain the truth and for further human knowledge and progress. Unfortunately it can also be used for nefarious ends and become corrupt beyond belief. Many fancy and impressive reports and studies are just straight out wrong. Editors of both the Lancet (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext) and the New England Journal of Medicine (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/) have come out recently and said the following
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.

Journal editors have expended much time and effort in teasing out how to handle authors' and reviewers' competing interests. They need now to concentrate on their own and those of their employers, lest we reach the dismal scenario described by Marcia Angell: “it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine

If you have a spare few hours, listen to Peter Attia interview with Katherine Eban on the widespread fraud in the Generic drug sector (https://peterattiamd.com/katherineeban/). Almost certainly all of us who consumed a potentially harmful non compliant medication if we have used a generic drug over the last 20 years. The generic drug company were masters at fooling the FDA with straight out data fraud. In the case of Ranbaxy, over 200 medications approved by the FDA entered the global supply chain based on totally bogus and data. This is a very disturbing story about just how corrupt science in the service of profit has become.

So no, I would not be putting much faith in the outcome of a minuscule sample size when the company with a vested interest in the outcome is paying the bill. If the study was preregistered and followed a larger cohort over a significant period of time with open raw data available I would have faith in the outcome.

[Rated De]

No management pilots. A Fatigue group representative Captain on one, a normal line Captain on one and a AIPA rep the Captain on the other. The FO are all normal line pilots as are the SO’s. Fatigue monitoring for ten days before and after and reaction tests every 2 hours in flight. Yes it’s not a large data set but better than no data set.


A little "data" is more dangerous than zero data.
If it is proposed that IF the "data" supports the fatigue profile, the union accepts this type of flying, then questions ought be asked about probity.
By all means conduct a study, but at least make it robust. The health and well being of union members depends on it.
Other stakeholders are far more skeptical.


From a statistical point of view obvious problems are many.

Model is not representative of reality.
Passenger load not commercial
Flight profile not typical
Pre and post "sample flight" duties are unknown. What about a situation where the company applies minimum turnaround, an additional duty or the like? This is conveniently excluded.
Biased sampling.
Insufficient observations (3)
Interrogation of sickness and correlated association. Are those pilots/cabin crew who are seriously ill long haul or domestic? Does the union know this? The sick rates may already infer a problem exists.


No matter the argument, a study paid for by an employer, designed to ensure a commercial outcome is axiomatically likely to result in the outcome being pre-determined.

The first and most important rule of statistical model is unbiased sampling. Having achieved that, there must be sufficient observations, over sufficient time to draw meaningful inferences for the generalised form.

This rubbish does neither and is a thinly veiled commercial consultation.

[Global Aviator]

Blah blah blah whine whine whine blah blah blab.....

We all know Bananananananaramramramaaa WILL happen regardless of what the precious ones at the pointy end type one here.

I am more concerned about only travelling in J on a sector this long!

Must day I’ve done SQ J, 17 hours, United Premium Economy 17.5 hours (empty row of 3), so 20+ hours would certainly want J. Also more concerned they will have enough premium beer and wine onboard for me!

Yes a ****e stir but seriously... Are you flying the shuttle to the moon or mars???

[maggot]

No moon launch
theyre just trying to sell a pup (to casa)

[Global Aviator]

No moon launch
theyre just trying to sell a pup (to casa)

That is my point in a way. They will succeed. Honestly can not see how it possibly won’t???

[Street garbage]

Blah blah blah whine whine whine blah blah blab.....

We all know Bananananananaramramramaaa WILL happen regardless of what the precious ones at the pointy end type one here.

I am more concerned about only travelling in J on a sector this long!

Must day I’ve done SQ J, 17 hours, United Premium Economy 17.5 hours (empty row of 3), so 20+ hours would certainly want J. Also more concerned they will have enough premium beer and wine onboard for me!

Yes a ****e stir but seriously... Are you flying the shuttle to the moon or mars???

So Global Aviator, I will ask you again, are you with QF Management? Or just an Angel? Your post sound exactly like the fairy floss we read on the Friday Flyer, or one of motivational pieces from Tino or Andrew David.
You are obviously a pilot hater- like most of our management.
Have a serious look at the crap you are writing. Now look at it from a Duty of Care/ OHS angle. Do you think ULH is a joke? Do you think repeated sleep interruption, dehydration,and sitting for extended hours is somehow good for your long term health? Why is the average retirement age trending southwards?
I seriously doubt Sunrise will happen- how risk adverse are CASA?- How will other regulators allow these ULH to operate in their airspace?- and QF management are again looking to blame everyone (read pilots) except themselves.

