Этот веб-сайт использует файлы cookie. Если вы будете просматривать или пользоваться этим сайтом, вы даете на это свое согласие.
Отменить
Вы знаете, что реклама помогает FlightAware в отслеживании рейсов?
Вы можете внести свой вклад в бесплатную работу FlightAware, разрешив показ рекламы на FlightAware.com. Мы следим за тем, чтобы наша реклама была полезна и не мешала работе с сайтом. Вы можете быстро включить рекламу на FlightAware или приобрести привилегированное членство.
Отменить
Back to Squawk list
  • 75

Qantas gears up for the second "Project Sunrise" research flight

Размещено
 
Sydney, Australia - The Australian flag carrier Qantas will fly a nearly empty a Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner from London Heathrow to Sydney as part of “Project Sunrise”. The 787-9 registered VH-ZNJ will take off from Heathrow and fly directly to Sydney with no paying passengers onboard. (airlinerwatch.com) Ещё...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


kae0088
Ken Endacott 12
20 hours in business class sure beats a stopover. 20 hours in economy would be horrible.
bingobanner
Russ Brown 9
Give me a window seat to rest my head and Z-z-z-z-z. Slept through take offs and landings, seat up, tray table stored, seat belt on. Good night.
jollyabberton
Hardman Jolly 8
Being Australia-based, it's all long-haul for me, maybe I've got used to it over the years.

One time I did 14h 35m BNE AUH (787-9), followed by 16h AUH SFO (777-200LR) over the Pole. A long way round, but it worked for me that time.

I had a session with the pilot in one of the galleys trying to figure just how close to the actual North Pole we came. He said it was different every time, dependent on conditions, but as far as I recall that time it was 89.3N.

For me, long haul is a lot better than airport hotels or overnights in places you don't really need to be. Mind you, I sleep well in the air.
Hulananni
Judy Guffey 2
srichardson2011
Steven Richardson 6
Great to see Australian Famous Flying Kangaroo setting Records again , The City of Canberra Longest an shortest flights 747-300 now New York Syd in Kookaburra , Then Emily Karma-Nung-war-ray Doing Perth to London In new Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner . this is great for aircraft enthusiasts .
jackh1975
jack cagle 6
I've done an 18 hour nonstop flight. NEVER again!
ryjones
Ry Jones 4
I just did 17 hours 30 minutes (San Francisco -> Singapore). Not a fan.
golfbum971
golfbum971 2
17hr 45min LAX to HKG. Not a fan either.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 3
Here's a brief look at what occurred on the flight brought to you by Sam Chui
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJP93u7n5Ok
butger
Ryan Harding 2
20 hours in an economy seat with person in front with seat reclined back sounds completely horrible would prefer the stopover
Greg77FA
Greg77FA 2
They better have all seasons of Game of Thrones for me to be on a flight that long!
watersw1
Bill Waters 2
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 2
Here are some impressions and behind-the-scenes views from the flight, including things that Qantas did to gauge stress on passengers and crew:

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/qantas-test-flight-london-sydney-nonstop/index.html
kiwipop
Geoff Arkley 1
Living in SoCal with a Daughter and family in MEL we regularly do the LAX/MEL non-stop. Both my wife and I enjoy the flight and WAY prefer it over stopping in Sydney, clearing customs, schlepping luggage and catching an internal flight down to Melbourne.

For those who describe long flights as torture? Attitude, attitude attitude!

Dreamliner economy is however, better than A380 economy. Especially as the A380 wags it's tail through the sky.
jbsimms
James Simms 1
Could be worse, I suppose. During the early days of WW2, Qantas flew the “Double Sunrise” route from Western Australia to Sri Lanka that took between 27 to 33 hours in a PBY Catalina & later, modified B-24 bombers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Double_Sunrise
jbsimms
James Simms 1
Did a 12+ Military charter from Oakland to Yokota AFB on a Northwest 747 w/400+ other military dependents & service personnel. Next up was a McGuire AFB to Torreón AFB then on to Saudi Arabia non-stop on a C-141.

