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

← Back to Squawk list

75

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

送信時刻：丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前

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) さらに...

68 人のメンバーからのコメント

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Ken Endacott 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 12

20 hours in business class sure beats a stopover. 20 hours in economy would be horrible.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Russ Brown 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Hardman Jolly 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Judy Guffey 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 2

I agree completely!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Steven Richardson 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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 .

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

jack cagle 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 6

I've done an 18 hour nonstop flight. NEVER again!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Ry Jones 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 4

I just did 17 hours 30 minutes (San Francisco -> Singapore). Not a fan.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

golfbum971 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 2

17hr 45min LAX to HKG. Not a fan either.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Ryan Harding 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 3

20 hours in an economy seat with person in front with seat reclined back sounds completely horrible would prefer the stopover

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

djames225 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Greg77FA 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 2

They better have all seasons of Game of Thrones for me to be on a flight that long!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Torsten Hoff 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Bill Waters 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 2

Too long!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Hardman Jolly 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

By the way - who can tell me what that 0.7 degrees is in miles at that latitude?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

JohnDilley 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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 :-)

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Hardman Jolly 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Hardman Jolly 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

Correction - 89.3N not 89.7!!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

djames225 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

20 nautical miles >37.04 Km >about 23 regular miles..nice longg walk.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

James Simms 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Michael Armstrong 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

James Simms 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Abieshan Ganeshamurthi 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

Damn I am pumped for 20+ hours of a nonstop flight. Hope it goes well like the JFK to Sydney one.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Steven Richardson 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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 .

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

michael harlow 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 3

Because that is the shortest path great circle route. Surprised me too.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Steven Richardson 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

alex hidveghy 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

alex hidveghy 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 4

Rhumb line. Autocorrect doesn’t even recognize tech words! Lol.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

n9341c 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 -5

Trump had something to do with it. I'm sure of it.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

alex hidveghy 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Robert Graff 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

djames225 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

3rd and final test flight is another JFK-SYD..put your name in..

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Steven Richardson 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

Rapidwolf who would we contact , book as normal flight or is their a special page .

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

djames225 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

I'd imagine you contact Qantas directly..

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

John Wyer 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

WOW! And I have trouble with 5 hours. I can not imagine being cooped up in an aircraft got 20 hours.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Jeffrey Bue 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

I’ve made the flight from DFW to Hong Kong multiple times ~16 hours +.... What’s another 3 1/2 hoursðð

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Antonello Davi 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 2

3 1/2 hours...like landing and going DFW-BOS

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Tim Johns 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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".

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

djames225 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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."

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

djames225 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 2

Just to add, about the same time, they are cancelling their LAX-LHR-LAX flights.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

David R Hume 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 0

"Gear Up" is fine, unless landing. drh

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Geoff Arkley 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 0

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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Phillip Starnes 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 -8

terrible sentence structure, I thought that they had a "gear up" landing or something haha

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Roger Anderson 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 3

You've never heard that phrase before?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Phillip Starnes 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

Definitely heard the phrase before. At first glance, "gear up" and anything airplane related typically means something bad

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Richard Fox 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 0

+Phillip Starnes 100, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, RETARD!! RETARD!!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

alex hidveghy 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 3

Wrong plane! That’s an Airbus.....

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

djames225 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Torsten Hoff 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

David Stark 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

djames225 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Torsten Hoff 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

Alan Joyce (CEO of Qantas) was also aboard the flight as a passenger.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

djames225 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

Yes. Guess he thot, and rightfully so, "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander"

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

alex hidveghy 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

You would expect that on such a flight. BTW, that’s not the first time he’s done that or similar....

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

djames225 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 1

Also forgot to add. The cannot and will not be using 787's for the revenue flights. either A350's or 777x

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

alex hidveghy 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 3

Disagree. These are called proving flights. Been happening for decades, especially for long range flights or over desolate terrains.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Allan Main 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 5

Not forgetting this was a delivery flight of a new aircraft so in effect it cost them a few beers and meals.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

djames225 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

alex hidveghy 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.....

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

djames225 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

alex hidveghy 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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....

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

alex hidveghy 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Allan Main 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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"

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Russ Brown 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Russ Brown 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 2

OOPS! Allan.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

alex hidveghy 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 2

No problem!
You must be jet/car lagged, so I feel for you!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

alex hidveghy 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Allan Main 丁度一年（虎舞流ｗ）前 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.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

ログイン

当ウェブサイトはクッキーを使用します。当ウェブサイトを使用し、サイト内を移動することで、あなたはこれに同意したこととみなされます。

閉じる

FlightAwareのフライト追跡は広告によりサポートされていることをご存知ですか？

広告表示を許可してくださることでFlightAware.comを無料で提供することができます。表示される広告は関連性の高い控えめなものを選んでいます。FlightAwareをホワイトリストに追加する方法はかんたんに設定していただくことができます。または、プレミアムアカウントのご利用をご検討ください.

閉じる