[Street garbage]

No moon launch
theyre just trying to sell a pup (to casa)
Save you breath mate, we'll be blamed when they don't order it.

[Less Hair]

Is the 777-8 still in the competition? Hadn't Boeing put in on ice for the time being?

[maggot]

That is my point in a way. They will succeed. Honestly can not see how it possibly won’t???

Yeah for sure but in what crew config? Or do you mean that it's a lock on our current crewing setup?

10 hours in the seat?

[Global Aviator]

So Global Aviator, I will ask you again, are you with QF Management? Or just an Angel? Your post sound exactly like the fairy floss we read on the Friday Flyer, or one of motivational pieces from Tino or Andrew David.
You are obviously a pilot hater- like most of our management.
Have a serious look at the crap you are writing. Now look at it from a Duty of Care/ OHS angle. Do you think ULH is a joke? Do you think repeated sleep interruption, dehydration,and sitting for extended hours is somehow good for your long term health? Why is the average retirement age trending southwards?
I seriously doubt Sunrise will happen- how risk adverse are CASA?- How will other regulators allow these ULH to operate in their airspace?- and QF management are again looking to blame everyone (read pilots) except themselves.

If you had read my previous posts I am not a pilot hater, I am just pointing out the obvious. It will happen.

I have pointed out my concern to more than multiple crew ULH which is two pilot red eye, back of the clock flying. With ****e rostering from earlies to lates to red eyes. This happens around the world day in night out.

EK do ULH and look at how they log duty time..... Not right in our eyes but it happens!

So as I’ve said I do stir the pot as I play devils advocate.

It is how it is because we allow management to get away with it!

Also as I’ve said how do SQ do the Newark ULH? They were some of the pioneers back in the A340, it worked. I have also pointed out that crew that did it generally did that only. The biggest issue they had was landing recency.

Aus - reinventing the wheel... again!

[dragon man]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/qantas-chief-executive-alan-joyce-deserved-to-make-24-million-in-2018/news-story/5b25597a186e24adedd01887165e398c

Chairmens club pass or not?

[Street garbage]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/qantas-chief-executive-alan-joyce-deserved-to-make-24-million-in-2018/news-story/5b25597a186e24adedd01887165e398c

Chairmens club pass or not?
Or about to be..it was an AMAZING turnaround..who would have thunk?

[Maxmotor]

Is the 777-8 still in the competition? Hadn't Boeing put in on ice for the time being?The 777-9 being offered with reduced capacity and additional tanks.

[tartare]

If you had read my previous posts I am not a pilot hater, I am just pointing out the obvious. It will happen.

I have pointed out my concern to more than multiple crew ULH which is two pilot red eye, back of the clock flying. With ****e rostering from earlies to lates to red eyes. This happens around the world day in night out.

EK do ULH and look at how they log duty time..... Not right in our eyes but it happens!

So as I’ve said I do stir the pot as I play devils advocate.

It is how it is because we allow management to get away with it!

Also as I’ve said how do SQ do the Newark ULH? They were some of the pioneers back in the A340, it worked. I have also pointed out that crew that did it generally did that only. The biggest issue they had was landing recency.

Aus - reinventing the wheel... again!






Yes - I agree - it will happen.
As self loading freight - I am quite happy to fly for 20 hours etc, to go straight from SYD to LHR.
Just give me enough movies, some decent food and remind me to get up and walk around to avoid DVT.
Bugger a stopover or refuelling.
I want to go straight there; less hassle.

[dragon man]

Qantas to play tough on 'Sunrise' pilots deal
The Australian, Australia by Robyn Ironside
03 Oct 2019
Business News - Page 21 - 461 words - ID 1180276356 (tel:1180276356) - Photo: Yes - Type: News Item - Size: 173.00cm2


Qantas boss Alan Joyce has warned he will shelve the airline's ambitious Project Sunrise if a new agreement is not reached with pilots to operate the ultra-long-haul flights by the end of the year.

During the unveiling of the first refurbished A380 in Sydney on Wednesday, Mr Joyce said negotiations with pilots should not take months or years.

"It's not Brexit," he said. "We are hoping to have a good dialogue with them but we can't put an order in for a new aircraft unless we know the business case is going to meet the thresholds." Qantas's firm stance on such issues was why the airline was in "the great position it is today".

