Qantas Project Sunrise - Sydney to London 22 hours Non Stop
Discussion
The first Airbus A350-1000ULR (Ultra Long Range) aircraft rolled out of the factory last month signalling the next stage of Qantas' Project Sunrise to create a record-breaking non-stop 22 hour long scheduled service between Sydney and London.
Maths and physics say the 10,573 mile flight should not be possible. Airbus have had to re-engineer the A350 and it will have to be certified by EASA as a new variant. It has a new additional fuel tank at the rear of the passenger cabin carrying 20,000 litres of fuel, an increased MTOW of 322 tons and new software and redesigned balance management system.
The cabin itself reduces from 350 seats down to 238, with 6 first class suites, 52 business class, 40 premium economy and 140 economy. There is a "wellbeing zone" between the premium economy and economy cabins where passengers can stretch and move around, the lighting is designed to follow circadian rhythm and includes a sunrise sequence which moves from front to rear, and from departure all meal and drinks services will be timed based on the time at destination. There will be an estimated 20%-30% ticket price premium for the non-stop service to cover revenue loss from the reduced capacity.
The authorities have had to write new fatigue management regulations as no existing regulations cover commercial flights of 22 hours duration. Each flight will have 4 pilots working on shifts, and the aircraft has dedicated crew rest compartments.
Qantas has ordered 12 aircraft. They can be reconfigured to operate other existing Qantas routes but even so, it's a massive gamble.
The first aircraft (serial number MSN 707, registration F-WZNK) is undergoing flight testing ahead of delivery later this year and Qantas plans to have the non stop Sydney-London route starting in 2027 shortly followed by Sydney-New York non stop.
I think I could probably do 22 hours non stop but perhaps not in economy. It will be interesting to see what the uptake is when the services launch.
Maths and physics say the 10,573 mile flight should not be possible. Airbus have had to re-engineer the A350 and it will have to be certified by EASA as a new variant. It has a new additional fuel tank at the rear of the passenger cabin carrying 20,000 litres of fuel, an increased MTOW of 322 tons and new software and redesigned balance management system.
The cabin itself reduces from 350 seats down to 238, with 6 first class suites, 52 business class, 40 premium economy and 140 economy. There is a "wellbeing zone" between the premium economy and economy cabins where passengers can stretch and move around, the lighting is designed to follow circadian rhythm and includes a sunrise sequence which moves from front to rear, and from departure all meal and drinks services will be timed based on the time at destination. There will be an estimated 20%-30% ticket price premium for the non-stop service to cover revenue loss from the reduced capacity.
The authorities have had to write new fatigue management regulations as no existing regulations cover commercial flights of 22 hours duration. Each flight will have 4 pilots working on shifts, and the aircraft has dedicated crew rest compartments.
Qantas has ordered 12 aircraft. They can be reconfigured to operate other existing Qantas routes but even so, it's a massive gamble.
The first aircraft (serial number MSN 707, registration F-WZNK) is undergoing flight testing ahead of delivery later this year and Qantas plans to have the non stop Sydney-London route starting in 2027 shortly followed by Sydney-New York non stop.
I think I could probably do 22 hours non stop but perhaps not in economy. It will be interesting to see what the uptake is when the services launch.
Edited by 48k on Monday 18th May 11:48
A marvellous engineering feat that’s for sure but I do wonder how many people would really need to use it, if you’re flying that far you’re going for longer than a week so would a lay over really eat into your time that much?
22 hours in a economy seat you would be so exhausted after that you would end up sleeping longer than the layover once you got to your destination.
I imagine the flight influencers will be lining up to do videos of it on YouTube and instagram as soon as they can though
22 hours in a economy seat you would be so exhausted after that you would end up sleeping longer than the layover once you got to your destination.
I imagine the flight influencers will be lining up to do videos of it on YouTube and instagram as soon as they can though
I have been out to Oz/NZ dozens of times. I've never felt that doing it in one hop would have been preferable. It is a horrifically long way and a break in SIN, HKG, even (god forbid) LAX is not necessarily a bad thing unless you are in a real hurry.