No thanks on a 19 hour + flight.
1639847
Michael Armstrong 1
Even for a medium-distance domestic flight(e.g, SEA-TPA), I always fight for a stopover of an hour or more. Usually very hard to get.
AbieshanG13
Abieshan Ganeshamurthi 1
Damn I am pumped for 20+ hours of a nonstop flight. Hope it goes well like the JFK to Sydney one.
srichardson2011
Steven Richardson 1
QA7879Flight test why have they decided to fly over Russia then down over mid china then out Hongkong Route , is their better wind flow giving an extra push tracked all evening and making good time . youd think fly normal route via Singapore Ciro ,Dohar London .
michaelharlow
michael harlow 3
Because that is the shortest path great circle route. Surprised me too.
srichardson2011
Steven Richardson 1
Thankyou Michael for your answer , you would think it was longer flying over top however tacking other aircraft they all go that way at some stage . Thankyou.
alexa320
alex hidveghy 1
Trans oceanic and transcontinental flights always take great circle routes since that’s the shortest. Any navigator or pilot can tell you that. Otherwise it’s a thumb line course and not the shortest in terms of miles and time.
alexa320
alex hidveghy 4
Rhumb line. Autocorrect doesn’t even recognize tech words! Lol.
n9341c
n9341c -5
Trump had something to do with it. I'm sure of it.
alexa320
alex hidveghy 1
The sky, yes, it’s blue and there’s a lot of sky up there. Kind of like an island surrounded by a huge sea. Who knew?
jollyabberton
Hardman Jolly 1
By the way - who can tell me what that 0.7 degrees is in miles at that latitude?
JohnDilley
JohnDilley 4
0.7 degrees longitude is the same at every latitude: 0.7 * 60 minutes/degree = 42 minutes = 42 nautical miles = 77.8 Km.
That's quite close. Walkable in a day ... especially arctic summer day, but not today. And definitely not swimmable :-)
jollyabberton
Hardman Jolly 1
Thanks John for your quick answer re 0.7 degrees longitude at 89.7N.
But What about 0.7 degrees of latitude up there? What distance might that be on the ground to the Pole? Walking of course!
jollyabberton
Hardman Jolly 1
Correction - 89.3N not 89.7!!
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
20 nautical miles >37.04 Km >about 23 regular miles..nice longg walk.
jcwyer
John Wyer 1
WOW! And I have trouble with 5 hours. I can not imagine being cooped up in an aircraft got 20 hours.
mrgraff
Robert Graff 1
If Qantas needs any more volunteers, I'd be happy to test out 20 hours even in economy for a trip to Sydney. I'll even pay for the ticket to London.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
3rd and final test flight is another JFK-SYD..put your name in..
srichardson2011
Steven Richardson 1
Rapidwolf who would we contact , book as normal flight or is their a special page .
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
I'd imagine you contact Qantas directly..
imtxsmoke
Jeffrey Bue 1
I’ve made the flight from DFW to Hong Kong multiple times ~16 hours +.... What’s another 3 1/2 hours😆😆
ADAvViation
Antonello Davi 2
3 1/2 hours...like landing and going DFW-BOS
capndavehume
David R Hume 0
"Gear Up" is fine, unless landing. drh
timjohns
Tim Johns 0
The QF marketing team are in full buzz-mode...

Meanwhile... Air NZ says "We're starting revenue flights from Auckland to JFK starting in March, click here to book".
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
I think they backed out of that thought process. This is the latest

"New York to New Zealand and Australia
Available for booking around November 20, 2019

Our inaugural non-stop flight from Newark Liberty International Airport (Terminal B) to Auckland, New Zealand will take off on 29 October 2020, becoming the first ever non-stop service between New York and Auckland.

The new non-stop flight will cut travel time from New York to New Zealand by around three hours. Seamlessly connect to Australia or domestic New Zealand."
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Just to add, about the same time, they are cancelling their LAX-LHR-LAX flights.
pstarnes
Phillip Starnes -7
terrible sentence structure, I thought that they had a "gear up" landing or something haha
KicksOnRoute66
Roger Anderson 3
You've never heard that phrase before?
pstarnes
Phillip Starnes 1
Definitely heard the phrase before. At first glance, "gear up" and anything airplane related typically means something bad
patstphens1174
Richard Fox 1
+Phillip Starnes 100, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, RETARD!! RETARD!!
alexa320
alex hidveghy 3
Wrong plane! That’s an Airbus.....