"We are going to have a hard nose on this," said Mr Joyce of the planned non-stop flights from Australia's east coast to cities such as New York, London and Paris. "It's a very exciting project but it is not too big to fail and if we don't have a business case we won't do it because that's what our shareholders expect." There were other projects Qantas could invest its money in, such as the booming loyalty program, Mr Joyce said. "We could invest our money quite well in that business to grow our earnings even further. We will be very disciplined on this," he said.

Asked what he was seeking from pilots, Mr Joyce said he wanted to see similar productivity gains to those agreed to when the Boeing 787s were introduced. "(Such as) how the aircraft can be operated, what are called night credits and how they're applied (and) the flexibility of moving people around aircraft," he said. "There are a lot of little items that can all add up to a significant cost to us if we don't get them bedded down before we get an agreement." The Australian and International Pilots Association has indicated it would be challenging to meet the end-of-year deadline but did not wish to comment while negotiations were continuing.

Qantas will go ahead with a series of test flights using mostly empty Boeing 787-9s, with the first, from New York to Sydney, to take place in a fortnight. Mr Joyce said he would be on board that flight, and another next month from London to Sydney.

"It's important you demonstrate you're willing to do it," he said. "It's a very big occasion in aviation and the world is going to be watching." He would not be involved in scientific experiments to test how pilots and passengers coped with the ultra-long flight.

"We've got . equipment that monitors brainwaves and the (scientists) said 'you might want to try it on the flight'," Mr Joyce said. "My PA said 'no one wants to see what's in your brain Alan

I have an early wedding present for you Mr Joyce you conned us once and you won’t con us a second time all the pilots I speak to say let it sink we couldn’t care less.

[Don Diego]

There you go guys and gals, it don't get any clearer, trousers down and bend over incoming pineapple, rough end first. Enjoy!!!

[Rated De]

There were other projects Qantas could invest its money in, such as the booming loyalty program, Mr Joyce said. "We could invest our money quite well in that business to grow our earnings even further. We will be very disciplined on this," he said.


Bit hard to have a airline loyalty business without an airline. Didn't work so well when they tried to get people to use points on loaves of bread...

Asked what he was seeking from pilots, Mr Joyce said he wanted to see similar productivity gains to those agreed to when the Boeing 787s were introduced. "(Such as) how the aircraft can be operated, what are called night credits and how they're applied (and) the flexibility of moving people around aircraft," he said.

With your fleet operating cost orders of magnitude higher than your peers, and having wasted over AUD $2.5 billion on share buy backs, go plan your wedding..
The CAP EX required is large and growing, but focus on picking pennies in front of steam rollers. Your competitors already have a fuel efficient fleet.

[dragon man]

Bit hard to have a airline loyalty business without an airline. Didn't work so well when they tried to get people to use points on loaves of bread...



With your fleet operating cost orders of magnitude higher than your peers, and having wasted over AUD $2.5 billion on share buy backs, go plan your wedding..
The CAP EX required is large and growing, but focus on picking pennies in front of steam rollers. Your competitors already have a fuel efficient fleet.


All he has done is pour petrol on the fire of hatred by pilots towards him and management. When you wake tomorrow morning in your northern beaches weekender Alan look out the window to sea and watch Sunrise sinking beneath the waves.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The pilots want to get on the front foot with this, because if they can it and blame the pilots, it will just reflect in the media badly - "Over paid, under worked pilots holding out for more money....again!" QF pilots are on a hiding to nothing over this. QF will use the test flights to trumpet it can be done, and then it's only the greedy pilots stopping it. Good luck swallowing this sh*t sandwich.

[MickG0105]

With your fleet operating cost orders of magnitude higher than your peers, ...

Seriously?! Which 'peer' airline has fleet operating costs that are 100 times or more better than QF's?

[dragon man]

Seriously?! Which 'peer' airline has fleet operating costs that are 100 times or more better than QF's?

Seriously, I must have missed something, where did it say 100 times or more better than QFs?

[MickG0105]

Seriously, I must have missed something, where did it say 100 times or more better than QFs?
Seriously, yes, you have very clearly missed something. What exactly do you think the term 'orders of magnitude' means?!

[dragon man]

Seriously, yes, you have very clearly missed something. What exactly do you think the term 'orders of magnitude' means?!

Please explain then.

[cattletruck]

because that's what our shareholders expect.

Interesting re-use of that old business cliche to further one's own agenda. Shareholders are generally not pilots and are mostly only in the game to cream a shot term profit, take the risk, double their money, and get out before the show ends with a smoking hole in the ground, leaving the raped concern as someone else's problem. Now what kind of CEO panders to that kind of unvisionary demand - yes, who else.

