Project Sunrise
Spent a lot of money on a new nose gear assembly that is 3t’s lighter to increase the payload out of DFW. Then the reconfig added 3t’s, so back to square one.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A five year circle jerk, by the region's highest paid airline CEO.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very early morning departure was planned to avoid the usual 30-45 mins of taxi time in the busy congested evening at Heathrow and thus make the flight time look shorter.
The early morning departure was also planned to manipulate the fatigue data, as you normally wake around 12am-2am in London which would of been close to call with an approximately 4-430am report. Very easy to go to sleep in the early afternoon or very early evening before and get a really good sleep. The schedule was picked to optimise the maximum sleep prior to performing the flight.
The crew are far more rested than the usual very early evening call that crews rarely obtain sleep before and have been awake for considerably longer before departure at night.
The arrival time at midday in Sydney during the day was also aimed to be optimum for alertness so that the fatigue data looked as good as it could.
Would that not be the idea of the whole thing, to pick the optimum time to operate these flights?
Just because the data doesn’t match your ideal data, it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It just means maybe they’ve stumbled onto something that will actually help you operate the flight at optimal alertness.
Just because the data doesn’t match your ideal data, it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It just means maybe they’ve stumbled onto something that will actually help you operate the flight at optimal alertness.
Well... few more 'commercial' hurdles to jump over before regulator and aircrew challenges come to head @ https://www.theage.com.au/business/c...19-p53c02.html
Of note is that the reconfig adds (I have been told) several tonnes, so the east west journey from the US, presumably DFW, may require even more seats left vacant. I don't work there and never flown on it, so cannot confirm but it sounded factual.
Did the recent LHR-SYD "research" really leave LHR circa 0600………...
The very early morning departure was planned to avoid the usual 30-45 mins of taxi time in the busy congested evening at Heathrow and thus make the flight time look shorter. The early morning departure was also planned to manipulate the fatigue data,
The very early morning departure was planned to avoid the usual 30-45 mins of taxi time in the busy congested evening at Heathrow and thus make the flight time look shorter. The early morning departure was also planned to manipulate the fatigue data,
Last edited by C441; 19th Nov 2019 at 07:43.
C441. What impact does the increase in the MTOW to 572T have on the fuel burn. I doubt your statement "does not result in fewer pax being carried between DFW and SYD.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wellington
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C441 is correct.
Looking at a plan from recent days, POB is 310 (285 pax) with TOW at 570T.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...19-p53c16.html
More profits, bigger bonuses and screw the pilots. More icing on the cake to turn sunrise into sunset.
More profits, bigger bonuses and screw the pilots. More icing on the cake to turn sunrise into sunset.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest leg of Qantas’ Project Sunrise publicity orgy touched down at Mascot on Friday, its non-stop “research flight” from Heathrow met with the mania (and hyperbole) of a bona fide Apollo mission.
With the outsized marketing tactics its master franchise is globally famous for, parvenu competitor Virgin Australia had launched its new Brisbane-Haneda service on Thursday. Virgin Group’s Sir Richard Branson threw in his typical spoiler, promising “we’re seriously going to look at” giving Qantas “a run for their money” on the incipient (non-stop) London-Sydney route. Which they're not and never will.
But the next day, feet on the ground for the first time in 19 hours and 19 minutes, a “not amused” Alan Joyce flashed his canines and prepped a Tallaght-style knuckle show. “I don’t think Virgin can do it. I think we will kill them on this one if we had to.” Got that? Richard Branson might be a knight, but Alan Joyce (AC) is a living saint.
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce front and centre at the arrival of the Project Sunrise "research flight" non-stop from London. Chairman Richard Goyder stands in the background. AAP
Quickly, the Qantas chief shifted tone from combative to dismissive. “I think Richard is [just] generating publicity …”
And while that is most certainly true, it’s also a sublime slice of hypocrisy coming from Joyce. For what was his jolly from London (and last month’s from New York) if not an extravagant PR stunt
Thanks to these “research flights” and their related rumpus, the vast preponderance of the travelling public – here and abroad – now labours under the misapprehension that from 2023, Qantas will fly this plane, the Boeing 787-9, commercially and non-stop from Sydney to Heathrow and JFK.
