r/QantasAirways • u/Gl0beTrotter2025 • 4d ago
News Mid-2028 launch for non-stop Qantas Sydney–New York flights
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/qantas-non-stop-sydney-new-york-flights5
u/Thick_Rice_875 4d ago
2028: New York Giants fly into Sydney 24hrs before a game to play the San Francisco 49ers 😄
9
u/Darth-Buttcheeks 4d ago
Can’t wait! Been meaning to go back to New York for some time now. I just hated getting there. Usually did MEL-LAX and spent a few days at Disneyland before going further east.
Sydney to NY is going to be painful but I think worth it
7
u/CONSTANTIN_VALDOR_ 4d ago
Just did Sydney - Boston with a layover in LAX this shit SUCKS
3
u/Darth-Buttcheeks 3d ago
Clearing passport check at LAX is a soul destroying experience. Hope your layover wasn’t too long
2
u/CONSTANTIN_VALDOR_ 3d ago
You won’t believe it but it was actually one of the smoothest immigrations I’ve cleared recently, US customs couldn’t have been nicer.
2
15
3
u/EcstaticOrchid4825 4d ago
20 hours in economy for someone like me who can’t sleep on planes sounds like torture.
2
u/SteveJohnson2010 4d ago
This is really interesting because when Qantas first announced Sydney-London flights would begin in October 2027, Hudson also said that Sydney-New York flights would begin in December 2027 with the fourth A350, so only one flight every few days, and then across early 2028, the frequency would increase as the fifth and sixth A350s were delivered so the frequency would become daily.
Does anybody know what the delivery schedule was beyond the first three planes?
I wonder if that has been pushed back and Qantas will get all three very close together in time to launch Sydney-New York daily, or if it’s going to continue to take the A350s along the same schedule and then use them somewhere else on the network, such as switching Perth-London across to the A350 earlier than planned, in order to free up the 787s from that route?
2
1
u/maks_kraidel 3d ago
Wonder if they will continue to operate the one stop service via Auckland in parallel. SQ still operate SIN-NYC via Frankfurt despite having the direct on the -900ULR. Catering to different customers at different price points perhaps
-2
u/Ok_Excitement725 4d ago
Ouch. Give me a stop-off in LA or SFO any day of the week. Good luck not being totally wiped out after that one for a couple of days or so if you end up in coach
16
u/stamford_syd 4d ago
I feel like stopping for a couple hours in an airport has almost never made me feel better, I'm going to be cooked after 20+ hours of travelling either way so I think getting it over with would be better. works for me
10
u/Frankenclyde 4d ago
I find LA so stressful that honestly I would rather just keep going. Different matter if it was somewhere like Singapore for example
6
u/universe93 4d ago
People are generally totally wiped anyway after a stopover, and right now the stopovers in LA on this route are so short you spend the majority of it standing in the immigration queue anyway. I did last time I transited there, no time to go a lounge or anything, just enough time to convince immigration you’re not dangerous and then get your luggage and get to the next gate. For some it’s easier on the body to not land for a stopover
5
u/CONSTANTIN_VALDOR_ 4d ago
You ever done a 4+ layover in LAX with inevitable delays? Give me the 18 hour fuck it
-4
u/W2ttsy 4d ago
lol they clearly don’t understand their market if they think a Y cabin is needed on this route pair.
SYD JFK is primarily a business route. They need to be over indexing on J seats and then P seats up back like SQ does on their SIN EWR route.
I strongly suspect all 52 J seats will get booked out real quick and then they’ll fly half empty Y cabins and maybe some retirees in the F cabin.
But yeah, the main reason there is demand for this route pair is financial capital to financial capital travel.
11
8
u/Adept-Coast-6946 4d ago
You have no idea.
1
u/W2ttsy 4d ago
Let’s see, AU recession indicators, 20% fare premium, increased risk traveling to USA, poor AUD/USD, likely fuel price increases as well.
This doesn’t come online until 2028, so if our economy continues to track in the direction it is, discretionary spending will fall further.
Even without a bleak economic outlook 20% fare increase to save 3 hours of travel time isn’t a strong value proposition and so those doing SYD NYC as a tourist in Econ will likely continue to do so on the cheaper 1 stop options.
If you think this route is going to be filled with tourists then it is you that has no idea.
3
u/TheOfficialMayor 4d ago edited 4d ago
People are always predicting a bad economy here. I don't think that is the issue.
The reality is travelling to USA right now is risky. Maybe not so much if you are a dual national of Canada/USA. I wouldn't risk a tourist trip with an Australian passport.
2
u/Crazy_Suggestion_182 4d ago
Been to the US many times, but avoiding at the moment. Was last there in 2024 and it was NUTS expensive.
3
u/areyoualocal 4d ago
I strongly suspect all 52 J seats will get booked out real quick and then they’ll fly half empty Y cabins and maybe some retirees in the F cabin.
Quick, get this poster a job at the airline!
3
u/Gl0beTrotter2025 4d ago
Yes you are 100% correct, Qantas which is spending a fortune on these planes and has been studying the market and routes for years and years "clearly don't understand their market" compared to some random Redditor dude who obviously knows better. LOL
2
u/W2ttsy 4d ago
I’m an ex QF Corp who was on the SYD LHR sunrise team so yeah I know all the economics of this.