[Bootstrap1]

During the unveiling of the first refurbished A380 in Sydney on Wednesday, Mr Joyce said negotiations with pilots should not take months or years.

No EBA at Qantas is ever resolved in a few months. They always take 6-18 months and that is when everything is going swimmingly.
Take IR out of the picture if you want a decent EBA turnaround.

[MickG0105]

Please explain then.

The dictionary definition is 'a class in a system of classification determined by size, typically in powers of ten'. A change of one order of magnitude is the equivalent of moving the decimal point one place to the left or right. N orders of magnitude = 10 raised to the power of N.

So when somebody says that something is 'orders (plural) of magnitude higher' than something else it means that something is at least one hundred times higher than something else.

I didn't land on 'at least 100 times' by happenstance.

[Rated De]

The pilots want to get on the front foot with this, because if they can it and blame the pilots, it will just reflect in the media badly - "Over paid, under worked pilots holding out for more money....again!" QF pilots are on a hiding to nothing over this. QF will use the test flights to trumpet it can be done, and then it's only the greedy pilots stopping it. Good luck swallowing this sh*t sandwich.

The court of public opinion matters little.
British Airways roll out the same play book as do RyanAir et al.

What matters is the reality that pilot costs represent but a fraction of operating cost per hour.
With each unit of air frame likely costing (with a sliding AUD) circa AUD$400 million, pilot costs are irrelevant.
Although it seemed to work once before with the 787 "deal" pushed by now lead IR negotiator (formerly Stream Lead) former Union President Mr Safe, ever the one trick pony, Little Napoleon will try it again!

Had they actually run an airline, the real grind of aviation, the fleet capital would have been sourced, the order placed and the aircraft likely in operation.
It is much easier to provide column inches to the daily rags, who themselves are desperate for advertising revenue, providing commentary on social discourse.
It is also far more profitable to use surplus cash flow and cheap debt to pump the EPS that enriches insiders with share buy-backs.

[C441]

What I find amusing is that the CEO implies (albeit for media headlines) that a small percentage change in Pilot productivity could determine the viability of the project.
If it is that close to the knife-edge, quite simply it should have been canned long ago.:rolleyes:

[Street garbage]

It's already dead, they are just looking for someone to blame. To have the LH EBA signed off, with the Sunrise a/c signed off at 787 Minus 10% rates in 3 months time isn't going to happen, no matter the Koolaiders think. Just look at the SH EBA, or Tino's outrageously arrogant email, to see where this is headed...
Mr Joyce will probably leave after the 100 Year Celebration (LOL), having been CEO for 12 years, and not ordered one new aircraft..

[Rated De]

Mr Joyce will probably leave after the 100 Year Celebration (LOL), having been CEO for 12 years, and not ordered one new aircraft..

That is some statistic....

[Global Aviator]

Rated - you cannot say pilot costs count for nothing. I certainly agree in the grand scale the % cost to the operation is certainly not what they are trying to imply to Joe Public.

Sunset on Sunrise....... nah I don’t think so. If their is an aircraft capable to do it, it will happen.

Well that’s my 2.3 cents worth!!!

[neville_nobody]

If it actually plays out like that then it will probably be the biggest hospital pass in Australian Corporate history. The next CEO is going to wear a lifetime of Capex and rebuilding with basically all the assets sold off.

[Street garbage]

Rated - you cannot say pilot costs count for nothing. I certainly agree in the grand scale the % cost to the operation is certainly not what they are trying to imply to Joe Public.

Sunset on Sunrise....... nah I don’t think so. If their is an aircraft capable to do it, it will happen.

Well that’s my 2.3 cents worth!!!

No, it's dead in the water, the offset they are asking from the pilot group (787 minus 10%) is approx 0.4% of the overall operating cost of the aircraft (pilot cost on the 787 is approx 3.2%). If it is that fine, it's gone. The aircraft can do it now, whether it can be done with a commercially viable load is a completely different question. Personally, I think that QF may order B77X/ A350 around 2023, as an replacement, but then again, I have been holding my breath for 10 years now. In the interim, MANAGEMENT WILL BLAME THE PILOTS FOR NOT ORDERING THE AIRCRAFT, and most likely order additional 787 for 747 capacity replacement on J/BURG etc, as possibly A330 replacement....Then again, it's been 10 years...