The longest single leg I have ever flown was LHR to Buenos Aires, and at around 18 hours that was long enough thank you.
The longest single leg I have ever flown was LHR to Buenos Aires, and at around 18 hours that was long enough thank you.
WH16 said:
I have been out to Oz/NZ dozens of times. I've never felt that doing it in one hop would have been preferable. It is a horrifically long way and a break in SIN, HKG, even (god forbid) LAX is not necessarily a bad thing unless you are in a real hurry.
The longest single leg I have ever flown was LHR to Buenos Aires, and at around 18 hours that was long enough thank you.
There’s less chance of a missed connection if nothing else. The Perth route has been popular, I would imagine this will be too. In business or first I’d happily do it, otherwise like you I’d like a stop to have a proper stretch of the legs and change of scenery for a couple of hours because I’m never in that much of a hurry when travelling.The longest single leg I have ever flown was LHR to Buenos Aires, and at around 18 hours that was long enough thank you.
How was Buenos 18hrs??
DJC76 said:
WH16 said:
I have been out to Oz/NZ dozens of times. I've never felt that doing it in one hop would have been preferable. It is a horrifically long way and a break in SIN, HKG, even (god forbid) LAX is not necessarily a bad thing unless you are in a real hurry.
The longest single leg I have ever flown was LHR to Buenos Aires, and at around 18 hours that was long enough thank you.
There s less chance of a missed connection if nothing else. The Perth route has been popular, I would imagine this will be too. In business or first I d happily do it, otherwise like you I d like a stop to have a proper stretch of the legs and change of scenery for a couple of hours because I m never in that much of a hurry when travelling.The longest single leg I have ever flown was LHR to Buenos Aires, and at around 18 hours that was long enough thank you.
How was Buenos 18hrs??
WH16 said:
It was a while ago now (early 00s - you can't do LHR direct any more). It does seem after googling that 13-14 would be more normal, but then I'm not sure why I have the 18 hours stuck in my mind. I did then fly across the Andes to Santiago (my final destination on that trip), maybe I confused the total flight time.
I flew the LHR / EZE route many times. Average sector time 14 hours and 12 hours return. But my longest ever sector was SIN/LHR in winter. 15:30 but headwinds made a stop in Paris a necessity. The crew ran out of hours and we were forced to have a night in Paris.CSR Performance said:
I do prefer to fly direct going to the west coast of the USA or to the Far East when its 10-14 hours, but I really don't know that I could do 22 hours. I wonder how many people that do it once will never do it again!
Yep, 14 and a bit hrs LHR to Singapore was the longest I've done, and that was bad enough. It was 55mins longer than it should have been as we were stuck on the ground at LHR after doors closed, for reasons that now escape me, some 25 years years later.22hrs, no thanks, even in First that would be a chore, in economy it would be horrific.
aeropilot said:
CSR Performance said:
I do prefer to fly direct going to the west coast of the USA or to the Far East when its 10-14 hours, but I really don't know that I could do 22 hours. I wonder how many people that do it once will never do it again!
Yep, 14 and a bit hrs LHR to Singapore was the longest I've done, and that was bad enough. It was 55mins longer than it should have been as we were stuck on the ground at LHR after doors closed, for reasons that now escape me, some 25 years years later.22hrs, no thanks, even in First that would be a chore, in economy it would be horrific.
The Kangaroo route: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_Route
Regarding those economy seats, that "wellness zone" might be getting a bit of a workout. My knees feel like they're going to explode just thinking about economy class seats.....
Regarding those economy seats, that "wellness zone" might be getting a bit of a workout. My knees feel like they're going to explode just thinking about economy class seats.....
QANTAS will also expect you to pay a 20% premium over their already inflated prices for the privilege.
Not something if opt for even if it were cheaper.
