Project Sunrise, the much vaunted strategy by Qantas to fly non-stop from the eastern seaboard of Australian to London and New York finally looks like coming to fruition in 2027.
Thanks! We covered the growing Perth hub a few months back (see: www.analyticflying.com/p/qantass-impressive-perth-international) and Qantas have made a relatively big commitment to expanding international flying from Perth as part of their deal with the airport for the new terminal. Obviously, they've already expanded a lot with the new flights to Rome, Paris, Johannesburg and Auckland, plus new Jetstar flights to Bangkok, Phuket, Singapore and Manila. However, most of this is focused on Perth O&D traffic; certainly the case for the Jetstar) and partially the case for Johannesburg and Auckland.
The prospects for Perth as a western hub for Qantas/Jetstar, or even Virgin for that matter, is predicated on geography. However, the constraint is the domestic connecting capacity - both raw capacity (particularly to BNE MEL SYD), but also lack of destinations and frequency (e.g. QF/JQ only operate 1x/day PER-CBR, 3x/week PER-HBA/CNS/AKL, and don't even fly PER-OOL/CHC/WLG, etc). That's probably held it back more than the motivation of the airlines. In turn, runway and terminal space limit that. Will add it to the list of things to write up :-)
- It looks as if you are assuming that Qantas will route the Sunrise aircraft to London westbound. That is certainly the shorter great circle distance (by around 800nm). But from a series of 2017 Leeham articles, with input from Qantas, it seemed pretty clear that the London route would usually be flown eastbound and over the pole (imagine a waypoint around Anchorage) to take advantage of the prevailing westerly winds. The Leeham analysis said that, using this and other techniques to maximise range, the flight planning distance for Sydney-London could effectively be capped at around 9500nm. Here's the link (paywalled): https://leehamnews.com/2017/06/29/qantas-ultra-long-haul-dream-part-2/
- Then there's the ACT. I think Qantas (the PR team?) is making mischief with the term "rear centre fuel tank". They are familiar with the RCT because it's in their new XLRs. But apart from their use of the term I have seen no evidence that Airbus has engineered an integral tank similar to that in the XLR. In the case of the XLR that involved a substantial design, engineering and certification effort. Airbus released photos along the way and there was extensive reporting around the certification issues. We have seen nothing that I'm aware of pointing to development of a modified rear fuselage to build in an integral tank into the A350-1000. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary I'm assuming this is just a case of Qantas deciding they don't want people to see pictures of a big ugly 20,000l spare gas tank at the front of the hold.
Thanks, we didn't look into the routings and range here since it wasn't key to the questions we were interested in here, but agree that polar routings via Alaska will be common. This is even more likely now than in 2017 given the significantly greater airspace restrictions (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus). We had chats with some QF crew a few months back where they jokingly proposed that on any given day that Sydney-London could go east and Melbourne-London could go west! Although in general, we'd expect outbound and return of both flights to go east very often.
On the fuel tank: Airbus are calling it an RCT, developed primarily for the -1000F and noted on the regulatory documents for it. Whether it's an XLR style RCT or older generation ACT in the fwd hold I don't know, but they're calling it an RCT. See page 9 on the latest AC manual: https://www.aircraft.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta126/files/2024-06/AC_A350_0524.pdf
Nomenclature aside, the key point is that it differs from the -900ULR in that it has the extra tanks
Sounds like a fun conversation 🤓 It will be interesting to see how the new routes are managed once they are in service given both the Russia issues and stronger winds from global warming.
Thanks for the link to the manual and the RCT reference. Linkage with the A350F is a surprise – in what circumstances could the freighter need more than the wing and centre tank fuel volume? 20 hour freight sectors with 25 t payload? Scratching my head here…
I do struggle to understand why SQ would not fly its A350-900ULR on shorter sectors to increase utilisation. Obviously the LOPA is definitely not customised for intra APAC flying but so long as they manage to achieve positive contribution on variable costs - which does not seem like a stretch - that would still be a win. Or is it maybe more of a engineering and maintenance issue with those aircraft requiring more downtime?
Indeed, although one might argue that flights are so long that they get pretty good utilisation out of them anyway. They have 7 frames and have 2x daily JFK/EWR which accounts for 4, with one daily SFO rotation accounting for another 2, with the 7th accounted for by 3x/week LAX.
Time on ground at SIN between JFK/EWR rotations isn't massive, just 4 to 6 hours, so limited scope. Much longer with SFO or LAX rotations, so really just one frame (maybe two on some days) available for regional flying during the day. With a small fleet and lack of redundancy, they might just feel that's it not worth the IROPS risks. Like they don't want the JFK/EWR flights delayed because they tried to squeeze in a CGK, DPS or KUL sector. With only 7 frames, they can't move things around to mitigate risks from delays elsewhere. I suppose this is another advantage for QF having a much larger fleet.
Great article. I was looking forward to this and you definitely delivered.
I'm also very interested in the long run how far they will push this. Obviously east coast to NY and London and maybe Paris and Rome etc. is early, but will be interested in whether cities like Chicago, Frankfurt, and more minor cities get a look in. Or even Perth to the US direct! Will definitely be one to watch!
I really appreciate how much time and effort you put into this detailed analysis!