[DirectAnywhere]

additional 787 for 747 capacity replacement on J/BURG etc, as possibly A330 replacement.

787 won’t be going to Johannesburg, unless it’s coming back via Perth. It simply can’t uplift the payload out of Johannesburg.

I doubt the 787 is a viable A330 replacement unless the company can get the pilots to kill night credits, or come up with an alternative LH vs MH pay rate or something along those lines.

Either they’ve realised the 787 contract is too expensive to fly MH or they knew it a few years ago and bull****ted about the planned flying to get the pilots to sign on. Either way, reality has struck them and now they want the job done for less if the 787 is to start flying to Asia as a 330 replacement.

[Street garbage]

787 won’t be going to Johannesburg, unless it’s coming back via Perth. It simply can’t uplift the payload out of Johannesburg.

I doubt the 787 is a viable A330 replacement unless the company can get the pilots to kill night credits, or come up with an alternative LH vs MH pay rate or something along those lines.

Either they’ve realised the 787 contract is too expensive to fly MH or they knew it a few years ago and bull****ted about the planned flying to get the pilots to sign on. Either way, reality has struck them and now they want the job done for less if the 787 is to start flying to Asia as a 330 replacement.
Yep, they have already asked for night credit cancellation, and a B scale for new join B787 S/o's. Considering the reliability of A330 on DOM operations, they should be looking at replacement now...but.
What replaces the 74 on Jburg? A330 ex Perth? A380 as an interim? Redeploy the A380 currently on Dallas to Jburg and replace that with a 787?

[DirectAnywhere]

Word is the 330 (or another large twin) out of Perth is back on the table.

Supposedly there are issues around 380 fire suppression times which prevent it going direct. 747 continues to operate under a grandfathered exemption.

Nothing to to do with ‘Sunrise’ but it all feeds in to the broader discussion around night credits etc. Not sure what a S/O B scale would look like. I thought the 787 contract was B scale enough for S/Os.

[dragon man]

B scale SO is the 787 rate with no overtime for all new hires regardless of the aircraft they are recruited onto including the 330 and 380.

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

Night credits for duties with 3 or 4 crew are a joke. Get with the times. You’re asleep for a decent chunk of the flight and still getting paid the whole time.

[crosscutter]

Bug smasher giving another IR masterclass.

Night credits are very much ‘with the times’ when they have been ratified by FW just a few years ago.
Something to trade? Maybe. Something to give up? Only when you don’t have them in your award I guess.

[ScepticalOptomist]

Night credits for duties with 3 or 4 crew are a joke. Get with the times. You’re asleep for a decent chunk of the flight and still getting paid the whole time.

Unless I’m asleep in MY bed - I’d better be getting paid.

[Rated De]

Taking the step back and observing the rantings of Little Napoleon in the Murdoch rag is interesting.
Ever keen to deflect the blame one problem keeps presenting: Qantas need a new fleet.

Whether it is issues of legacy on the 747 and fire suppression, the aging A330 fleet, which as many are aware will be increasing maintenance intensive, the horrible operating economics of the the A380 or indeed the 787; insufficient in number and perhaps dimension to do what they really need it to do, Qantas need strategic thinking.
Little Napoleon has had over a decade to provide strategy, provide a vision and drive the business in that direction.

That he prefers self enrichment, social discourse, virtue signalling and internal wars with the staff does not absolve the business of the need for fleet.
A taxi operator can sweat the fleet, not maintain them and bank the profits (or in this case buy back shares) but ultimately the capital needs replacing.

Every day delayed, every month postponed the problem grows. Perhaps they have actually purchased an aircraft and given the success last time with the 787 tried it again...

[Rated De]

If it actually plays out like that then it will probably be the biggest hospital pass in Australian Corporate history. The next CEO is going to wear a lifetime of Capex and rebuilding with basically all the assets sold off.

Precisely Neville.

Ponder a 747 and A380 replacement
Ponder an A330 replacement
Ponder a 737 replacement.

AUD $10 to $20 billion? It is a big ask.

From a governance perspective one might ponder what Goyder is doing other than selecting wines for First Class?

[Roo]

787 won’t be going to Johannesburg, unless it’s coming back via Perth. It simply can’t uplift the payload out of Johannesburg.How do you come to this conclusion? The 787 can uplift 230-235 ton out of JB. This produces a viable payload to the east coast.

[TBM-Legend]

I think the Qantas pilots who flew the Catalinas and later Liberators on 16-24 hour flights with no nav other than the stars and a navigator would turn in their graves if they read some of the drivel here...

