Project Sunrise
The following users liked this post:
The track flies straight over a nation that is currently politically unviable for any Australian airline to fly over, lest alone they need to make an emergency landing in that nation.
The following 17 users liked this post by Traffic_Is_Er_Was:
The standard A350-1000 range without the extra fuel tank would be just enough to do SYD-JFK, and maybe MEL too but with potentially a few less pax. There’s also the 350-900ULR that’s already in service with SQ and has the extra range of the -1000ULR, but sacrifices some passenger capacity. So there’s options on the routes to NYC.
The real issue I think is to LHR. The track flies straight over a nation that is currently politically unviable for any Australian airline to fly over, lest alone they need to make an emergency landing in that nation. Flying a track away that doesn’t go over that country would be too much of a stretch, even for the -1000ULR.
As it looks like the pariah status of that nation won’t be changing for the foreseeable future I doubt that’ll become an option before the flights were due to start.
The real issue I think is to LHR. The track flies straight over a nation that is currently politically unviable for any Australian airline to fly over, lest alone they need to make an emergency landing in that nation. Flying a track away that doesn’t go over that country would be too much of a stretch, even for the -1000ULR.
As it looks like the pariah status of that nation won’t be changing for the foreseeable future I doubt that’ll become an option before the flights were due to start.
The following 2 users liked this post by dejapoo:
Our broker here in Dubai recommends via SA as you can join the A380 1st class for the final leg.
The standard A350-1000 range without the extra fuel tank would be just enough to do SYD-JFK, and maybe MEL too but with potentially a few less pax. There’s also the 350-900ULR that’s already in service with SQ and has the extra range of the -1000ULR, but sacrifices some passenger capacity. So there’s options on the routes to NYC.
The real issue I think is to LHR. The track flies straight over a nation that is currently politically unviable for any Australian airline to fly over, lest alone they need to make an emergency landing in that nation. Flying a track away that doesn’t go over that country would be too much of a stretch, even for the -1000ULR.
As it looks like the pariah status of that nation won’t be changing for the foreseeable future I doubt that’ll become an option before the flights were due to start.
The real issue I think is to LHR. The track flies straight over a nation that is currently politically unviable for any Australian airline to fly over, lest alone they need to make an emergency landing in that nation. Flying a track away that doesn’t go over that country would be too much of a stretch, even for the -1000ULR.
As it looks like the pariah status of that nation won’t be changing for the foreseeable future I doubt that’ll become an option before the flights were due to start.
The following 10 users liked this post by Fridayflyer:
A map from the Great Circle Mapper - Great Circle Mapper
The GC routes from SYD and MEL end up a surprising distance apart.
it’s surprising to see the route come down the Baltic to London.
The GC routes from SYD and MEL end up a surprising distance apart.
it’s surprising to see the route come down the Baltic to London.
The following users liked this post:
After that flights used to follow the route from Chengdu to Lanzhou then a hard left turn to Urumqi and into Kazakhstan before entering Russian airspace. That’s clearly not going to happen for some time.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
If Sunrise falls over due range issues with the extra fuel tank or war zones, getting to LHR via HKG and or BKK as well as the current SIN stop would be nice. (Like Qantas used to before AJ gave much of it to Emirates.)
‘Sunrise’ isnt falling over if Sydney- London becomes too difficult.
Is sounds like the first two routes are LAX and JFK at this stage, with SYD-LHR not on the cards until well into the second or even third year. PER- LHR after that. Obviously that could happen first if Direct from Sydney is unviable at the earlier point. Then it sounds like other routes to the Americas such as Dallas and Chicago are being considered. No other East coast to London (at the early stages anyway).
The first aircraft isn’t due until mid 2026. So it won’t be until towards 2028 that Syd-LHR direct would be happening. A lot of water under the bridge between now and then in any case.
There’s plenty else the 12 ULR configured aircraft can do instead.
Is sounds like the first two routes are LAX and JFK at this stage, with SYD-LHR not on the cards until well into the second or even third year. PER- LHR after that. Obviously that could happen first if Direct from Sydney is unviable at the earlier point. Then it sounds like other routes to the Americas such as Dallas and Chicago are being considered. No other East coast to London (at the early stages anyway).
The first aircraft isn’t due until mid 2026. So it won’t be until towards 2028 that Syd-LHR direct would be happening. A lot of water under the bridge between now and then in any case.
There’s plenty else the 12 ULR configured aircraft can do instead.
If the intention is for the initial routes over the first 6/ 7/8 odd aircraft is to be Sydney to Lax, JfK then Heathrow then that would make sense.
Problem Being ,many of those pax have since realised the Emirates product in economy and Business (not the 777) is far superior to QF in every way. So can't imagine them coming back. Even if the 350 is nice (it looks good) it doesn't help if you get treated like **** by everyone from the moment you arrive at the airport. Not having to go to Dubai is probably their only advantage.
Murmurs allegedly from various sources (pretty reliable ones if true), saying the plan for the 350 is to be a Sydney pilots base only, at least at the initial point.
If the intention is for the initial routes over the first 6/ 7/8 odd aircraft is to be Sydney to Lax, JfK then Heathrow then that would make sense.
If the intention is for the initial routes over the first 6/ 7/8 odd aircraft is to be Sydney to Lax, JfK then Heathrow then that would make sense.
Two LH EBA negotiations for instance