Waterbomber wrote:

I think that Airbus just needs to remind them that they have A380 orders waiting to be delivered.

I guess you missed AJ's recent comments:

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce has joked that he would have to be "drunk" to order any additional Airbus A380s, and also indicated that the airline does not intend to take any of its remaining orders for the type.
...
When asked during a lecture at the Royal Aeronautical Society about potential orders for any of Airbus's A380 development studies, such as the A380plus, he said: "I think it would take a very drunken night for me to order that."

So he needs no reminder.

Waterbomber wrote:

If I were Airbus I wouldn't even bid for this small daydream of a concept.

Indeed. It seems AJ is more into drunken nights than day dreams.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0s-443685/

Revelation wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

I think that Airbus just needs to remind them that they have A380 orders waiting to be delivered.

I guess you missed AJ's recent comments:

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce has joked that he would have to be "drunk" to order any additional Airbus A380s, and also indicated that the airline does not intend to take any of its remaining orders for the type.
...
When asked during a lecture at the Royal Aeronautical Society about potential orders for any of Airbus's A380 development studies, such as the A380plus, he said: "I think it would take a very drunken night for me to order that."

So he needs no reminder.

Waterbomber wrote:

If I were Airbus I wouldn't even bid for this small daydream of a concept.

Indeed. It seems AJ is more into drunken nights than day dreams.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0s-443685/

Yes but as discussed earlier, AJ can switch the remaining A380s to A350ULRs.

There was a time when non stop across the Pacific was a dream; when even a one stop to London was a dream. Qantas primary market is flying Australians to where they need to go - and that means London and New York. They will make a non stop work, in the same way they made a 747 do DFW.

They are not interested in flying backpackers or tourists from London to Sydney. Or New Yorkers to Sydney. This is all about flying qantas corporate and frequent fliers where they need to get to as fast as possible. Aussies will pay for the extra time at home, the shorter travel time and the lack of a stop. They only need to capture a tiny percentage of the AU to UK market to fill a daily ULH flight at a premium to the one stops and they will be ahead.

As for the aircraft... they need something a bit larger than their 789 that is flexible enough to fly to London and New York... and provide more capacity than a 789 to HKG and LAX when they get rid of the A380s that they regret purchasing.

seabosdca wrote:

You all seem to have talked yourselves into thinking the 778 is the right aircraft for this mission. I think it is too big. The nonstop is going to be a highly premium product, requiring premium pricing in both J and W to succeed, and the smaller plane will make it easier to drive that pricing. The 359ULR is what the doctor ordered.

Perhaps more the best option available then the best option, period.

Waterbomber wrote:

I'm not even sure that the B778 makes sense for Boeing to build, given slow sales. EY is unlikely to take them up and QR, who knows. This plane is what the A358 and A338 are for Airbus and the B783 used to be for Boeing. It's a nice concept that helps pep up the general sales of a new type, until you need to invest money to certify it and you just don't see the merit of it anymore.

It's a derivative of an existing design so most of the work is already done. It's why Airbus is certifying the A330-800 - even if Hawaiian cancels before the first frame is completed, the cost to certify is low enough that it's worth the effort so they can continue to have it on offer for RFPs.

Waterbomber wrote:

I think that Airbus just needs to remind them that they have A380 orders waiting to be delivered. If I were Airbus I wouldn't even bid for this small daydream of a concept.

Meanwhile, if I were Airbus I would absolutely pitch the A350, and I would remind QF that they have outstanding options (not orders) for the A380 in an effort to encourage them to convert those options to an A350 order. Remember we, none of us, know the details of what Airbus has offered to QF - it could be that they have offered a >300t MTOW A359, and 12, maybe 16, of them as a conversion of the 8x A380 options.

Oh, and I think it's unfair to AJ to claim that he will push for Boeing over Airbus just "because he's a Boeing fan" - he is also the CEO of a large company, and a very good/sensible/prudent one at that. I'm an 'Airbus fan' (and a 'CSeries fan'), but in AJ's position I would have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending a Boeing order to my BoD if the Boeing order was better. I've seen nothing of AJ to suggest he would be any different.

BlatantEcho wrote:

I, along with most people engaged in business, will always pay a premium for a non-stop.