[Blueskymine]

I think the Qantas pilots who flew the Catalinas and later Liberators on 16-24 hour flights with no nav other than the stars and a navigator would turn in their graves if they read some of the drivel here...

They did it short term to achieve a wartime objective.

They didn’t do it as a career long term.

[TBM-Legend]

I don't expect that the only sectors you'll do are theses ultra-long range flights with comfy rest areas and great meals and time off in a 4-5 star hotel. The 'greatest generation' didn't expect to be pampered..

[ruprecht]

I don't expect that the only sectors you'll do are theses ultra-long range flights with comfy rest areas and great meals and time off in a 4-5 star hotel. The 'greatest generation' didn't expect to be pampered..

We lived in a hole in the road... :rolleyes:

[CurtainTwitcher]

They also retired at 45.

[JamieMaree]

They also retired at 45.

And had to start another career or business to put bread on the table.
Retiring at 45 was no great achievement.

[Global Aviator]

Why not push for that in the negotiations then? Only fly ULH? As I’ve said before back in the SQ 340 days that’s all they did.

44/46 hour block return. What was it someone said you have 6 week blocks?

Fly 3 times per block or what 5 day patterns approx, 15 days out of 40?

:) :) :)

Then you’ll be on here, we don’t get to land enough.....

[What The]

And had to start another career or business to put bread on the table.
Retiring at 45 was no great achievement.

Do you know that for a fact? Or are you talking through your bum like your mate TBM?

To compare what is being proposed to Lancaster’s etc is so laughable it doesn’t warrant a response other than to say you idiot.

The Qantas Ángels are really going to struggle to make the pilots look bad on this one. Particularly when it is being pushed by a bloke who has taken in excess of $90 million during his time in Qantas. The tide is turning against the greedy and privileged. The average joe is at the stage of opening the window and shouting “I’m mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore”.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The average joe

Doesn't give a sh*t. He thinks Pilot's are over paid. He thinks Joyce is over paid (if he even knows that). But he doesn't care. He just wants affordable airfares to where he wants to go. He will listen more to Joyce's "We tried to do something great and world changing, and the pilot's stopped us" spin than the pilot's "The company is trying to rip us off" spin.

The Qantas Ángels are really going to struggle to make the pilots look bad on this one

Qantas's PR and their mates in the media can (and will) make any one they want look bad.

[Global Aviator]

Doesn't give a sh*t. He thinks Pilot's are over paid. He thinks Joyce is over paid (if he even knows that). But he doesn't care. He just wants affordable airfares to where he wants to go. He will listen more to Joyce's "We tried to do something great and world changing, and the pilot's stopped us" spin than the pilot's "The company is trying to rip us off" spin.



Qantas's PR and their mates in the media can (and will) make any one they want look bad.

1000000000000% correct!

[flyingfrenchman]

Why is QF any different to BA who have just had their CEO comprehensively embarrassed in the wide stream media over nearly identical claims?

[Going Boeing]

Why is QF any different to BA who have just had their CEO comprehensively embarrassed in the wide stream media over nearly identical claims?

The effect of the Chairman’s Lounge “invitational only access” is that Qantas owns the media - you won’t get any journalist to publish a balanced article, it’s always pro-Qantas spin.

[dragon man]

The effect of the Chairman’s Lounge “invitational only access” is that Qantas owns the media - you won’t get any journalist to publish a balanced article, it’s always pro-Qantas spin.

Not sure that applies to the Fairfax press, certainly before channel 9 took them over.

[LeadSled]

I don't expect that the only sectors you'll do are theses ultra-long range flights with comfy rest areas and great meals and time off in a 4-5 star hotel. The 'greatest generation' didn't expect to be pampered..
TBM Legend,
A bit of fantasy on your part ------ I wonder why there was some much industrial unrest "back in the day" ---- have a look at the strikes and other action in the 50s-60s.
And, by and large, 4-5 star hotels simply didn't exist in many cities --- that would even consider aircrew contracts.
And the 45 retirement was strongly opposed --- and finally moved up by dribs and drabs ---- it was more industrial than medical!
Tootle pip!!