I would love a complimentary article about how the new Perth Hub can work as a margin and capacity boost to QF international business, like PS.
Thanks! We covered the growing Perth hub a few months back (see: www.analyticflying.com/p/qantass-impressive-perth-international) and Qantas have made a relatively big commitment to expanding international flying from Perth as part of their deal with the airport for the new terminal. Obviously, they've already expanded a lot with the new flights to Rome, Paris, Johannesburg and Auckland, plus new Jetstar flights to Bangkok, Phuket, Singapore and Manila. However, most of this is focused on Perth O&D traffic; certainly the case for the Jetstar) and partially the case for Johannesburg and Auckland.
The prospects for Perth as a western hub for Qantas/Jetstar, or even Virgin for that matter, is predicated on geography. However, the constraint is the domestic connecting capacity - both raw capacity (particularly to BNE MEL SYD), but also lack of destinations and frequency (e.g. QF/JQ only operate 1x/day PER-CBR, 3x/week PER-HBA/CNS/AKL, and don't even fly PER-OOL/CHC/WLG, etc). That's probably held it back more than the motivation of the airlines. In turn, runway and terminal space limit that. Will add it to the list of things to write up :-)
Fascinating piece of analysis.
A couple of technical points:
- It looks as if you are assuming that Qantas will route the Sunrise aircraft to London westbound. That is certainly the shorter great circle distance (by around 800nm). But from a series of 2017 Leeham articles, with input from Qantas, it seemed pretty clear that the London route would usually be flown eastbound and over the pole (imagine a waypoint around Anchorage) to take advantage of the prevailing westerly winds. The Leeham analysis said that, using this and other techniques to maximise range, the flight planning distance for Sydney-London could effectively be capped at around 9500nm. Here's the link (paywalled): https://leehamnews.com/2017/06/29/qantas-ultra-long-haul-dream-part-2/
- Then there's the ACT. I think Qantas (the PR team?) is making mischief with the term "rear centre fuel tank". They are familiar with the RCT because it's in their new XLRs. But apart from their use of the term I have seen no evidence that Airbus has engineered an integral tank similar to that in the XLR. In the case of the XLR that involved a substantial design, engineering and certification effort. Airbus released photos along the way and there was extensive reporting around the certification issues. We have seen nothing that I'm aware of pointing to development of a modified rear fuselage to build in an integral tank into the A350-1000. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary I'm assuming this is just a case of Qantas deciding they don't want people to see pictures of a big ugly 20,000l spare gas tank at the front of the hold.
Thanks, we didn't look into the routings and range here since it wasn't key to the questions we were interested in here, but agree that polar routings via Alaska will be common. This is even more likely now than in 2017 given the significantly greater airspace restrictions (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus). We had chats with some QF crew a few months back where they jokingly proposed that on any given day that Sydney-London could go east and Melbourne-London could go west! Although in general, we'd expect outbound and return of both flights to go east very often.
On the fuel tank: Airbus are calling it an RCT, developed primarily for the -1000F and noted on the regulatory documents for it. Whether it's an XLR style RCT or older generation ACT in the fwd hold I don't know, but they're calling it an RCT. See page 9 on the latest AC manual: https://www.aircraft.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta126/files/2024-06/AC_A350_0524.pdf
Nomenclature aside, the key point is that it differs from the -900ULR in that it has the extra tanks
Sounds like a fun conversation 🤓 It will be interesting to see how the new routes are managed once they are in service given both the Russia issues and stronger winds from global warming.
Thanks for the link to the manual and the RCT reference. Linkage with the A350F is a surprise – in what circumstances could the freighter need more than the wing and centre tank fuel volume? 20 hour freight sectors with 25 t payload? Scratching my head here…
Great article as always
I do struggle to understand why SQ would not fly its A350-900ULR on shorter sectors to increase utilisation. Obviously the LOPA is definitely not customised for intra APAC flying but so long as they manage to achieve positive contribution on variable costs - which does not seem like a stretch - that would still be a win. Or is it maybe more of a engineering and maintenance issue with those aircraft requiring more downtime?
Indeed, although one might argue that flights are so long that they get pretty good utilisation out of them anyway. They have 7 frames and have 2x daily JFK/EWR which accounts for 4, with one daily SFO rotation accounting for another 2, with the 7th accounted for by 3x/week LAX.
Time on ground at SIN between JFK/EWR rotations isn't massive, just 4 to 6 hours, so limited scope. Much longer with SFO or LAX rotations, so really just one frame (maybe two on some days) available for regional flying during the day. With a small fleet and lack of redundancy, they might just feel that's it not worth the IROPS risks. Like they don't want the JFK/EWR flights delayed because they tried to squeeze in a CGK, DPS or KUL sector. With only 7 frames, they can't move things around to mitigate risks from delays elsewhere. I suppose this is another advantage for QF having a much larger fleet.
Great article. I was looking forward to this and you definitely delivered.
I'm also very interested in the long run how far they will push this. Obviously east coast to NY and London and maybe Paris and Rome etc. is early, but will be interested in whether cities like Chicago, Frankfurt, and more minor cities get a look in. Or even Perth to the US direct! Will definitely be one to watch!