Sunfish, you've fallen straight into the trap many airline managers did, fuel consumption is not a linear function. *cough* Boston Bruce pointed out why LCC couldn't work economically as sector length increased for this reason. He was "choosen" to go to the cosmetics industry as a consequence.

Jet transport fuel consumption is a function of time (Fuel economy in aircraft). You consume around 3% per hour per hour to carry it, this is, an exponential function. We could split hairs about the actual number (2.75 ~ 3.0 ~ 3.25%), but all it really does is change the inflection point in time before going exponential. For a A380 that inflection point is around 8 hours, for the B787 it may be 10 or 12 hours, I haven't seen the exact data.

This is why all the manufactures are trying to do everything they can to reduce airframe weight, to lower the burn % per hour to shift the inflection point.

The bottom line is the is not about reducing fuel costs, rather trying to increase the premium with direct point-to-point between high value financial centres. If there is a premium direct service it could potentially create an economic moat as there won't be enough traffic for a competitor on these routes.Example: The specific range of a Boeing 777-200 per distance
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b81f14a388.png
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

I agree rjtjrt. Trying to sit in the narrow space without encroaching or being encroached upon by another is worse.

Dragon Man, not the point. If Square Bear wants to slag off a product, then be accurate and don't exaggerate. That is all.

While it is true that 9-abreast in a 787, and 10-abreast in the 77W, require narrow seats, I'll point out two things

1. ​​​​​​It hasn't stopped pax buying flights on PER-LHR or MEL-LAX
2. Both of the aircraft under consideration for sunrise will have wider cabins which can accommodate 9/10 abreast at 18 inch seat width.

Exactly. Fine in a premium cabin where you can have space and be ‘horizontal’. Crammed down the back, especially in a middle seat - a form of torture.

Please do a test flight with a number of people crammed into a section of economy and see what the ‘feedback’ is like. How ‘better rested’ they are.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/w...sydney-2019-10

“I’m not sure I’d want to do 20 hours in the back of the plane, though,” he added.

.....Nick will not be invited to another 'Research Flight' :rolleyes:

No idea what Qantas is considering for Project Sunrise, but Singapore went with a 100% premium product on their Singapore LAX and JFK service (A340-500) - basically all business class. They also charged a premium above the normal business class for the same route with a stop. I looked into the LAX-SIN nonstop once and IIRC it was about $1000 more than the normal business class fare.
Seemed to work for them...

Perhaps he means because there is nobody in the bunk to distract him when he is on a long haul flight :}

They have reinstated this route with business and premium economy using the A359. Considering the very tight balance between fuel load and payload I would foresee a premium heavy bias to the configuration that is finally chosen for the Ultra-ULH Sunrise aircraft. There's no advantage to putting low-yield passengers on the aircraft, as we have seen with PER-LHR it is considerably more expensive to fly non-stop, but some punters will pay the premium and they are the ones you want to cherry pick. Leave the rest to go via hubs where you can create an economy of scale.

Yeah, I often sleep 2.5hrs on/ 3 hours off at home, makes for a wonderful nights rest..they don't call it the DreamChanger for nothing...

Lucky for all of us you won't be voting at EA time...thanks Geoffrey for your paid comments.$$

Fight or flight?

Nobody has signed up for this. The health impact is not known.
By all means, if there is scientifically valid modelling that says there is no negative health impact then what ought follow is a change to the regulatory limits and then a negotiation.
Filling the aircraft with turncoats and hack media helps drive a commercial agenda.
Not sure how 150 passengers in economy can squeeze into a galley to do calisthenics, but when plied with "free" accommodation and meals, it is hardly in one's interest to mention anything other than what the bribe was expected to deliver.
Soft corruption takes many forms.

Does the A350 or B777X have bleed air extraction for cabin pressurisation?
That alone, according to Boeing makes a difference to passenger "amenity"
So the "data" even less relevant.


This is simply Little Napoleon pushing a commercial agenda.
He set the deadline. Let it lapse.

Do not fall for the commerce, it is a misdirection.
It is health and safety that matters-long term

And that is the problem. There is already deleterious metabolic and cognitive health outcomes for operating crew with their current regime. So whether this longer sector is unfavourable or favourable to crews, the underlying negative outcomes from operating long-haul are already there. Crew will either suffer more, or a little less - but there is no removal of the consequences of circadian disruption, sleep deprivation, poor nutritional sustenance etc. And the fact that this ‘research study’ does not follow the Bradford Hill criterial for causation - means it is really just a meaningless data collection that will (being paid research), show some likely ‘favourable outcomes’ I am sure. Particularly for the sample of ‘commercial customers’ that travelled in a premium cabin with horizontal rest.

The Daily Mail has a report on the JFK-SYD flight, with pictures of the pilots wearing brain monitoring headbands and passengers doing yoga in the galleys.

I can't imagine doing a flight that long in economy, without the ability to lie down flat at any time. I think the longest flight I've had was about 11 hours, and by the end I was stir-crazy.

It's interesting to note the effort QF are going to with regards to reducing or minimising the adverse affect this length of flight may have on the passenger, who may only endure this once or twice a year.

Telling that the same amount of effort is not being put into minimising the affect this operation will have on crew who may operate 3 or 4 sectors like this a month.

At first I was wondering how many fares they sold, but it turns out you can't fault them for selling it (to the media) as "World's longest commercial flight successfully touches down at Sydney Airport" - the whole thing was a commercial, after all! :E

I believe the bean-counters consider those rest seats to be 0A and 0B. :E

This article has more details about the two rest areas, with pictures. By "segregated", why would that be an issue? Cabin crew should hopefully be professionals who know how to behave themselves in a mixed environment.

There were some fare paying customers that were originally booked JFK to MEL via LAX and offered the opportunity to transfer to this service.

The other issue that will dilute QF’s hype around these ‘new’ services is that they’ll simply be copied once airlines also get access to the metal. Expect Delta, United, BA etc., to do the same. This won’t be unique to QF. Yield will be diluted and then the economics might not stack up on the basis of fuel and the burn penalty to carry it.

Compared to the 737?
There's adequate room and privacy on all other longhaul fleets.

Point being the crew rest is a step backwards. And for a ULR AC....