A stopover is a good thing on a flight that long. A chance to get something proper to eat, somr time to stretch your legs and use a propper lavatory.
Not something if opt for even if it were cheaper.
A stopover is a good thing on a flight that long. A chance to get something proper to eat, somr time to stretch your legs and use a propper lavatory.
captain_cynic said:
QANTAS will also expect you to pay a 20% premium over their already inflated prices for the privilege.
Not something if opt for even if it were cheaper.
A stopover is a good thing on a flight that long. A chance to get something proper to eat, somr time to stretch your legs and use a propper lavatory.
I was pondering the economics of it. Paying that much to get their four hours earlier smacks a bit of Concorde - fine for captains of industry on the company dime or the otherwise hwealthy folk but for economy flyers - yeah naah, naah. Half the fun of flying is the taking off and landing and you get ripped off by one of each flying non-stop and what makes it even more egregious is having paying that 20-30% more for the privilege!Not something if opt for even if it were cheaper.
A stopover is a good thing on a flight that long. A chance to get something proper to eat, somr time to stretch your legs and use a propper lavatory.
I wonder how close they've got their cabin layout to what actually happens when they start that service. I wonder if they'll add more expensive seats or take 'em away.
rodericb said:
captain_cynic said:
QANTAS will also expect you to pay a 20% premium over their already inflated prices for the privilege.
Not something if opt for even if it were cheaper.
A stopover is a good thing on a flight that long. A chance to get something proper to eat, somr time to stretch your legs and use a propper lavatory.
I was pondering the economics of it. Paying that much to get their four hours earlier smacks a bit of Concorde - fine for captains of industry on the company dime or the otherwise hwealthy folk but for economy flyers - yeah naah, naah. Half the fun of flying is the taking off and landing and you get ripped off by one of each flying non-stop and what makes it even more egregious is having paying that 20-30% more for the privilege!Not something if opt for even if it were cheaper.
A stopover is a good thing on a flight that long. A chance to get something proper to eat, somr time to stretch your legs and use a propper lavatory.
I wonder how close they've got their cabin layout to what actually happens when they start that service. I wonder if they'll add more expensive seats or take 'em away.
At least with Concorde you got a real time saving (definitely a decent percentage).
rodericb said:
I wonder how close they've got their cabin layout to what actually happens when they start that service. I wonder if they'll add more expensive seats or take 'em away.
I watched a programme on this. Its all a bit complicated, but basically ....the Breguet Range Equation. Too complicated for me to explain, but basically, if you want to fly 10% further, you need 15 or 20% more fuel, because fuel is heavy and you need extra fuel just to carry that extra fuel. Every litre you add delivers less range range than the litre before it. because of that, Airbus installed a massive additional fuel tank in the rear centre of the plane with an addition 20000 litres, taking up passenger space in the back of the plane.Sixteen Stone said:
aeropilot said:
CSR Performance said:
I do prefer to fly direct going to the west coast of the USA or to the Far East when its 10-14 hours, but I really don't know that I could do 22 hours. I wonder how many people that do it once will never do it again!
Yep, 14 and a bit hrs LHR to Singapore was the longest I've done, and that was bad enough. It was 55mins longer than it should have been as we were stuck on the ground at LHR after doors closed, for reasons that now escape me, some 25 years years later.22hrs, no thanks, even in First that would be a chore, in economy it would be horrific.
edit to answer my own question:
Qantas said:
The A350 will operate more direct routes to Australia, with a significantly shorter point-to-point travel time – reducing flight time up to four hours.
but obviously they need to be able to stay in the air several hours more than the flight time hence the 22 hours bit.Edited by Pachydermus on Thursday 21st May 20:20
If you live anywhere other than Sydney then you still have to get there, so there is no time saving at all compared to flying out of Melbourne to Singapore and on to London.
I know a few people that have done Perth to London and none of them would do it again (although they all flew Melbourne to Perth first).
I know a few people that have done Perth to London and none of them would do it again (although they all flew Melbourne to Perth first).
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff