Qantas’s first Project Sunrise A350 rolls out as ultra-long-haul era draws closer
Posted by frontcorners@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 23 comments
dalledayul@reddit
While I'm impressed by the engineering side of this and the technology/cabin improvements that come with it, I'm also very cautious about how tolerable this will actually be.
I flew long-haul for the first time in my life last year when I flew from London to Australia via Singapore. The return leg was non-stop (3 hour stopover in Singapore and that was it), and it was brutal. 13 hours on the Singapore to London flight was tiring and boring, and the Project Sunrise flights are expected to tag another 5/6 hours on top of that. I'm not sure how pleasant that's really going to be, especially in economy.
I know they've suggested some cabin changes like the workout area and stuff, but it feels like the sort of flight where everyone would need to be in premium economy and up for it to actually be doable.
alsotheabyss@reddit
It really depends. I’ve done the 17hr LHR-PER on Qantas’ 787 and it was, honestly, fine, even in Y.
darkeyes13@reddit
A lot of people build a tolerance for long flight times, I think. When you live on the East Coast of Australia, flights over 8 hours are common. SYD-SIN or KUL is in the 8 hour range, SYD-HND and SYD-HNL are in the 10 hour range. SYD-LAX is already in the ~14 hour range.
There aren't many Economy seats in the Project Sunrise planes, iirc, so if you're picking Economy that flight, you'd know what you're in for and would already be factoring in comfort and pricing vs journey time.
fly_awayyy@reddit
I mean your record is 13hrs we already have flights in the 16 and high 17hr range operating. This tacks on about an hour or two more to that.
akshar9@reddit
But the point is you don’t have to deal with that 3 hour stopover (and the additional hour on both flights). I’m sure most people (especially business travelers) would prefer to reach 3-5 hours early. Business is where the money is anyways.
lukei1@reddit
I really don't understand why anyone would do this in economy
geekyengineer@reddit
I really hope this project goes well for Qantas tho I can't help to shake the feeling that they might roll this out at a time when jet fuel will become far too expensive.
fly_awayyy@reddit
Well Australia travel has been effected a lot by the conflict since the ME3 funnel a lot of that traffic have captured a large market share. So suddenly this flight coming online could prove to be a great and immediate relief and with higher prices to sustain it.
lukei1@reddit
Does the flight path not go right over the middle east?
No_Greed_No_Pain@reddit
Having flown several times non-stop on the Singapore - Newark route in the aughts (SIA used all business class configured A-340-500), I have reservations about this service. 19 hours on the plane were brutal, even with comfortable flat bed seats and great in-flight service that SIA is known for. 22 hours may be too much.
Also, if the cost of jet fuel stays high, it may become economically infeasible. The time will tell. Still, kudos to Qantas for trying.
fly_awayyy@reddit
Well having a lower cabin altitude, higher humidity, and an overall quieter airplane will make that more tolerable then your A340 flight. Secondly Australia travel has been hampered by Middle East airline travel disruptions so this flight could be a greats timed added relief to move passengers reliably nonstop even with higher fuel prices.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
I’m wondering what the routing will look like considering the current geopolitical situation(s). The original test flight used Russian air space, which it can’t/won’t use. And now heading further south/east will run into the Middle East. They used that on another test flight but it flew straight up the Hormuz.
I’m sure they’ll find something that works, eventually. But seems like it could be a nightmare to operate this flight routinely considering the state of the world…
shezadaa@reddit
Can they go down south and over South America? May just be a longer route.
PuddlesRex@reddit
The listed max range of the A350-1000ULR is 9,700 nmi.
The ideal great circle between Sydney and London is approximately 9,100 nmi. This uses Russian airspace.
Going over the Strait of Hormuz is approximately 9,400 nmi.
Going to the north of Iraq and Iran; instead going through Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, which a lot of airlines are currently doing, Is about the same, at 9,400 nmi.
If, for whatever reason, they needed to go to the south of Iran and Iraq (say, something happened to make China, Pakistan or Afghanistan hostile to this route), then we go up to about 9,500 nmi.
If they were going over the Americas, then they would have to make it a fifth freedom flight. The most direct paths would actually be more north, not more south (to go up South America, as you suggested, would be a minimum of 12,000 nmi). NYC is also on Project Sunrise, so they could turn it into a fifth freedom stop. Or they could add Toronto as a fifth freedom stop, as Qantas does not currently offer direct service to Toronto. YYZ is approximately 8,400 nmi from SYD.
If they desperately wanted to go non stop, they could fly over the North Pole. I think that a North Pole route of approximately 9,900 nmi technically stays within ETOPS, and dodges Russian airspace. However, this exceeds the max range of the aircraft. Starting in Brisbane instead of Sydney drops the North Pole route to 9,600 nmi. Which is tight, but doable.
fly_awayyy@reddit
Range should not be used as the sole determining factor. Winds, dispatch, alternates, and ETOPS dictate more than a fixed range number. If you need a suitable landing alternate cause of weather and need to carry a lot more fuel for that now you’ve eaten into the payload and might need a weight restriction. Also since this will be a new type for them don’t expect the highest ETOPS rating off the bat it’ll take some inservice time to prove ETOPS competency and thus take advantage of better routing.
3rd-party-intervener@reddit
Using an airbus. Boeing couldn’t do it with their planes. Sad state of reality for Boeing.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
Boeing withdrew from the project years ago. They were offering a modified 777-8 but with such slow sales of that variant they prioritized the 777-9 and then the 777-8F.
This is a niche offering in the wide body market that Boeing is otherwise absolutely dominating Airbus in.
Twitter_2006@reddit
Awesome.
Chaoshero5567@reddit
lets gooo
Horatio-Leafblower@reddit
Hasn’t this ‘rolled out’ multiple times already?
bp4850@reddit
It left the assembly line some time ago, but it wasn't completed at that point. This is normal for A350 production
thenewredditguy99@reddit
No? It’s been delayed a bit, if that’s what you’re thinking of.
post-explainer@reddit
Please provide a source by replying to the message that was sent to you. Failure to respond to that message will result in the automatic removal of this post. Please feel free to reach out to the mod team through modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
r/Aviation is trialing new measures to prevent karma farming. Please feel free to provide feedback through modmail. Thank you for participating in the community!