Barely mentioned was the salient fact that 787s cannot fly that far with more than 50 passengers, let alone 250 souls and several pallets of cargo. Nor did we hear that the planes which could, the 777-8X and the Airbus A350-1000ULR (neither of which Qantas has even ordered yet), haven’t even been built yet, let alone left the ground. Only in August, Boeing suspended all 777-8X development and postponed its 2022 entry into service.
For some context, Qantas ordered the 787 in 2005, for delivery in 2008. Jetstar got its first in 2013, followed by Qantas in 2017, a full 12 years later. Mark our words: pigs will fly over the runway at Badgerys Creek before Qantas launches Sunrise flights in 2023.
So just who’s in the business of wanton publicity? In March, Qantas boasted it “generated over $100 million in free publicity” around the 2018 launch of its Perth-London route (we were on the 787 delivery flight in October 2017). That’s one they sell actual tickets on; as in, this year.
Addicted to the cheap acclaim, Joyce and his squad embarked on their blitzkrieg sequel, but with nothing to actually sell. And almost nobody noticed, or cared.
Still unquenched denouncing Branson’s black kettle, Joyce even reckoned “he will find it very difficult to compete against us because … we’ve got this expertise at long-haul flying that no other airline in the world has”.
Which is just the most extraordinary bull****. Qantas is a thoroughly respected ultra-long haul operator, no question. But its PR joyrides aside, the Perth-London route is 14,449 kilometres with a scheduled flight time of 17 hours and 20 minutes. Singapore Airlines operates to New York (Newark) over 15,344 kilometres and 18 hours, 45 minutes. United, Emirates and Qatar all operate regular services longer than 14,000 kilometres and 17 hours. All manage to do so, mercifully, without David Koch dancing the Macarena in his pyjamas.
With the outsized marketing tactics its master franchise is globally famous for, parvenu competitor Virgin Australia had launched its new Brisbane-Haneda service on Thursday. Virgin Group’s Sir Richard Branson threw in his typical spoiler, promising “we’re seriously going to look at” giving Qantas “a run for their money” on the incipient (non-stop) London-Sydney route. Which they're not and never will.
But the next day, feet on the ground for the first time in 19 hours and 19 minutes, a “not amused” Alan Joyce flashed his canines and prepped a Tallaght-style knuckle show. “I don’t think Virgin can do it. I think we will kill them on this one if we had to.” Got that? Richard Branson might be a knight, but Alan Joyce (AC) is a living saint.
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce front and centre at the arrival of the Project Sunrise "research flight" non-stop from London. Chairman Richard Goyder stands in the background. AAP
Quickly, the Qantas chief shifted tone from combative to dismissive. “I think Richard is [just] generating publicity …”
And while that is most certainly true, it’s also a sublime slice of hypocrisy coming from Joyce. For what was his jolly from London (and last month’s from New York) if not an extravagant PR stunt
Thanks to these “research flights” and their related rumpus, the vast preponderance of the travelling public – here and abroad – now labours under the misapprehension that from 2023, Qantas will fly this plane, the Boeing 787-9, commercially and non-stop from Sydney to Heathrow and JFK.
Barely mentioned was the salient fact that 787s cannot fly that far with more than 50 passengers, let alone 250 souls and several pallets of cargo. Nor did we hear that the planes which could, the 777-8X and the Airbus A350-1000ULR (neither of which Qantas has even ordered yet), haven’t even been built yet, let alone left the ground. Only in August, Boeing suspended all 777-8X development and postponed its 2022 entry into service.
For some context, Qantas ordered the 787 in 2005, for delivery in 2008. Jetstar got its first in 2013, followed by Qantas in 2017, a full 12 years later. Mark our words: pigs will fly over the runway at Badgerys Creek before Qantas launches Sunrise flights in 2023.
So just who’s in the business of wanton publicity? In March, Qantas boasted it “generated over $100 million in free publicity” around the 2018 launch of its Perth-London route (we were on the 787 delivery flight in October 2017). That’s one they sell actual tickets on; as in, this year.
Addicted to the cheap acclaim, Joyce and his squad embarked on their blitzkrieg sequel, but with nothing to actually sell. And almost nobody noticed, or cared.
Still unquenched denouncing Branson’s black kettle, Joyce even reckoned “he will find it very difficult to compete against us because … we’ve got this expertise at long-haul flying that no other airline in the world has”.
