Project Sunrise
 

I see Qantas are about to start research flights.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...22-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...

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

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

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

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

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.
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.

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

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...............

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...?

Not the 777-8
 

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/op...f-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.

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. 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".

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

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.

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.

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'.

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...

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!

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/comp...01-p52ms5.html

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.

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.