The airlines know this, which is why they offer them (and charge more for them).

If you've got to fly the distance of syd-JFK, why stop 3/4 of the way there and make your journey that much longer (not to mention clear customs at lax, back through security, etc)

Non stop is way better here, by far, which is why they are exploring it

If that's the case then why go for a larger plane? The premium market is smaller than the budget market. I have been on the Air Asia X 9 across at a very cheap price. It was either that price or no holiday.

Redroo, given the need to get Aussie business customers where they need to go, fast does the Boom ssj change The thinking?

DeltaB717 wrote:

Remember we, none of us, know the details of what Airbus has offered to QF - it could be that they have offered a >300t MTOW A359, and 12, maybe 16, of them as a conversion of the 8x A380 options.

Neither do we, none of us, know the details of the cancellation penalties should QF decide to ditch the remaining A380 orders. They might be significant; they might be negligible. To claim that QF is under heavy financial pressure to order alternative aircraft from Airbus is just speculation. -ir

An -8% PIP, sharklets and low passenger count (<400) brings an A380 a long way.

I would prefer the spacey & quiet cabin of the A380 on real long flights.

A380s already do ULH flights as we speak & fleet /cockpit commonality would be very good

https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE449
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_flights#Current_longest_route


LHR

keesje wrote:

An -8% PIP, sharklets and low passenger count (<400) brings an A380 a long way.

I would prefer the spacey & quiet cabin of the A380 on real long flights.

A380s already do ULH flights as we speak & fleet /cockpit commonality would be very good

https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE449
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_flights#Current_longest_route


LHR

Under 400 people in an A380 is not going to work.

emiratesdriver wrote:

Waterbomber, when I flew the 777 into LHR, contingency, our alternate and final reserve was usually about 6.5 tonnes, I’m imagining a similar sized aircraft with a 10% fuel burn delta will be about the same or a bit less.
Don’t forget about the redispatch option with flight planning as this means you can arrive with even less contingency onboard, heck even now on the 380 the flight I operated the other day into LHR had joining the hold at Biggin with 9 tonnes.

A problem with this scenario is that QF has been quite resistant to using Redispatch for mission planning. Perhaps this has changed since I last dealt with them over 10 years ago on SYD-LHR flights.

On the other hand, ETOPS reserves are typically not a concern on this route.

Planeflyer wrote:

Redroo, given the need to get Aussie business customers where they need to go, fast does the Boom ssj change The thinking?

No, AJ has said they wont go the distance, refer to the following article

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-say ... e-distance

OldAeroGuy wrote:

A problem with this scenario is that QF has been quite resistant to using Redispatch for mission planning. Perhaps this has changed since I last dealt with them over 10 years ago on SYD-LHR flights.

On the other hand, ETOPS reserves are typically not a concern on this route.

QF use redispatch for most flights including domestic sectors on the 737. They do not carry alternate fuel on most flights, their flight plans have a all engine diversion points (DPA). Evidence of this is on the ATSB website which includes reports such as a domestic A330 encountering unforeseen fog at SYD after the all ENG diversion point and having to auto land the aircraft in fog on a CAT 1 runway below CAT 1 minima.

keesje wrote:

An -8% PIP, sharklets and low passenger count (<400) brings an A380 a long way.

I would prefer the spacey & quiet cabin of the A380 on real long flights.

A380s already do ULH flights as we speak & fleet /cockpit commonality would be very good

https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE449
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_flights#Current_longest_route


LHR

Keesje, I’m currently in SYD, and just back from the home of a very senior QF 380 management pilot whom is also a former colleague of mine from our now very distant Air Force days. To use an Ozzie term with regards to Qantas and the likelihood of more 380s, his reply 20 minutes ago was “tell him he’s dreaming!”
So there you go, I’d take that at face value...along with the fact that he’s just back from Seattle where he’d been for 10 days playing in a simulator and hanging around a design office for a locally based aircraft company, he hasn’t and has no plans to be in Toulouse anytime soon.
Read into all of that what you will.

emiratesdriver wrote:

keesje wrote:

An -8% PIP, sharklets and low passenger count (<400) brings an A380 a long way.

I would prefer the spacey & quiet cabin of the A380 on real long flights.