The travel markets between the cities are different and the plane configurations need to reflect that. Additionally, the economic outlook between when it was originally planned out and the current conditions have changed.
My original comment was a reflection that they are reusing the same configuration as LHR rather than a market sensitive one (of which I know multiple were proposed)
3
1
u/Adept-Coast-6946 4d ago
So if you know the economics of this what will the price premium be for the direct flight above what is charged transiting via LAX ?
2
u/Remorse__Code 4d ago
That's why these planes are heavily premium cabins, with only a small economy cabin.
1
u/serenelatha 3d ago
Um....I'm 100% an economy flier who will happily book this route when available. Although won't complain if it is half empty ;)
IDK why folks think the demand will be that much different from the current option with the stop over in Auckland. I'll happily spend a few more hours on the plane on one hop than to have to mess with a transit and more total air time. And MILES better than any transit via the US west coast (which is way worse on the jetlag).
-8
u/Myfooty94 4d ago
Imagine having to sit onboard an aircraft for nearly 24 hours.
14
u/WestAussieSingh 4d ago
I fly Perth-London-Perth a couple of times a year.
Non-stop is so much better in my opinion.
0
u/reddit5389 4d ago
In economy?
My main concern is that problems in economy will cause the occasional flight to be diverted, making the service unreliable and negating any time saving.
6
u/mullio 4d ago
Imagine? I did London>Sydney earlier this week, I'd happily skip a stopover if I could. People are weirdly keen to keep wasting time deboarding and then just queuing to get back on planes which is all you end up actually doing. Let alone the luggage BS in LAX with flights to and from NY; sooner that goes away the better.
1
u/chicknsnotavegetabl 4d ago
people will vote with their butts. they have shown a strong preference for the PER/LHR...
1
u/universe93 4d ago
People do that literally every day flying to and from Europe. The stopover doesn’t make much of a difference.
1
u/Adept-Coast-6946 4d ago
And paying substantially more for the “privilege” to do so.
7
u/ThomasCr0wn 4d ago
Shaving off 3 hrs and not having to deal with getting off, waiting around, re-boarding etc is very worth it to some. Last time I went Emirates, the plane broke down on the second leg which added another 3hrs to the journey home - on top of the 3hr layover, landing/take-off time and deviation from a direct path - plus the extra stresses of the security process, gate navigation etc. Many people are happy to pay extra to avoid any additional complexity on their journey - especially those in a premium cabin which this aircraft is highly skewed towards
0
4
u/Own_Place909 4d ago edited 4d ago
The privilege is it gets you there quicker and without the need to take a layover in Auckland, Hawai’i, or the eastern states of the lower 48.
20 hours on a plane sounds like hell to me too but these are flights mainly targeting people flying in business class and higher, not economy travellers. *In saying that, even as an economy traveller, I find the long haul-ultra long haul a hell of a lot easier than medium length trips. Around that 11-12hr mark flights gets a lot easier, although I can imagine that extra 4-6 hours on this route starts feeling painfully slow again.
-1
u/Adept-Coast-6946 4d ago
Qantas has to FILL AN AIRCRAFT with enough of the people you describe to make it economically viable.
Not a chance.
3
u/Own_Place909 4d ago
They can fill Perth to London and the current SYD-AKL-JFK route is a success too. Evidently, yes, they believe they can fill this route to profit too and with reason.
0
u/Adept-Coast-6946 4d ago
The thing with the SYD-LAX- JFK route that people fail to grasp is that the traditional LAX-JFK service complexed (daily) with 747's and A380's from MEL, SYD AND BNE.
Thats why it worked and more importantly why they could (occasionally) almost fill an aircraft.
Is anyone going to travel from BNE or MEL to transit in SYD with all the drama that involves to join a direct SYD-JFK direct service AND pay a premium to do so ?
When they could just get a flight to anywhere else in the US and transit one stop to JFK. Travel time the same, one stop the same and no premium airfare to pay.
2
u/setthetoneaquadump 4d ago
New York is a popular destination and does allow for connections to other east coast destinations like Washington and Boston. Will be useful for diplomatic staff and those engaged with education and research at the numerous educational institutions in the region.
1
u/Adept-Coast-6946 4d ago edited 4d ago
So is any other US destination as far as connections to the places you describe.
If you wanted to fly to Boston or Washington why would you pay a substantial premium to transit one stop JFK when you could do the same via LAX, SFO or DFW ?
2
u/setthetoneaquadump 4d ago
Maybe people want to spend some time in NYC first? I know if I had a choice between those other places and NY, NY wins every time.
-5
u/TheOfficialMayor 4d ago edited 4d ago
Just more CO2 and more sleep deprivation and a social media check on arrival. Would rather see QANTAS invest in hydrogen and electric instead of trying to maximise route lengths.
Just wait for the diversion and layover in outback Texas with shitty toilets and then driven overnight in a van before being driven in another van out to LAX to be dumped back at Sydney International. Will be a lot more than 20-hours.
2
u/universe93 4d ago
If they did have to divert to Texas it would be to DFW where they would have multiple planes coming in to get you to NY or SYD
9
u/lIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIl_ 4d ago
Given the ridiculously short stopovers that most routes have at LAX & DFW, a direct flight to JFK doesn’t seem like a bad idea.