Why Did Qantas Choose the a350 Over the 777x?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- After years of speculation, we finally have an answer as to which aircraft manufacturer Qantas will entrust to provide planes for Project Sunrise. That manufacturer is Airbus, and those planes are a350s. But why did Qantas decide to move forward with this plane, rather than Boeing's competing 777x? Let me explain...
In order to stay up to date with all things aviation, SUBSCRIBE to Coby Explanes :) And, for more great aviation content, follow me on instagram at @cobyexplanes. It's a great place to ask me direct questions and interact with the great community! 
Авто/Мото
Oops! Turns out I neglected to include the "U" in "ULR". The new variant should be called the a350-1000ULR, not the a350-1000LR. Nobody's perfect :)
You're forgiven and very good work with your research. Keep it going.
What about Sydney vs Cindy?
in answer to your question - if in a business or first class seat 20 hours shouldn't be a problem - I can't imagine it would be very pleasant in economy...
@@swiper1818 Well I doubt there would be a true economy class on these flights - we'd probably see something more similar to Singapore's ULR product where economy is laid out in a 2-4-2 config with 36 inches of pitch
@@swiper1818 yeah i wonder economy would be probley as good as business class in a Airbus a-320neo or something like that
3:43 fun fact, that man smiling in the middle is Matt Dower, my instructor who signed me out for my first ever solo flight in a plane. He used to be an instructor with my flight club but now he is with Qantas.
So cool!
That’s really cool!
The one on the left or right? Cuz there is no middle and both of them are smiling...
There is no middle... There's two people who switch positions depending on the camera and they're both smiling. They both look very young and don't look like instructors...
Boeing has really hurt itself with it's shady production tactics with the 737max.
Boeing was built on its incredible Engineering for nearly a century. Ivory tower management and Wall Street put paid to that.
Why the hell is this upvoted? Seriously.
@@electric7487 Speak to the Boeing engineers, that may give you a clue
@christopher hennessey RIP Douglas Aircraft Company, born 22 July 1921, died 23 May 2006.
You will be missed, but your management will not.
Not to mention 787 issues at their South Carolina plant. Qatar airways only accepts 787s from the Everett plant.
an A350 will look gorgeous in Qantas colors 😍 can’t wait to see it 😀👍
same :)
Except for that nose. Yikes.
Tbh i rather prefer it in cathay pacific livery (if it wasn’t for that blue line on the bottom of the plane lel)
I THINK QANTAS WILL ARREST YOU!
@@stevencramsie9172 and those cockpit windows.the 787 windows are better looking
I would definitely take on a non-stop 20+ hours flight.
Everything is preferable to extra airports, extra waiting time, extra hours waiting for another flight ...and there's always the risk of ending up getting another long flight in a worse seat/aircraft.
To me, visiting stop-over airports cannot be classified as travelling pleasure.
Coby - "Would you take a twenty hour Project Sunrise flight?"
Me - "Who's paying?"
I’ve done New York to Singapore so I’ll definitely be flying new to Sydney soon. I think airbus is scooping up all the long haul records because Singapore airlines uses airbus for there New York to Singapore. The A350 is a great aircraft and has been proven to be reliable thus far and seems to be favourite among passengers.
2-4-2 configuration, Man. That's a billion dollars idea
777x getting ready to steal the Nyc to signapore and potentially start johanisberg to nyc like “im boutta end this man whole career”
@@gabcote5450
The 777 is uncomfortable, I will always stay with the more reliable and safer Airbus.
@@barrierodliffe4155 me to
@@gabcote5450 The 777x is no where near successful as the a350, b787 or even the original 777, and it will never be.
It's just too big and it has been delayed for years, so forget about that dream.
Can you do 'Fun With Flags' next? How's Amy doing?
lmao
I was thinking the same !
That is really funny!
I've flown the A350 several times and it is an extremely comfortable aircraft. However, I wouldn't take a project sunrise flight. Where I live, I'd have to fly domestic to catch one. If I have to change planes, I might as well do so halfway through my flight and break the journey into two much more tolerable segments. Also, that's likely to incur less carbon pollution because you are wasting less fuel carrying fuel.
I agree as well.
Breaking up the journey is healthier but only really if you can get into a hotel room or a high end business lounge with very good chairs you can sink into. Otherwise you just add 4 hours to your flight in return for a little stretch in an austere airport with plastic chairs. I use a business lounge system called “priority pass” for when I can’t get into a proper lounge, such lounges are a mixed bag. Such lounges seldom are up to business class standards of Emirates or Qantas but you’ll get a shower, meal, wine/beer. Just don’t expect a big seat with huge recline. Even Manilla has sleeping capsules however.
Airport like Dubai and Singapore have Hotels in the immigration side of the airport. You just forward check your checkin baggage so that you don’t have to retrieve it and have a shower, sleep in a proper bed for a few hours and then off you go because you’ve already got your boarding pass. In Dubai, if you have a visa or a good national passport that doesn’t need a visa you can do the same but catch a taxi to nice hotel. With your boarding pass already in your hands and no checkin bags (they’re being held for you because you’ve forward checked) it’s easy to get through again the next day. You have a boarding pass so it’s usually just one 3 minute security check.
I see Qantas flights as being premium heavy with lots of first, business class (both with lie flat) and premium economy and only 60% economy. If you are a smaller person or young and fit you might be very ok with this.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs
Breaking the flight is an absolute pain, unless you stop over for a few days to do some sight-seeing. I find the best option for me is to get a direct flight leaving in the evening so that I can sleep most of the flight. This also helps with time acclimatization. Regarding health, just drink plenty of water, do foot exercises in the seat and walk around a little on the flight to keep the circulation going. The A350 has a very nice cabin and wide seats, so it is comfortable for long flights.
Pi Squared Doesn’t work for me. I do not sleep well in an aircraft seat. Hence I prefer to leave in the mid morning. I use the time to read, listen to audio books or in flight entertainment (documentaries). The stop over works only if the hotel is inside the immigration zone of the airport otherwise it’s too much time and hassle unless next stage is a domestic flight. It works to get say 6 hours sleep in a proper bed and then get on a flight the next morning. I’m glad you like flying in the evening because it leaves seats free on morning flights for folks like me.
Better has 1 stopover coz it is cheaper
What a YT channel! INSANE quality, you deserve much more!
Thank you!! The community's growing quick don't worry ;)
10 hrs is pretty much the most time on a flight I could take. Anything over that and it's just pure misery.
20 hrs? No thanks I'll take a midpoint break
Yup narita japan to jfk is 12hrs and 40mins haha my longest flight
LOTS OF ALCOHOL.
Dubai-Auckland is almost 16 hours, and when you've already been awake for 25 hours including a 7 hour flight and there's a baby crying constantly nearby, you really lose the will to live.
@@cab63868386 The flight times are somewhat exaggerated. QR run one stop PER-LGW in 21:30 and back in 20:05. The cost premium to fly non-stop is about 50% to reduce the flight times to 17:15 and 16:45.
@@mikeblatzheim2797 My experience with long haul SYD-LHR is that once you are half way, you are so tired you just want to push through and get it over with. That is particularly the case when travelling with small children.
“Qantas is foregoing operating cost in favor of passenger comfort”.....lol. That’ll be the day. Too funny
Take out the windows aisles and you can have a running track circling the cabin :)
Operating costs of the Airbus are good, comfort is very much better then the Boing. Safety is also a factor. Boing do not have the best record for safety either.
Will add a sharp price increase for the non stop option.
There's no point in cutting costs if you deter potential customers as a result. The longest flight I've ever taken was about 14 hours, by which time I was thoroughly fed up with the limited seating space and my body was suffering through lack of exercise. Short of flying first-class (a dream which won't ever be realised) I wouldn't take a 20-hour flight unless something was done to alleviate the discomfort of long haul travel. I'm sure that Qantas is relying on thorough market research which tells them that passenger comfort is a priority on a non-stop flight of this length.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a future LHR-SYD route that is all business and premium economy (1-2-1 lie-flat pods and 2-3-2 recliners that are similar to a "domestic" first class route). The kinds of people from both countries who can afford to take this hypothetical flight (business travelers and wealthier leisure travelers) would likely pay extra for at least premium economy for a 20-hour flight. I've flown Qantas in premium economy for SFO-MEL on miles, but if I'm paying cash I'd be more than willing to pay at least double to have a premium economy seat over a regular economy seat, especially if the flight is overnight. Premium economy (widebody premium economy, that is) is almost always a great deal and usually costs less than first class fares on shorter narrowbody routes, for a hard product that is the same or better.
Wondering why did you drop the "U" from the ULR? Airbus calls it the A350-900ULR not A350-900LR.
Oops! Oversight on my part, there should be a U in there
@@cobyexplanes - The A350-900ULR will still remain the same. Currently, Airbus has offered the new A350-1000 heavy, the heavier version of the current A350-1000, which will have an extra fuel tank to give the aircraft the fuel range for nonstop ultra long haul flights required for Project Sunrise. You didn't mentioned, Qantas wants to carry freight on these flights plus they want 300-320 passengers in a 4 class configuration. In essence the A350-1000 offered to Qantas for Project Sunrise is the much rumored A350-1000LR. If Qantas does go ahead with Project Sunrise, I wouldn't be suprise that Airbus will announce the launch of the A350-1000LR with Qantas being the launch customer. If this does happen, the A350-1000LR would have some impact on sales of the proposed B777-8 which is still in designed stage. Boeing was hoping that Qantas would choose the B777-8 with Qantas being the B777-8 launch customer.
With regards to a A350-1000ULR, at this stage, I don't see the need for an A350-1000ULR unless Airbus launches a 2nd generation of A350 family.
Chris McKellar 0
@@cobyexplanes your mouth moves too much when you talk, please stop it
@@chrismckellar9350 I have found the new A350-1000 will either be called the a350-1000ULR or the A350-1000 neo, as airbus is interesting in an A350 neo to compete with the upcoming 777x
Great logic. A very well thought out and edited video. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed!
In 2008, I flew 17 hours non-stop from Los Angeles to Bangkok on an Airbus 340-500. It was sheer torture because I did this trip in Economy Coach. Then in 2012 I did the same trip but chose to stop in Incheon Korea after 12 hours of flying from Los Angeles. Comparing the two, I prefer to break up the flight in two legs. To me, savings only 2-3 hours on a non-stop flight is not worth it unless I'm flying in First Class or Business Class.
This trip will be a premium-only flight and they will take extra measures to make it more comfortable. I'm not sure if I would do it though, I don't mind stop overs.
I already love this channel.
And to think that Coby has less than 1k subscribers is unbelievable.
Thanks so much!! I'm well on my way to 1,000 don't you worry, but if you want to encourage others to subscribe it'd be a great help :)
Fewer than, not less than.
@@Nickbaldeagle02 had no idea. Thanks
Ayyyy, where my a350 gang at?
not here, sorry 😔😔
If I owned an airline company, my fleet would be all Airbus since they have diverse range of models. I am a fan of the narrowbody A321 Neos and their XLR and LR variants. However, as wide bodies are concerned, I would always prefer the A350 over the A330neo.
I haven't flown on either the a350 or a330neo, but the a321neos really are the best of both worlds - highly fuel efficient *and* actually comfortable for passengers. I'm a sucker for Boeing widebodies though, I might have to pick 787s :)
The B737 MAX are lighter than the A320 probably due to the smaller ovoid double bubble fuselage. As a result the MAX climb to cruise faster and have a slightly lower fuel burn over short ranges. Over longer distance the very efficient Hawker-Siddley designed supercritical wing makes the Airbus more efficient though the Airbus is a little slower due to 25 degree sweep. Boeing’s traditionally have a large well swept wing and climb fast, cruise high and fast. The neo climbs Also GE and Boeing are best of Buddies so the LEAP 1B on the B737 MAX is more efficient Thant the LEAP 1A on the A320 due to higher compression ratio and temperatures used which make up for the smaller fan diameter.
Airlines such as RYAN air specialize in flights like the 280 miles between Dublin and London. The MAX is perfect for this 40 minute flight that costs less than the taxi ride to the airport maybe $20. Ryan air have a version called the B737 MAX 200 or 8200 because it’s a MAX 8 with 200 seats.
The A320 offers LD-3/45 containers (up to 10) in an A321 and that is important for airlines carrying lots of luggage who want to cut turnaround times or those that make money from freight. It’s kind to the baggage handlers knees because the containers are loaded in the airport. Nice in bad weather.
Airbus have carbon fibre brakes that take a few extra minutes to cool than B737 steel brakes so that can effect turnaround times because they won’t let personnel near the wheels.
The B737 was a finely honed machine. Really gave people ultra low fares. Listen to Michel O’Leary (Ryan air ceo) on how desperate he is to get the MAX ruclips.net/video/mYQWHWS0Eow/видео.html
me and my parents flew the a350 last week and it made them love the airline
i agree .... with an all airbus fleet ...dont really like boeings quality...but have to put up with it cause am in Canada 😂
Yup in this Video I'm watching on Qantas for the A350 For is Project Sunrise I glad they Choose The A350 which is a good move for the Austrialian Carrier!!!!
To meet their safety standard is guaranteed the L1000 A350s will come out from Hamburg, Germany.
Coby I love your presentations, your economy with words without waffle...Direct and to the point. Great presentations of your ideas.
Glad you enjoy, Andy :)
If I ever had the chance, I’d fly the Qantas A350-1000ULR from New York or London to Sydney, or vice-versa.
Thanks for the video,
Danny:)
I've flown from the east coast of the USA to Malaysia a half a dozen times and try to get as few stop overs as possible. One stop in LA California, another in Naruto Japan, and final destination in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. Total time from start airport to final destination airport, 22 hours. Even though it's a direct flight from LA to Kuala Lumpur (same aircraft, just a crew change out), you have a chance to get off the aircraft, look around, make phone calls and shop duty free.
When I fly back home, I spend a day in Japan to do touristy sight seeing and a real Japanese meal or two.
Flying 20 plus hours on a Non-stop flight would be pressing things more than I'm willing to endure.
High revenue business pax do not have the luxury of spending a day sight seeing. This plane will be a very premium heavy config, all QF cares about is to fill the J and F seats. The small amount of Y seats will be sold at a premium compared to their 1 stop A380 services to cater for the small amount of travelers who are time poor and willing to pay a small premium to get there sooner.
QF will continue to offer the A380 for people like yourself who prefer to 1 stop.
I'm a splitter for long haul. Flying mainly from Melbourne I like the 8/9hr to Singapore then 13/14 hr from there to London and the lounges in Singapore, well the airport in general is great!
if there's RUclips, I can do 20 hrs....I don't want just movies, I want RUclips
I want a hotel room! 😀
Rightly said. RUclips is addictive.
I don't understand the negativity towards the a350 from various comments. It's a magnificent aircraft used by some of the world's best airlines. It's safety has been proven... that's good enough for me!
@Blaise Semenya Boeing widebody models outsell their Airbus counterparts by a significant bit
Blaise Semenya slave client states propping up sales? 😂😂😂 You’re hilarious. The fact is that Boeing dominates the long haul, wide body market and the numbers prove this. I’m not angry about anything (shitty assumption on your part), I’m simply pointing out the fact that Boeing performs better in this segment.
I'm not going to lie. This is exciting.
Personally I'd love a long haul flight on an Airbus over the Boeing. The issues that Boeing have been experiencing this past year is something I'd like to see remedied soon.
Whatever does happen I do hope that passenger flight does not take any steps backwards. We've come so far and I am excited to see what the future holds.
Completely agree on almost every point you make, except I'm partial to Boeing widebodies over Airbus :) That being said I've never flow an a350 so I'll have to try it out before I can come to a full opinion - perhaps I'll fly on project sunrise!
The B777 was a brillant aircraft with nearly 1600 produced compared to less than 300 A380. It has an outstanding safety record. Allan Mullally, it’s project Manager and an engineer should have been made CEO. There wouldn’t be a problem under him and he would have raised and trained a new generation of Boeing managers and engineers with the right experience and attitudes. The B777-9 is experiencing delays due to it failing at 99% of its maximum pressure tests at the doors and issues with its engines. These will be fixed. A380, B787, A350 were all late.
It’s sad to see the current MAX issues carry on to other incredibly safe(even some more safe than current Airbus models), reliable aircraft like the 777, or 787 etc. I’d choose a 747-8 any-day over an Airbus. Queen of the skies (:
William Jones-Halibut to date the 777 has received over 2,000 orders. More than any Airbus widebody, and considered the safest, reliable(especially GE90 models) aircraft in the history of aviation. I can’t wait for the 777X, should be a great beast
@@Jack3md If only more airline executives thought like you did...would love to see more -8is out there
Great informative video, earned yourself a new subscriber
Welcome aboard :)
Reduced passenger numbers to allow more fuel weight - sounds like a recipe for expensive fares. Would love to take the flight, but doubt my pocket book could cover it.
Exactly, As a wise man once said, "There's no such thing as a free lunch".
Well I go to school in New York and my girlfriend lives in Brisbane, so yes. I would take a project sunrise flight
wow talk about long distance haha
She's probably cheating bruh, long distance relationships don't work.
6ces6 😂
@@6ces6 he could be cheating too, let people live their lives
savage
the A350 is absolutely gorgeous, and meets all the right criteria and specs…Boeing’s iconic brand is beginning to crack a bit, they need to rebuild trust and safety and quality, vs focus first on short term shareholder returns …if the two planes meet the same criteria and cost/efficiency, many more now than before are going to default to Airbus
I like how he explains all the things cuz I can understand it even more, it's Slow and Smooth. Than those explainer rapping faster than rap god
Over the years, Boeing has had too many flaws in their planes. Just when I thought they had ironed them out, and the 777 was such a great plane, they start again with the 737max.
It will be a while before I trust a new Boeing product.
Doge Bomber and what podcast is that
Doge Bomber i couldn’t find anything obvious, if you remember shoot me a hint
Doge Bomber flight safety detectives 👍
That, and the fact that the 777X has been pushed back to 2027. Can't be competitive if you're not on the market.
I believe that the A350 was also better suited technically speaking. It’s a much more modern aircraft overall that can go far mostly thanks to its fuel efficiency with little payload restrictions.
I'm planning London to Sydney this summer. I hope to survive 🌞
Best of luck sir
Only found this channel in the last few days, and this has really been something to reflect on. It was only the other week now (definitely after Christmas), that QANTAS announced that it was going to replace all its Boeing 737's with Airbus A321's, A320's, and A220's. Essentially, within a few years, QANTAS will be flying a severe majority of Airbus, with some 787's, and De Havilland Canada Dash 8 400's.
You could almost see (from this point), an intention to swap out the B787-9's for A350-900's. It's not exactly a 1-for-1 trade (maybe 20 extra pax, 900km extra range, 200m shorter take off, more fuel capacity, higher MTOW, etc), but they wouldn't need any pilots certified on Boeing types, and spare parts inventory would be saved.
As an Australian (and whilst this situation is nowhere near the same - nor would the Australian Government ever allow it), Ansett failed in part due to an inefficient business model, with too many aircraft manufacturers in their fleet, leading to excessive stock holdings, and too many type ratings, etc. QANTAS could definitely make savings by swapping out their remaining B787-9's for A350-900's down the line now.
I would love to go on a project sunrise flight sometime, but only in business class
The safe option. Qantas has always prided itself on putting safety first.
Well the 777 has proven to me one of the safest widebodies ever - don't think the decision came down to literal aircraft safety
@@cobyexplanes No, he's one of the people that think everything boeing does is unsafe because the MAX crashed, therefore literally everything else is a safety hazard or some dumb shit like that
Qantas had only ONE collision and only ONE death but the death was not from Qantas at all!
Idk why people are being such bums about the 737max when the DC 10 is more dangerous
@@aviationphu9603 .............. OH MY FREKANE GOD the DC 10 manage to fixed it self, and no more bad accidents started to happen, it became a good plane.... Also the reason why the DC-10 crashes happen wasn't from the people at Douglas, but the American Airlines decided to make maintenance quicker and cheaper by doing a more dangerous work which resulted into the engines wearing to the point of falling out of its place... Yes this could of been dangerous, but it was only from the Airlines fault....... The 737 max is a literal mistake from Boeing to get it out in the competition and make it cheap..... Risking peoples lives.... Please get you facts straight..
I find the 777 to be much noisier than the A350. That clinches it for me.
That's the old 777, the new one has the quieter engines...
The A350's carbon composite fuselage will make the A350 much quieter than traditional aluminum aircraft. 787 is a good reference point.
That's because the 777 is a 30 year old jet. that's why they revamped it (777X). So...
@@connermcgarrah2171 Yes, and it's a good thing they are. Flying a United -300ER you notice the noise considerably more than Delta's A350. I looked up the age of the UAL plane and it's only about 15 years old.
Here, we can find a comparison in cabin noise levels:
www.uscreditcardguide.com/how-noisy-is-you-airplane-cabin/
Apart from your interesting subject I have to mention that you have very clear accent. Keep up the good work.
You forgot to mention efficiency. The 7778X is projected to be much heavier than the A350, there is no scenario where it was the more efficient option on fuel burn. Also even though it is projected to have more range, it also did not have enough range in its standard configuration.
778x has more, and I mean much more, cargo capability than an a351Lr. And more powerful engines. With both lr variants the 778x would be able to fly further and have more capacity.
I love those winglets!
Would I? If the business fare was competitive, I would. Much faster travel than the current options. What people don't get is that we in Australia (and New Zealand) have no option currently than to spend 24+ hours getting to Europe - sometimes 30+ with crappy connections.. Unless the earth literally shrinks or we go supersonic, this option is faster. If you live in Sydney or Perth.
We all know the business class fare will not be competitive... But I agree with you. I would take this flight if the price was say 10-40% more than a business class flight on a Chinese carrier or whoever is the cheapest such as asiana or Qatar. However our last flights cost £2000 return from Heathrow in business class lie flat and every time I have looked at the Perth flights the price has been £6000+. For leisure travel, when paying for a family of 4 that is not an option.
Greetings from Scotland, nice video liked and subscribed :-D
Greetings! Welcome aboard :)
@@cobyexplanes A happy new year and every success for 2020
I hope the 777x goes on to be a safe plane
It most likely will, the only reason the 737 max crashed because of its software
I would try a London-Sydney flight but probably only in Business Class
I would totally take a 20 Qantas flight. Everytime I fly from Australia to Europe I have a layover in Doha which is the most miserable experience you can imagine.
Where is doha located?
@@oscardom__ Capital of Qatar, in the middle East.
"layover in Doha which is the most miserable experience you can imagine." had 8 hours night connection in, afair, 2011, in old terminal, no problems.
David I sooooooo agree. ✊🤚
Try Changi Airport, Singapore. You will have a different experience
Great info
I just did 16.5 hour journey from YYZ to Manila and back.
The Philippine Airlines a350 900 is a stunning piece of engineering. Very quick to take off and reasonably quiet engines.
The seats were premium economy, but still much too narrow for my 6ft, 220 pound frame.
Beautiful aircraft.
maybe its time for you to lose weight
Yo you just earned yourself a new subscriber
welcome aboard :)
2 new subscriber
@@lexgo8013 :)
I love ultra long range flying my record is Sydney to Dubai non stop including time to go around a whopping 15hrs. My record in a single day is 22 hrs 55 mins from Sydney to Dublin I enjoyed every minute of it. I’d definitely try out project sunrise for sure
I recently did a 15 hour LA to Sydney hop and honestly it wasn't that bad
you are not human
Laser Beam what do you mean? I just love flying
@@sagarjina I can relate haha
Yes I would, as long as comfort and good service are there !
It's Qantas, I'm sure they'll be there :)
Passenger comfort is paramount when your primary international routes involve travel times varying between 6 - 28 hours.
A350 is surely a mature choice, well done Qantas.
Mature choice? How so?
@@stevencramsie9172 cause boeing is shit and Airbus is the best
@@velekorunoski5997 hmm sounds like an airbus fanboy.
@@_SP64_ yeah anything wrong with that? But its true tho Airbus is way better, much more comfortable
@@stevencramsie9172 Going with a known quantity that's available rather than something that hasn't been built yet would be seen as a mature choice.
20 hours in a plane, no thanks.
you commenting here with that worthless opinion - no thanks
Ant sry but he is completely right, ur fanboy comment is uselesd
Viktor Tilson agree I did 14 hours a couple months ago that’s long enough😬
@@oldcynic6964 You can still get up inside... and it's all business class for Project Sunrise, no screaming kids.
Great video! :)
Thanks :)
@@cobyexplanes skill deserves praise :))
On the LHR to SYD route, the proposed direct flight does not vastly improve "connectivity" as it stands. Saving at best 3 or 4 hours, it makes the take off and landing times less convenient for business travelers. Currently, you can leave London Sunday night and arrive Tuesday morning to get in a full day in Sydney on Tuesday. The Sunrise flight would see you leave early Sunday morning (wasting a valuable weekend !) and arriving very late morning in Sydney. Shower and change and you're not at meetings in Sydney until early afternoon on Monday.
The only way I would take a 20 hour non stop is if on board accommodations included a bed and space to walk and exercise. I would not do 20 hours in the seated position.
@Tournel Henry Right
20+hour flights are okay.
As long as the legroom is great. Decent sammiches anytime!
And feee alcohol.
Excellent choise
I’d take that flight. In fact I can’t wait. I think getting up and walking around, doing in seat stretching, limiting alcohol and trying to maintain a sleep schedule will go a long way to minimising a 20 hour flight.
The last year has destroyed their reputation in my eyes.
LabGorilla what happened last year?
@@anthonyelvis4571 you don't know about the 737 max crisis?
Qantas? What happened?
It's all about the toilet facilitesto me.I would not like to wait in a queue for the toilet on a extra long hall flight. Plenty of toilets to passenger ratio and it may be success full . Do that or forget it!
meistertynemouth That’s one reason they are cutting it 70 seats.
Those long halls?
Good video. I now get your point when you compared Boeing 777x to Airbus A350 in the section comments of one of your other videos. It makes sense for Qantas to use Airbus planes. I wonder how other airlines will interpret Qantas's decision to go with Airbus
Hey Cory,
You are awesome for reporting on this. Thank you so much. I've been following Project Sunrise intently. I'm waiting for the announcement on the New York to Sydney flights. From what I understand it's about what airplane manufacturer can make their "business case" for Project Sunrise viable.
I'm not sure why Qantas even entertained the idea of the Boeing 777-8x when Boeing isn't even paying attention to the production of that aircraft right now. Plus, as you said, there are major production issues with the aircraft. I know Alan Joyce, Qantas' CEO wants to put Project Sunrise into operation in time for World Pride 2023 as Qantas is a corporate sponsor. BUT! My thing is if they can't get the aircraft, factor in all the research from the two test flights and make the goals of the business case we might still be waiting for Project Sunrise to happen into 2025.
My friends and I are planning to attend World Pride 2023 in Sydney and we hoped flying would be a simple as hopping from YYZ to JFK then JFK to SYD. But again Alan Joyce, has to be able to make the decision that is right for Qantas and will meet the needs of the passengers to stay comfortable. The JFK - SYD flight will be almost 21 hours. To me, one flight to Sydney is worth it. However Qantas has announced they will be charging a "premium" for these flights.
What a "premium" could mean when it comes to Business Class could range from $10,000 to $14,000 USD round trip. Will the flying public pay that much for airline ticket? That may be the true test of Project Sunrise's success.
You have NO evidence as boeing not paying attention to the 777x program. Thats a ridiculous statement. There are no production issues with the 777x. There are engine delays, but that only affects the 779x. The 778x is the only plane that can make Sydney to NYC
I didn’t say there was any evidence. Wow. Do you work for Boeing and are facing lay-offs?! Boeing said there wouldn’t be any so don’t worry,
@@ThatBearHasMoxie You dont need NJ to say I have evidence when you make a claim. Its assumed you do. Otherwise why would you make a claim without evidence
No way - not in economy. That is sadism & tortue
Qantas should offer bunk bed upgrades to economy class passengers
Mark Eden bunk bed???? Wtf?
The A350-900 is the A350-1000 little sister
In business plays "who offers more advantage" and for Quantas safety is Paramount , so I'd like to know what kind of engine will be used on A350-1000ULR also is good to know that Boing is having some issues with safety on their new generation of planes
Not to mention the higher cabin pressure and humidity due to the composite airframe of the A350 will pay huge dividends in cabin comfort for such a long flight. This may be part of the reason Qantas conducted their 20-hour test flights with 787s, to get a best-case baseline for crew and passenger vitals.
Both planes have humidity control. The 777x has a cabin altitude of 6000ft. Airbus doesn't directly quote theirs, but on the a359ulr they claim its at or near 6000
Better their customers live thus the reason for not selecting Boeing!
MCAS is operating an many other aircraft not only Boeing but they shut up about it, Boeing's problems account for 25% of the problems of MCAS, Airbus is not all that great either...
@@davidsheriff8989 Not that great? They have good safety records. Look at Boeing history. Most of their shit had design flaws. Boeing should stop making airplanes. The world deserve planes that don't crash themselves. Fuck Boeing.
JoMi DePas *a330*
@@TaintLuva lol what about it. They're great planes. Better than the Boeing 7-Shitty-7 they offer and that new Shitliner
JoMi DePas lmao somebody really hates boeing, i like the a350 i just don’t like the a330 which has had several problems
I would take the project sunrise
I would prefer not to make a non-stop flight of that length, but better seating and other inflight facilities would certainly make a difference!
I would definitely use it but Qantas fares are usually higher. This is probably going to be the case if they are cutting out 70 seats. When you are older and not in good health the trip is still difficult. My last trip with Thai was excellent but the change in Bangkok stressful. The heat, the long walk and security checks. Thankfully I don’t need to go often but as I grew up most of my life in Oz I have family. If I’m still around when this comes into service I’d certainly try it. Otherwise it’s stopping off and spending a few days in a hotel before continuing. When I first flew back from Sydney to the UK in 1977 we had 4 stops. Stepping on board in London and knowing you are not getting off till Sydney is quite a step forward.
For safety, yes airbus anytime
@@77l96 yes
@@77l96 atleast it wasnt a mistake from the pilot... I can tell you that more 737 crashes are coming in these decades, even not from tech, just a chain of events... Not like the 737 max mcas problem..
@@77l96 Of course, but at least the history on B737 max isn't as like they made the Mcas problem, that was stupid, and lazy of Boeing.. It wouldn't surprise me to see more crashes on the 737 max, but because how lazy they were at work with the plane.. Yes the plane was scrutinized very hard, so it easy to think that the 737max will be safe...… Though all the scrutinized was on the MCAS, not the plane itself, only MCAS, to the victims, and the politics surrounding it... AND I'm talking about accidents that surround how the plane works, and the pilot errors.
So, the MAX is could be waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more dangerous then we have anticipated... Anyway that fact and theory, could come for another day.
@@77l96 These aint conspiracy theories, they are facts... Because there is a big possibility, check the experts analysis on Boeing, or the FAA, not the shortened simple versions from CBC …. They tend to miss some important stuff that well... the public don't really care.
Boeing has lost everyone’s trust. Who knows what they did with the 777x and the issues it will have. Hopefully nothing like the 737max.
I've flown on 737 max 8 times without any problems
@@davidsheriff8989 k
@@davidsheriff8989 ah, wonderful. Did you ask the 346 dead people too? If you think one crash in 50.000 flights was an okay quote you are okay with a minimum of two crashes a day, in summer more.
@@herrhornbuckele5227 every flight has a risk, driving everyday is risky
@@davidsheriff8989 That's clearly not contradicting my statement. But a quote of two crashes of commercial flights A DAY is completely unacceptable. How many trains crash with 100% deadly results every day? Are 700+ crashes of commercial passenger flights a year, each causing between 30 and 500 dead people okay? No. And that's why the 737 Max is grounded and should not be un-grounded until there's a fix.
I read comments on here claiming it is too long, let me put it into perspective.
A 9 hour flight from Sydney is Singapore. I would always choose the 20 hour direct flight over 9 to Singapore, twiddle thumbs for a couple of hours while new passengers move back and forth, then take off again for another 14is hours, ditto Qatar/Dubai.
Then again, I do go for a walk around the cabin every couple of hours
Good video! Project Sunrise? I have no reason to go to London. I will probably catch an 8-I to Sydney at some point! Even if it is in a roundabout fashion !
very interesting; it will be good if they use Airbus A350 1000 LR,
I agree! I'd consider taking the flight - never flown the a350 before so that would be quite the first flight haha
QANTAS need to get approval from CASA, the Australian regulator, their pilots union and its better to pick an aircraft already proven and flying. Only then can they go to the QANTAS board to get approval for about 5 billion it is going to cost.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs Yep, it'll be a tough regulatory process for sure but my money is on them gaining approval and moving forward with the flights
I’d rather lose a few hours but stop at Dubai or something. 20 hours is just too long 😂
Yes I would - takes longer currently to get to Malta
I’m listening Coby 😍
Airbus rocks. Go for it
A350 not a350, I’m sorry, it’s a tiny detail but it pissed me off so much
Great Info! good to know! even though I will probably not ever take a Trans continental flight!
Whats the name of the song in the background
Definitely not in economy, and a “HELL NO” as cabin crew
MandoMonge They might not have standard economy.
20 hours. Horrendous. Would never do it.
I liked and Subscribed this Amazing Channel
Thank you :) Glad you're enjoying the content!
Having done the east coast of Australia to the EU multiple times - I would do the 20 hours in a heartbeat. Doing a middle of the night customs check in Dubai, AhbuDabi, or freaking around in Singapore can go take a running jump.
I heard that Boeing was also offering 777-200LRs practicall for free...I guess that wasn't enough persuasion huh?
I heard that too - the thing is that the 200LRs still couldn't cover the distance in the interim while Qantas waited for the 777x, so they too would likely take some time to modify. Again, the a350 is just a safer choice.
I DO think that the Qantas livery would look real nice on some 777s though :)
@@cobyexplanes that is incorrect. The B777-200LR equip with 3 aux tanks is able to fly from London to Sydney with a approximately 30 metric tonnes of payload thanks to its high payload capabilities. That is equivalent to 300pax + luggages but no cargo after trading in payload for extra fuel. This can be verified by the payload-range diagram of the B777-200LR from Boeing website.
IMO, the main reason why Qantas rejected the B777-200LR was because of its cabin. Being a shorter but wider cabin that seats approximately 300 pax, it has much less flexibility than the A350-1000. It is the same reason why Qantas rejected the initial proposal from airbus to use the A350-900ULR which Singapore Airlines is using. Qantas wanted more cabin space for other amenities such as lounge and stretching area to boost the comfort for the passenger on the flight. Furthermore the more modern A350 cabin is definitely quieter and more comfortable than the B777-200LR.
On top of that fuel cost also plays a part. The A350-1000 consumes over 20% less fuel per trip than the B777-200LR. (10% is coming from the engine TSFC and another 10% coming from the lighter airframe)
@@chingweixion621 This is a really good analysis - I haven't done much research on the 777-200LRs viability so this is definitely helpful. But I would assume that Qantas would want some cargo flexibility as well
@@cobyexplanes neither aircraft offers the cargo flexibility. Perhaps only the B777-8 has that... But its been delayed...
Because Boeing is a bit shady right now... especially on new models (cough) max (cough)
Im a boeing fan but thats true lol
Very interesting
Nice picture of a Q400 in the video.
I would argue for the 777-8. For a flight that long I would want all the comfort possible. A 9 abreast seating on the the 777x would be much better than on the 350. The 777 is considerably larger and would actually be able to carry cargo on that route.
Michael Murphy 787 cant do it fully loaded, even for the test flights it was half full and no cargo. It doesn’t have the range for SYD-LHR or SYD-JFK which is what project sunrise is for. It can only just do the PER-LHR flights which was qantas testing the idea of direct Australian to Europe flights to begin with.
@@mattking9524 who said anything about the 787?
Fleet commonality almost wiped out Southwest. Not a good idea to have all your eggs in one basket.
4:26 could someone explain me please what is this weird red cone is hanging down on a rope from tail fin top? Thank you!
ShatNdd it is a trailing static cone used to calibrate static pressure sensors of the aircraft
@@pourunappart6385 Thank you! Finally I know what to search :)
I have flown 17 hrs quite hapilly. I feel sure they will be trying to slot them at LHR like the Perth flight, for early moring arrival to make the last 12hrs + effectively a night flight
simple why - lazy B stopped designing planes 20 years ago
ever since the merger with McDonnell Douglas
One simple fact, nobody trusts boeing anymore
They are afraid of Boeing's computer malfunction override.
Tomas Perez yeah
exactly my words here. Just ordered domestic flight, had to pay a little bit more but idc. When airline company makes money a priority over safety it's so fucking disgusting that it will take years for me to get my trust back if ever.
Sad but true. They've made horrific decisions as of late.
Good stuff
We have done the 17 hour Qantas flight from Perth to London return and although it is a marathon flight it has certain benefits. We leave 8-15 pm Perth time and arrive Heathrow at dawn. This enables a straight change to UK time and although we are 44 hours between beds this way it works very well. The downside is a somewhat smelly aircraft by the time the flight ends. Although staff maintain the toilet stock and clean, these are quite unpleasant at the end. The air quality also seems to be fuggy! The non stop flight also saves an hour or two in the air and on the ground with the "normal" one stop flights. In our opinion the experience warrants the cons to get the direct link. Another 3 hours? Hmm, not sure if that might be the straw that broke the camels back. The extra refinements you list for the Airbus, may help but cost of seats would likely go up considerably for recliners and gym. Eastern States (AU) passengers who now fly to Perth to get the non stop might think it's worth the 20 hours. Thanks for your news!