A380s already do ULH flights as we speak & fleet /cockpit commonality would be very good

https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE449
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_flights#Current_longest_route


LHR

Keesje, I’m currently in SYD, and just back from the home of a very senior QF 380 management pilot whom is also a former colleague of mine from our now very distant Air Force days. To use an Ozzie term with regards to Qantas and the likelihood of more 380s, his reply 20 minutes ago was “tell him he’s dreaming!”
So there you go, I’d take that at face value...along with the fact that he’s just back from Seattle where he’d been for 10 days playing in a simulator and hanging around a design office for a locally based aircraft company, he hasn’t and has no plans to be in Toulouse anytime soon.
Read into all of that what you will.

Thank you for asking. I worked for a big airline too and spoke to dozens of pilots, specially on long flights after they checked the passenger list for staff. Interrogations great. Everyone has their inputs but you and I know who is deciding & how its done. And even then plans change over time. https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-cancels-boeing-787-dreamliner-order

More interestingly, few doubt Airbus could create an ULR champion based of A350-1000 wing, engines, landing and the -900 fuselage. Question is is they are willing too. The A350-900 gets a long way already (SIN-JFK/LAX) narrowing the niche for something even flying further. The ROI would be an issue I guess.



Are BA and Branson sitting on their hands, waiting what QF will / will not do?

'Under 400 people in an A380 not going to work' (above).
??How so?
Qantas and BA fly with 388 pax all the time,very profitably.This plane config would probably be even more premium configured.Perhaps 360.
If they find (if) the Perth Lhr route works like gangbusters and it's what 'the people' want then why not?

I have no idea whether an A380 could do the range or not -I am assuming so as it has been proposed above.
But if it did work it would destroy the ME3 kangaroo route in a single stroke -so I would not rule it out.

parapente wrote:

'Under 400 people in an A380 not going to work' (above).
??How so?
Qantas and BA fly with 388 pax all the time,very profitably.This plane config would probably be even more premium configured.Perhaps 360.
If they find (if) the Perth Lhr route works like gangbusters and it's what 'the people' want then why not?

I have no idea whether an A380 could do the range or not -I am assuming so as it has been proposed above.
But if it did work it would destroy the ME3 kangaroo route in a single stroke -so I would not rule it out.

Qantas has 484 seats on their 380, so are you saying that with 388 seats occupied, they are very profitable ? Got some figures to back that up ?

jupiter2 wrote:

Qantas has 484 seats on their 380, so are you saying that with 388 seats occupied, they are very profitable ? Got some figures to back that up ?

not comparable.
With the available markup on ticket revenue for the nonstop ULR route ....

I would love to see the expression on QF's CEO's face, when after ordering 10 B778's and making a lot of noise about his non-stop operation, BA or VS start the non-stop kangaroo route before him using the A380. That would be so awesome.

Sure, you could fly an A380 LHR-SYD, but with what passenger count? And even if they could charge premiums to fly an all business/premium A380, on what other routes could they use it? IMO you'd be flying a configuration that would be unique to a single route, which is probably not profitable.

parapente wrote:

'Under 400 people in an A380 not going to work' (above).
??How so?
Qantas and BA fly with 388 pax all the time, very profitably.This plane config would probably be even more premium configured.Perhaps 360.
If they find (if) the Perth Lhr route works like gangbusters and it's what 'the people' want then why not?

I have no idea whether an A380 could do the range or not -I am assuming so as it has been proposed above.
But if it did work it would destroy the ME3 kangaroo route in a single stroke -so I would not rule it out.

I just don't see where the "destroy the ME3 Kangaroo route comes from" At the very best the nonstop will take a large part of the high yield premium F/J and maybe Y+ traffic.
No proposal that I can see will make it economic to carry traffic at the prevailing economy and discounted business class fares non-stop, except perhaps $10 Oil..
If QF does succeed it getting the best of the high yield traffic the ME3 can counter with lower fares and/or a reconfiguration of their product.
The QF advantage would be mainly to London anyway. I do think Qantas will be able to have quite an impact on the London route but destroy the ME3 of SQ never.
The effect on BA is another matter, a codeshare perhaps? Let us also not forget that it wasn't too many years ago when BA was seriously considering withdrawing from Australia.
The change to the 77W and a drop in the Oil price seems to have sorted that out, at least for the time being.

keesje wrote:

An -8% PIP, sharklets and low passenger count (<400) brings an A380 a long way.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have QF's CEO saying:

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce has joked that he would have to be "drunk" to order any additional Airbus A380s, and also indicated that the airline does not intend to take any of its remaining orders for the type.
...
When asked during a lecture at the Royal Aeronautical Society about potential orders for any of Airbus's A380 development studies, such as the A380plus, he said: "I think it would take a very drunken night for me to order that."