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

rapidwolve
rapidwolve 13
Not pointless at all. Crew morale, training and feedback...the jests of what to do, and not do, to be ready for the actual flights when they start. Also, as pointed out, feedback on the length of flight to people's perspectives.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 11
The article didn’t say there were no passengers on board — there are no PAYING passengers on board. There are likely volunteer employees or people being paid to evaluate the experience in those seats.
NF2G
David Stark 2
Yes, there were 40 employees on board besides the aircrew, which would probably be larger than usual for this duration flight. Still, what is the seating capacity of the 787 again? (Not to mention the luggage.) Unless they charge an awful lot for a seat, I'm not sure how anyone can make money flying an underbooked aircraft over huge distances.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Also forgot to add. The cannot and will not be using 787's for the revenue flights. either A350's or 777x
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
I do not know where you got the 40 employees. Unless you classify the Boeing, Qantas and a smattering of other engineers, the 4 University research assistants and professors, the 20 normal long haul passengers that Qantas picked as guinea pigs and the media including Richard Quest as employees.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 1
Alan Joyce (CEO of Qantas) was also aboard the flight as a passenger.
alexa320
alex hidveghy 1
You would expect that on such a flight. BTW, that’s not the first time he’s done that or similar....
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Yes. Guess he thot, and rightfully so, "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander"
alexa320
alex hidveghy 3
Disagree. These are called proving flights. Been happening for decades, especially for long range flights or over desolate terrains.
Kiwi53
Allan Main 5
Not forgetting this was a delivery flight of a new aircraft so in effect it cost them a few beers and meals.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 0
Oh I think it costs them a little more than that..lol.
Remember normal delivery flights to Qantas are to LA then westbound. This thing went to LA then eastbound..talk about raking up the mileage on a new craft that hasn't even seen it's first revenue flight.
alexa320
alex hidveghy 1
You ever heard of ferry flights? Plenty of them daily. Lots of reasons why, too.
Ask me, I’ve done a few in the past.....
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Yes I have heard of and done ferry flights myself. If you had paid attention, I was replying to Allan and discussing this "new craft delivery" This was not you normal "new craft delivery", and it was racking up mileage.
alexa320
alex hidveghy 1
Yes, I know. All I was saying is there are ferry flights and not ALL of them go DIRECT to base camp. That’s all....
alexa320
alex hidveghy 0
And if you read the aviation forums and other news articles, it will tell you the point if these flights.not at all unusual. What is, is the length if the trip and it’s effects on both crew and passengers.
You may not know about DVT or why FOUR, yes 4 pilots are required to be onboard. This is pioneering stuff. Enough said.
Kiwi53
Allan Main 3
Alex, I reside in Chile so all my rides west are very very long overwater flights. On a good day, the shortest is about 13 hours if we are talking directly to Australia then 15 hours. It's a long time down the tail end but its the norm for travel in that direction. The direct Santiago London flight with BA is also a bit of a numb bum experience so long-duration flights from this part of the world are absolutely normal. My longest ride to date was 16 hours from JFK to Hong Kong. The winds were not coming to the party and that was a long stretch. As for the 4 crew requirement that has been stock standard here since the inception of these long pacific flights. Two captains and two FO´s. They get a three-day layover before heading back home. A good friend who flies these routes told me the real killer with them is that during your month's duty cycle you might get to have one takeoff and one landing a month depending on the crew roster onboard. The rest of the time is monitoring ¨"GEORGE"
bingobanner
Russ Brown 5
Alex, I admire your term "numb bum" as equally applicable to long term bus travel, driving across the US in a station wagon with four kids, or a college level introduction to organic chem.
bingobanner
Russ Brown 2
alexa320
alex hidveghy 2
No problem!
You must be jet/car lagged, so I feel for you!
alexa320
alex hidveghy 2
Allan, yes, I agree! Having been a pilot for over 20 years, I’ve done my fair share of long haul flights (though not ultra long haul). I also have plenty of experience deadheading and also as a passenger post career.
So, it’s not unusual at all to have 4 pilots do this since it is ultra long haul, ETOPs etc. Qantas has been doing this for some time, it’s nothing new.
I was trying to educate others in this thread that may not have the type of experience you and I have!
Kiwi53
Allan Main 1
Alex. The problem with a 20 hour flight is it technically puts all the crew over limit on duty time no matter how you divvy it up. In line with current crew regulations you would need 6 pilots on board.

Вход

Нет учетной записи? Зарегистрируйтесь сейчас (бесплатно) и получите доступ к конфигурируемым функциям, уведомлениям о статусе рейсов и другим возможностям!