[Burleigh Effect]

The final years of Joyce’s tenure as CEO of Qantas will, to a large extent, be determined by the success or otherwise of Project Sunrise.

https://www.afr.com/chanticleer/australia-is-boeing-s-microcosm-20191004-p52xsq

Chanticleer[img]https://static.ffx.io/images/$width_220%2C$height_220/t_crop_fill/e_sharpen:25%2Cq_85%2Cf_auto/25cc8c74f48b08a60ab02df02ab9d248a21c0ea2Australia is Boeing's microcosmAustralia is the battleground for a bare-knuckle fight over which of Boeing or Airbus will supply aircraft for Qantas' so-called Project Sunrise.
Oct 5, 2019 —
Australia is also home to a particularly fierce battle between Boeing and its arch rival, Airbus, for technological supremacy in long-haul aviation. [img]https://static.ffx.io/images/$width_620/t_resize_width/e_sharpen:25%2Cq_85%2Cf_auto/36e443d620af63d2420091b4da12d33552162f93 Boeing's head of international, Sir Michael Arthur, was in Australia this week at an ideal time to prosecute Boeing's case to win a new contract with Qantas. Peter Braig

This bare-knuckle fight is over which company will supply the aircraft for Project Sunrise, which is Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce’s plan to launch non-stop flights from Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne to London and New York.

The final years of Joyce’s tenure as CEO of Qantas will, to a large extent, be determined by the success or otherwise of Project Sunrise. It is assumed Joyce met Sir Michael but a Boeing spokesman refused to reveal his appointments.

It so happens Sir Michael spoke to Chanticleer about Project Sunrise on the same day the World Trade Organisation ruled European governments had broken WTO rules by giving Airbus illegal subsidies.After 15 years of litigation the WTO said the US could impose tariffs on up to $US7.5 billion ($11.1 billion) in European Union exports.

US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said the tariffs on certain EU goods would start on October 18. In the process of announcing the US response, Lighthizer reminded the world the subsidies had harmed Boeing in Australia.

He said the WTO arbitrator found the ‘‘EU aid for Airbus is causing significant lost sales of Boeing large civil aircraft, as well as impeding exports of Boeing large aircraft to the EU, Australia, China, Korea, Singapore, and UAE markets’’. [img]https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.2981%2C$multiply_0.1322%2C$ratio_1.777778%2C$width_1 059%2C$x_0%2C$y_680/t_crop_custom/e_sharpen:25%2Cq_85%2Cf_auto/f59ab28d528f231479646f36c9dec4837912ac8c (https://www.afr.com/companies/manufacturing/boeing-wants-to-double-in-size-and-australia-is-central-to-its-plan-20191002-p52wzg)RELATEDBoeing wants to double in size, and Australia is central to its plan (https://www.afr.com/companies/manufacturing/boeing-wants-to-double-in-size-and-australia-is-central-to-its-plan-20191002-p52wzg)Sir Michael is confident Boeing will win the Qantas contract, just as it was successful in winning the Perth to London long-haul route with Qantas. That contract generated about $100 million in publicity for Boeing and Qantas, according to research commissioned by Qantas.

‘‘We think we’ve got a fantastic offering,’’ Sir Michael says.
‘‘Qantas has a challenge that’s unique in the world, and that is the distance factor. From Australia, getting point-to-point to the furthest cities in the world, we think we have a solution for that.’’

He says Boeing likes competition but only on a level playing field. ‘‘We never mind a fight but what we don’t like is an unfair fight,’’ he said.

‘‘The WTO had a statement which said that if they had not had these subsidies some of their aeroplanes would not exist – we believe that’s unfair competition.’’


Joyce said Qantas is working independently with both Boeing and Airbus on the performance and design parameters. A few months ago Qantas received ‘‘best and final’’ offers from both Airbus and Boeing for the aircraft. Both have proven they can do ‘‘critical missions’’ with a commercial payload.

Joyce will be on two Sunrise Project test flights of 787 Dreamliners which are coming off the production line at Boeing’s plant in Seattle over the next few months. They will be positioned in London and New York before being flown non-stop to Sydney.

The success or otherwise of Joyce’s strategy is tied up with the completion of a range of other negotiations with unions and regulators. For example, Qantas has asked pilots for productivity gains in order to make the business case.

At the moment the Civil Aviation Safety Authority does not allow pilots to travel for periods beyond 20 hours and the trip from Sydney to New York would be about 21 hours.

The fight between Boeing and Airbus is getting to the pointy end, with Joyce flagging a decision by the end of the year. This deal will not result in huge volumes of new aircraft being sold to Qantas, but it will have significant flow-on effects for the winning airline.

Qantas is regarded as a global leader in safety and endurance flying and that means the rest of the global aviation market will be keenly interested in what Joyce finally chooses.

Boeing and Airbus have competed fiercely for decades. In fact, there are some in aviation circles who believe their contest to build the most fuel-efficient planes had contributed to the accidents involving the 737 MAX (https://www.afr.com/link/follow-20180101-p52alw), which killed 346 people in Indonesia and Ethiopia.

Sir Michael said it was a tough week for Boeing because it was the anniversary of the crash of the Lion Air Flight 610.


Advertisement‘‘This is a tough month for us. We have as a company for the last year been totally focused on how we can get out from that problem, because safety is paramount, and has been for 100 years.

‘‘We have thrown everything at making sure there are no lapses. We have improved the software. The software was one element in the chain of events in the accidents.’’Safety, quality firstSir Michael, who joined Boeing five years ago and is the only non-American on the executive committee, says the culture of the company has been shaped by a program called One Boeing.

He says this program puts safety and quality at the forefront of what the company does. [img]https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.2648%2C$multiply_0.1322%2C$ratio_1.777778%2C$width_1 059%2C$x_0%2C$y_0/t_crop_custom/e_sharpen:25%2Cq_85%2Cf_auto/4a12c5e60a992142ef963434e65ef0b0682a7545 (https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/can-boeing-s-muilenburg-engineer-a-recovery-course-20190520-p51p5w)RELATEDCan Boeing's Muilenburg engineer a recovery course? (https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/can-boeing-s-muilenburg-engineer-a-recovery-course-20190520-p51p5w)Sir Michael says Boeing is in daily contact with aviation regulators in the US, but the company is hopeful to have 737 MAX aircraft approved for flight before the end of the year.

‘‘We are confident when they are back in flight, this is the safest plane we have ever made,’’ he says. ‘‘We believe that. It’s not just a word of propaganda. Safety is the core of aviation and that’s what we live to do.’’

Stockmarket investors have not lost confidence in Boeing’s financial prospects because of the 737 MAX safety failures. The stock trades on a forward price earnings multiple of about 75, which is what you would pay for a fast-growing software company.

Only four of the 28 analysts that cover the stock have a ‘‘sell’’ recommendation, while 10 have a ‘‘hold’’ or ‘‘neutral’’ rating and the remainder label the stock a ‘‘buy’’.

[Climb150]

Im sorry is someone trying to say Boeing will spend tens of millions of $$$ to deliver the 15-20 aircraft Qantas want? Boeing doesnt give a crap about Qantas. As for supplying the aircraft for the PER-LON route that was by no means a special order.

Its been said before but again, Australia is such a tiny market any posturing by Joyce that he has convinced Boeing to bend over backwards for him on this is utter garbage.

[Rated De]

Im sorry is someone trying to say Boeing will spend tens of millions of $$$ to deliver the 15-20 aircraft Qantas want? Boeing doesnt give a crap about Qantas. As for supplying the aircraft for the PER-LON route that was by no means a special order.

Its been said before but again, Australia is such a tiny market any posturing by Joyce that he has convinced Boeing to bend over backwards for him on this is utter garbage.

Lots of bad press for Boeing, so get a non American to front the story.
A quiet news week in Australia, Little Napoleon desperate for column inches and this is the result.

Rubbish

[LeadSled]

Do you know that for a fact? Or are you talking through your bum like your mate TBM?
Folks,
In the era of 45 retirement, superannuation was negligible, there was little option but to find another job ---- and licensing rules "in the day", as soon as you lost your airline job, you lost your ATPL, it reverted to an SCPL, making finding offshore employment very difficult --- which was exactly the intention of the licensing rules ---- it was not a happy time.
Tootle pip!!

[777Nine]

Im sorry is someone trying to say Boeing will spend tens of millions of $$$ to deliver the 15-20 aircraft Qantas want? Boeing doesnt give a crap about Qantas. As for supplying the aircraft for the PER-LON route that was by no means a special order.

Its been said before but again, Australia is such a tiny market any posturing by Joyce that he has convinced Boeing to bend over backwards for him on this is utter garbage.

Agreed. Why would Boeing care about a tiny market for a few planes? Oh wait, they don't.

[PPRuNeUser0198]

Actually, Airbus and Boeing do care about this Qantas deal very much, as it will be a proving ground for the equipment, and if successful - will trigger mass global airline orders since most of all of the airlines would be pleased with a super long-haul aeroplane to open up new markets, in particular with European and US airlines operating to / from Australia via many new points that are not currently served - securing monopolies (initially), and between other continents. This is a good test case before they take the financial gamble with unproven technology...