Which is just the most extraordinary bull****. Qantas is a thoroughly respected ultra-long haul operator, no question. But its PR joyrides aside, the Perth-London route is 14,449 kilometres with a scheduled flight time of 17 hours and 20 minutes. Singapore Airlines operates to New York (Newark) over 15,344 kilometres and 18 hours, 45 minutes. United, Emirates and Qatar all operate regular services longer than 14,000 kilometres and 17 hours. All manage to do so, mercifully, without David Koch dancing the Macarena in his pyjamas.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
because … we’ve got this expertise at long-haul flying that no other airline in the world has”.
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Living with consequences
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypothetical #1
Airbus &/or Boeing reduce the price of their not yet built jets, QF buys them and the pilots acquiesce to the new T&C’s.
Hypothetical #2
Airbus &/or Boeing reduce the price of their not yet built jets, the pilots reject the new T&C’s and QF walks away from the project.
Hypothetical #3
The pilots acquiesce to the new T&C’s, neither Airbus nor Boeing reduce the price of their not yet built jets (or so we’re told) and QF walks away from the project. But the new T&C’s prevail on existing QF equipment.
Airbus &/or Boeing reduce the price of their not yet built jets, QF buys them and the pilots acquiesce to the new T&C’s.
Hypothetical #2
Airbus &/or Boeing reduce the price of their not yet built jets, the pilots reject the new T&C’s and QF walks away from the project.
Hypothetical #3
The pilots acquiesce to the new T&C’s, neither Airbus nor Boeing reduce the price of their not yet built jets (or so we’re told) and QF walks away from the project. But the new T&C’s prevail on existing QF equipment.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypothetical #1
Airbus &/or Boeing reduce the price of their not yet built jets, QF buys them and the pilots acquiesce to the new T&C’s.
Hypothetical #2
Airbus &/or Boeing reduce the price of their not yet built jets, the pilots reject the new T&C’s and QF walks away from the project.
Hypothetical #3
The pilots acquiesce to the new T&C’s, neither Airbus nor Boeing reduce the price of their not yet built jets (or so we’re told) and QF walks away from the project. But the new T&C’s prevail on existing QF equipment.
Airbus &/or Boeing reduce the price of their not yet built jets, QF buys them and the pilots acquiesce to the new T&C’s.
Hypothetical #2
Airbus &/or Boeing reduce the price of their not yet built jets, the pilots reject the new T&C’s and QF walks away from the project.
Hypothetical #3
The pilots acquiesce to the new T&C’s, neither Airbus nor Boeing reduce the price of their not yet built jets (or so we’re told) and QF walks away from the project. But the new T&C’s prevail on existing QF equipment.
But hey I could be wrong.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Beyond the wall
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My humble take.
have you noted what happened to the share price after these announcements?
Its all “smoke & mirrors”, perception without substance.
Gains/ concessions from the A or B winner will be announced and also from TC, CC and pax. Que share price increase. Whether they have in fact secured said gains.... ???
NS et all has a looong way to go with LH EA. Not withstanding the SH EA....
have you noted what happened to the share price after these announcements?
Its all “smoke & mirrors”, perception without substance.
Gains/ concessions from the A or B winner will be announced and also from TC, CC and pax. Que share price increase. Whether they have in fact secured said gains.... ???
NS et all has a looong way to go with LH EA. Not withstanding the SH EA....
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inside the echo chamber of home market myopia, Little Napoleon prattles away incessantly. They spend copious amounts of other people's money maintaining a big narrative of BS.
When idiots like Joe Aston notice the rubbish and marketing spin with zero product to sell the jig is up.
Buy the aircraft the manufacturers offer or don't.
With development costs for the A380 estimated to exceed USD $9.5 billion the only product a minnow customer like Qantas would be offered is off the shelf.
The whole circus has generated a year of publicity for nothing. No order, no regulatory approval and no science to support it.
I really can't see Airbus or Boeing reducing the price of their products to suit one airline with a tiny population. Unless Qantas are planning to order other aircraft at the same time, I don't see what bargaining chip that they have here.
Buy the aircraft the manufacturers offer or don't.
With development costs for the A380 estimated to exceed USD $9.5 billion the only product a minnow customer like Qantas would be offered is off the shelf.
The whole circus has generated a year of publicity for nothing. No order, no regulatory approval and no science to support it.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That being said, there are so many reasons the pilots won’t vote this up so it’s probably a moot point.
You and I disagree on most things however in this case I’m there with you.