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 80s-443685

Pretty difficult to make it any clearer, IMHO.

emiratesdriver wrote:

Keesje, I’m currently in SYD, and just back from the home of a very senior QF 380 management pilot whom is also a former colleague of mine from our now very distant Air Force days. To use an Ozzie term with regards to Qantas and the likelihood of more 380s, his reply 20 minutes ago was “tell him he’s dreaming!”
So there you go, I’d take that at face value...along with the fact that he’s just back from Seattle where he’d been for 10 days playing in a simulator and hanging around a design office for a locally based aircraft company, he hasn’t and has no plans to be in Toulouse anytime soon.
Read into all of that what you will.

keesje wrote:

An -8% PIP, sharklets and low passenger count (<400) brings an A380 a long way.

Why are you here? You should be running to Airbus, RR, and EK with your -8% PIP and sharklets idea. That is about 2x+ better than what Airbus is offering with the A380Plus. Also why stop there? You know what is even better? A -10% PIP, sharklet A380!

parapente wrote:

Qantas and BA fly with 388 pax all the time,very profitably. This plane config would probably be even more premium configured. Perhaps 360.
If they find the Perth Lhr route works like gangbusters and it's what 'the people' want then why not?

An 80% load-factor can be profitable on the one-stop route since the fuel burn is significantly less. On a non-stop, it probably would not be. I hear bookings for PER-LHR are around 100%, but over time, if those drop precipitously (~80%) I wonder if the route will still be economically viable.

Though to be honest, if QF are looking at around 350 people for this route they really should be looking at the 747-8 as it would be close to a 100% load factor.

parapente wrote:

I have no idea whether an A380 could do the range or not -I am assuming so as it has been proposed above. But if it did work it would destroy the ME3 kangaroo route in a single stroke - so I would not rule it out.

It might for the pure O&D traffic between LHR and SYD, but I expect a lot of people who fly EK and QF do not have Sydney as their origin nor London as their destination. That's plenty of traffic for the ME3 (and EK, especially) to continue to carry - one of the reasons QF and EK entered into their partnership (which I imagine benefits QF more than EK considering the capacity EK can put on the Route).

ikolkyo wrote:

keesje wrote:

An -8% PIP, sharklets and low passenger count (<400) brings an A380 a long way.

I would prefer the spacey & quiet cabin of the A380 on real long flights.

A380s already do ULH flights as we speak & fleet /cockpit commonality would be very good

https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE449
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_flights#Current_longest_route


LHR

Under 400 people in an A380 is not going to work.

Why not, Korean Air even went from over 400 to 399 seats in config V2, and those are flying long haul all right, but not ULH.

Best regards
Thomas

This is only about London. It is not about any other destination in Europe - for that there is EK and eventually Perth / CDG / FRA.

There is plenty of financial and business traffic between Sydney and London to fill a single non stop plane every day at a premium to a longer one stop flight.

This will not kill the kangaroo route for any other carrier. Yields on this route are shocking. Does anyone honestly think airlines are making money charging $1200 RTN to get from Australia to Europe? It used to be $2000 rtn.

WIederling wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Qantas has 484 seats on their 380, so are you saying that with 388 seats occupied, they are very profitable ? Got some figures to back that up ?

not comparable.
With the available markup on ticket revenue for the nonstop ULR route ....

QF block seats now on the 380 doing DFW/SYD, a flight of 16-17 hours, how many would they have to block to make it the extra 3 hours plus SYD/LHR ?

Seriously how much of a mark up do you think they would be able to charge to make it viable, to fly a 380, SYD/LHR, with X number of seats already blocked ? It will still need to be priced at a level that the average economy passenger will be prepared to pay, otherwise they will take a slower route. Business will pay a premium, but again, charge too much and they won't take it. The flight would need good loads in all cabins, not just first (if offered), business and premium economy. This will not be an all premium cabin aircraft as it will need to be able to fit into the rest of the network.

Lets face it, the 380 doesn't cut it for this potential route, it has to be either the 778 or a version of the 350 and even then it will be pushing the aircraft to it's limits.

keesje wrote:

More interestingly, few doubt Airbus could create an ULR champion based of A350-1000 wing, engines, landing and the -900 fuselage. Question is is they are willing too. The A350-900 gets a long way already (SIN-JFK/LAX) narrowing the niche for something even flying further. The ROI would be an issue I guess.

Maybe not, as they'd then have the base platform for a killer freighter.

That'd help spread out the unit costs.

LAX772LR wrote:

Maybe not, as they'd then have the base platform for a killer freighter.

Given the expected MTOW development for the -900, I doubt they need to bother with a new wing or bigger engine to have a killer freighter.

seabosdca wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Maybe not, as they'd then have the base platform for a killer freighter.

Given the expected MTOW development for the -900, I doubt they need to bother with a new wing or bigger engine to have a killer freighter.

Indeed, but for clarification, I'm not saying that the -1000 shrink would be needed to make an optimal freighter, just that it can also be used as such as a means to justify the investment.

Stitch wrote:

It might for the pure O&D traffic between LHR and SYD, but I expect a lot of people who fly EK and QF do not have Sydney as their origin nor London as their destination. That's plenty of traffic for the ME3 (and EK, especially) to continue to carry - one of the reasons QF and EK entered into their partnership (which I imagine benefits QF more than EK considering the capacity EK can put on the Route).

The Great Britain is a relatively small place and a popular one for Australians for historical reasons. So London is a good destination or starting point. Sydney is also a big O&D place. The small places are too small for international flights and apart from Sydney there is not much else. If Sydney works they start Melbourne, if that works they start Brisbane, then Perth. Not much else really.

I think Joyce is not so much a hater of the A380 as it makes market differentiation point for selling his huge salary. The A380 according to his narrative represents all that is wrong with QANTAS while his doing all that is right. Hence big bonuses. QANTAS is making plenty of money from the A380. They will also make plenty of money off a 777X if they buy one. Nothing to do with Joyce being there or not.

RickNRoll wrote:

If Sydney works they start Melbourne, if that works they start Brisbane, then Perth.

PER-LHR is already scheduled to start. None of the others are.

LAX772LR wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

If Sydney works they start Melbourne, if that works they start Brisbane, then Perth.

PER-LHR is already scheduled to start. None of the others are.

That's a range thing. Fact is, there is nowhere else in that range to fly to.

RickNRoll wrote:

That's a range thing. Fact is, there is nowhere else in that range to fly to.

Not sure I follow what you're trying to say. Rephrase?

RickNRoll wrote:

Stitch wrote:

It might for the pure O&D traffic between LHR and SYD, but I expect a lot of people who fly EK and QF do not have Sydney as their origin nor London as their destination. That's plenty of traffic for the ME3 (and EK, especially) to continue to carry - one of the reasons QF and EK entered into their partnership (which I imagine benefits QF more than EK considering the capacity EK can put on the Route).

The Great Britain is a relatively small place and a popular one for Australians for historical reasons. So London is a good destination or starting point. Sydney is also a big O&D place. The small places are too small for international flights and apart from Sydney there is not much else. If Sydney works they start Melbourne, if that works they start Brisbane, then Perth. Not much else really.

I think Joyce is not so much a hater of the A380 as it makes market differentiation point for selling his huge salary. The A380 according to his narrative represents all that is wrong with QANTAS while his doing all that is right. Hence big bonuses. QANTAS is making plenty of money from the A380. They will also make plenty of money off a 777X if they buy one. Nothing to do with Joyce being there or not.

It’s not just a Joyce thing. There are a lot of people in QF in high places that have never liked the A380 and still do it like it.

Qantas makes most of its money flying domestically, from from Jetstar, from its frequent flier program and from flying to places other than London.

QF have to fly to London because their customers (corporate and tourist) demand it. They don’t make any money from it... and i doubt anyone is with the $1200 rtn special fares I have seen recently.

Ok so A380's are out . Only talked about it on the basis that someone felt that it might be one of the aircraft that could actually meet the physical (range) brief.
As (above) how popular it will be.The Perth/London route is gonna give loads of important information.It may even be the critical information.
Opinions here are divided as to whether saving circa 3 hours on the Syd/Lon trip will be seen as more important than saving $xx with a one stop.Nobody knows.
But in 9 months time they will.Supposing both A&B come up with workable solutions then that data may be critical (clearly the 778 takes more pax than a 359).Whether that's a good or a bad thing nobody knows right now.
BTW.I accept it won't 'kill' the one stop market via ME3.
But if you lose 300 (primarily high yield) pax every day to the non stop flight it would (I believe) punch a nasty hole in the economics.I would bet someone has to withdraw or downsize.But again it comes down to the unknown of how popular or not the non stop would be.

I have a question. There is just no way that QF can schedule a full pax load on PER-LHR.
So if bookings are said to be 100%, what are we talking about? 100% of available seats on the B789 or 100% of a B789 payload restricted to 150-180 pax?
I don't see the B789 making it to London with more than 200 pax.

I think that this PER-LHR will be a disaster and result in a wake up call for QF.
1. Operationally, they only have a single B789 now. Soon they'll have a few more but you need many aircraft to operate this route daily plus the MEL rotations.
2. In terms of market share, this route replaces the MEL-DXB-LHR rotation, so it's a huge downgrade in capacity.
3. In terms of loads, I doubt that QF will be able to limit the payload restriction to above 200 pax. On some days with strong Westerlies, they'll be hauling 150 pax at best.
Let me explain: Boeing advertises the B789 as having a range of 14140km at 290 pax. This is of course a marketing range.
PER-LHR is a 14500km great circle range, so with routing detours, SID, STAR, holding, you're looking at over 15.000km great circle range. So 220 pax at best, which wouldn't already fill the B789 in QF's configuration.
Then you have the big problem. The winds. The days that the Easterlies in the Southern hemisphere perfectly compensate for the Westerlies in the Northern hemisphere, everything is fine. But you don't know that until a couple of days before. An anticyclone here or there can easily cost you half an hour in fuel, which isn't much considering the route length. Half an hour more in fuel means that you have to put 30 angry pax into a hotel... plus pay EU compensations etc...
4. Comfort-wise, I will refuse to sit in a 9-abreast B789 for 17 hours. Seriously, people are going to die. This is complete insanity.
5. Yield-wise, QF will not be able to compete against 1-stop services of other airlines on the kangaroo route, especially A380 services. Forget it. This is actually where the disaster strikes. B789's flying long routes at low yields is never gonna work.

Sure, they can have a lot of forward bookings as per their PR, but at what yields and what is the payload restriction?
Who's insane enought to pay top dollar to be squished in that economy class?

Waterbomber you may be right.In which case the whole process will die very quickly.And yes I agree with you re the cramped Y 797 seats at x9 for such a journey - but I am not doing the trip!
Have they stated their config' for the Perth non stop 797?
If one had the money and was starting from scratch then clearly (for Y) one would go for a X8 797 config' with 18.5" (or at least 18")seats.As you state they can't go with a full load anyway.Lazy Z premium economy and of course Biz- absolutely can see this.I would certainly go for the reduced flying time in those circumstances.
But either way it's a good way for Qantas to gather some information on Auz ULR flying

From Waterbomber reply 887:
1. Operationally, they only have a single B789 now. Soon they'll have a few more but you need many aircraft to operate this route daily plus the MEL rotations.
*They will have 4 B789s BEFORE the LHR service starts, which should be enough! They are not silly you know, they think 4 is enough, they are most likely right.

2. In terms of market share, this route replaces the MEL-DXB-LHR rotation, so it's a huge downgrade in capacity.
*You forget QF have a JV with EK who is replacing the capacity. It makes no difference to QF if they or Ek provide the capacity.

