Qantas Project Sunrise Airbus order 2 May 2022?
Furthermore, as I have described many times, cost and revenue are not directly connected. Revenue is driven by what passengers will pay you, not by how much it costs you to provide it.
Indeed...It's only 30 years since Qantas took their new 747-400 non-stop from London to Sydney. You would have thought if tomorrows announcement is about the A350 & LHR-SYD non-stop that Airbus wold at least be able to do Toulouse-Sydney non-stop to show off their new toy.
Guess they have their reasons. Maybe it's to placate der fuhrer so he doesn't think he's going to lose his precious QF9/QF10 services out of Perth?
Guess they have their reasons. Maybe it's to placate der fuhrer so he doesn't think he's going to lose his precious QF9/QF10 services out of Perth?
With todays winds, and the configuration it flew in, they could have flown LHR-AKL with OHA as an alternate.
I would need to check the maths, but I would not be so sure about that. Yes, fuel consumption is highest at takeoff, and is a direct function of takeoff weight, but the equation is definitely not 1:1. Also the 20 hr sector needs to be compared to two 10.5 hr to allow for another approach/landing & takeoff. But the big savings is doing away with the interim airport landing and handling fees which is a considerable portion of total cost. On the revenue side I'm not so sure how it will work out. As a rule of thumb, an airline can charge a premium for a non-stop service (or rather competitors with a connection need to offer a discount), however on such a long route where the time saving is marginal, I don't know to what extent will this work. I for one would rather pay less and spend a night in a Bangkok hotel to break it into two shorter legs. The key is how much of the premium traffic will they manage to capture to fill F/C. I have taken QF first, and the experience was quite disappointing in comparison with what the competition has to offer.
I guess they will work out something with the regulator. The longest continuous duty I’ve done was just under 28hrs last year under an alleviation.
It’s non-linear and by the time you get out to the 20th hour of flying, you have had to carry the fuel to do that for 19hrs, burning a significant amount to do that. For a given L/D ratio, there is a point eventually where adding more fuel doesn’t measurably increase the range, similar to the rocket equation’s relationship to velocity. It’s an informed guess, but I’d expect to use at least 40% more fuel on a 20hr ULH sector than two 10.5hr ones with the same payload; at ~USD1,200/mt that’s going to be significant. Also, you might save in cycle-denominated engineering costs but you’re going to work the engines harder, especially taking off with likely very little or no derate.
I would need to check the maths, but I would not be so sure about that. Yes, fuel consumption is highest at takeoff, and is a direct function of takeoff weight, but the equation is definitely not 1:1. Also the 20 hr sector needs to be compared to two 10.5 hr to allow for another approach/landing & takeoff. But the big savings is doing away with the interim airport landing and handling fees which is a considerable portion of total cost. On the revenue side I'm not so sure how it will work out. As a rule of thumb, an airline can charge a premium for a non-stop service (or rather competitors with a connection need to offer a discount), however on such a long route where the time saving is marginal, I don't know to what extent will this work. I for one would rather pay less and spend a night in a Bangkok hotel to break it into two shorter legs. The key is how much of the premium traffic will they manage to capture to fill F/C. I have taken QF first, and the experience was quite disappointing in comparison with what the competition has to offer.
There was a push by some of the Pilot representatives to at least include a second F/O, rather than second S/O, to allow the 'landing' crew to optimise their rest prior to descent but this has been deemed unnecessary……by those who will rarely if ever have to do it.
Not only a 20 to 21 hour comparison, but there's ground time as well, it seems impossible nowadays to turn a long-haul widebody in less than 1.5 hours, so now 22.5 hours. You also need a commercially sensible intermediate stop bang on the Great Circle track to achieve this. If you are doing passenger work at the intermediate stop it's then a challenge to balance loads equally, every time, on both legs, so some revenue wastage there.
- Approval of Project Sunrise, with order for 12 x Airbus A350s capable of flying direct from Australia to any other city including New York and London, starting from Sydney in late 2025.
- Domestic fleet renewal from late 2023, with order for 40 x A321XLRs and A220 aircraft; 94 purchase order rights spread over at least a decade.
- Major improvements in emissions, running costs and passenger comfort vs retiring aircraft.
- No change to FY23 capital guidance; structure of orders to align with Group Financial Framework[1].
The expectation is that they'll still use a Captain, F/O and 2 S/Os as they currently do on Ultra Longhaul services such as Perth/Darwin-London and Dallas-Sydney.
There was a push by some of the Pilot representatives to at least include a second F/O, rather than second S/O, to allow the 'landing' crew to optimise their rest prior to descent but this has been deemed unnecessary……by those who will rarely if ever have to do it.
There was a push by some of the Pilot representatives to at least include a second F/O, rather than second S/O, to allow the 'landing' crew to optimise their rest prior to descent but this has been deemed unnecessary……by those who will rarely if ever have to do it.
"About 270" is not what it will carry, it is nowhere near 238 - which is what it will ACTUALLY be configured for - he can't even get the figure correct. It nearly makes me vomit every time I see this dolt's face on TV with the banner saying "Aviation Expert".
Wouldn't know an aeroplane or an aviation fact if it slowly surfaced in his morning porridge.
More chance being sold vs handing over. They did try to sell 1/4 of the 788's back in 2019. When backlogs for big twins start to bite again in a few years, then I would expect them to be flogged off for a premium again. The next year or two is all about taking advantage the travel boom, then it's back to business when the red ink starts to appear again around the network.
Doubtful that JQ will go into the 2030's and beyond with big twins. A321 will do a whole heap of Asia, Aussie Pilots, Asia CC. That last bit seems to always be the most important bit.
Doubtful that JQ will go into the 2030's and beyond with big twins. A321 will do a whole heap of Asia, Aussie Pilots, Asia CC. That last bit seems to always be the most important bit.
12 A350 frames would be about 100ish Captains. Any speculation how senior these slots would likely go? ie don't hold out if your number isn't < 300
A321 commands could be enticing for senior WB FOs (or those not wanting to endure the dodgy seat back on the 73) or even those 65+ bidding back with an easier conversion compared to 73.
A321 commands could be enticing for senior WB FOs (or those not wanting to endure the dodgy seat back on the 73) or even those 65+ bidding back with an easier conversion compared to 73.
Oh God, he is such a BS artist tool.
"About 270" is not what it will carry, it is nowhere near 238 - which is what it will ACTUALLY be configured for - he can't even get the figure correct. It nearly makes me vomit every time I see this dolt's face on TV with the banner saying "Aviation Expert".
Wouldn't know an aeroplane or an aviation fact if it slowly surfaced in his morning porridge.
"About 270" is not what it will carry, it is nowhere near 238 - which is what it will ACTUALLY be configured for - he can't even get the figure correct. It nearly makes me vomit every time I see this dolt's face on TV with the banner saying "Aviation Expert".
Wouldn't know an aeroplane or an aviation fact if it slowly surfaced in his morning porridge.