3. In terms of loads, I doubt that QF will be able to limit the payload restriction to above 200 pax. On some days with strong Westerlies, they'll be hauling 150 pax at best.
Let me explain: Boeing advertises the B789 as having a range of 14140km at 290 pax. This is of course a marketing range.
PER-LHR is a 14500km great circle range, so with routing detours, SID, STAR, holding, you're looking at over 15.000km great circle range. So 220 pax at best, which wouldn't already fill the B789 in QF's configuration.
Then you have the big problem. The winds. The days that the Easterlies in the Southern hemisphere perfectly compensate for the Westerlies in the Northern hemisphere, everything is fine. But you don't know that until a couple of days before. An anticyclone here or there can easily cost you half an hour in fuel, which isn't much considering the route length. Half an hour more in fuel means that you have to put 30 angry pax into a hotel... plus pay EU compensations etc...
*I'm sure QF know this better than you, me or most people here and have taken it into account. No EU compensation would be payable for delays on a westbound flight.

4. Comfort-wise, I will refuse to sit in a 9-abreast B789 for 17 hours. Seriously, people are going to die. This is complete insanity.
* My longest in a 9 abreast B789 is 7 hours, its no worse than 15 hours on a A380. I'll give it ago just to say I've done it, but it likely to be too inconvenient for my travel to Europe. I avoid the UK like the plague.

5. Yield-wise, QF will not be able to compete against 1-stop services of other airlines on the kangaroo route, especially A380 services. Forget it. This is actually where the disaster strikes. B789's flying long routes at low yields is never gonna work.
*Well QF disagree & I tend to believe them. Remember that yield depends solely on the fare paid. If they can't get the yield they need they'll do something else.

I admit to having my doubt about how successful MEL-PER-LHR will be but lets see what happens shall we. [BTW It's NOT PER-LHR, IT IS MEL-PER-LHR, this makes an enormous difference as MEL is 4 times the size of PER and is a LOT bigger business centre than. A PER-LHR route would not make any sense and would not.have been considered!

Gemuser

So for the MEL traveller you still have a stop - just this time it isn’t around half way. Not sure what benefits this brings to the MEL-LHR traveller?

jupiter2 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Qantas has 484 seats on their 380, so are you saying that with 388 seats occupied, they are very profitable ? Got some figures to back that up ?

not comparable.
With the available markup on ticket revenue for the nonstop ULR route ....

QF block seats now on the 380 doing DFW/SYD, a flight of 16-17 hours, how many would they have to block to make it the extra 3 hours plus SYD/LHR ?

Aren't they flying the 560t MTOW variant? So, ~90 min from max MTOW, 70-80 minutes more from the plus package. Probably doable with few more blocked seats or some work to make seats and monuments lighter.
Not saying it is a good or likely idea, but may be suitable.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

not comparable.
With the available markup on ticket revenue for the nonstop ULR route ....

QF block seats now on the 380 doing DFW/SYD, a flight of 16-17 hours, how many would they have to block to make it the extra 3 hours plus SYD/LHR ?

Aren't they flying the 560t MTOW variant? So, ~90 min from max MTOW, 70-80 minutes more from the plus package. Probably doable with few more blocked seats or some work to make seats and monuments lighter.
Not saying it is a good or likely idea, but may be suitable.

Best regards
Thomas

They're 560t, not 575t, and they're early birds too.
Later birds are c. 3t lighter OEW and probably 2% better SFC

Between those characteristics, a new build A380 would probably have a c. 20t payload advantage over QF's earlier birds on that sector

Rgds

Waterbomber wrote:

4. Comfort-wise, I will refuse to sit in a 9-abreast B789 for 17 hours. Seriously, people are going to die. This is complete insanity.

Talk about hyperbole.

astuteman wrote:

They're 560t, not 575t, and they're early birds too.
Later birds are c. 3t lighter OEW and probably 2% better SFC

Between those characteristics, a new build A380 would probably have a c. 20t payload advantage over QF's earlier birds on that sector

Rgds

So, the proposed Plus may be able to do it with a Korean Air style lower density config?

Best regards
Thomas

Waterbomber wrote:

I think that this PER-LHR will be a disaster and result in a wake up call for QF.

Except that QF has already publicly said that bookings have exceeded their expectations, and they're thrilled with the results. So pretty much the exact opposite of what you just said....

Waterbomber wrote:

4. Comfort-wise, I will refuse to sit in a 9-abreast B789 for 17 hours.

No one cares. If you don't want to do it, then don't do it. Others who wish to, will.

Waterbomber wrote:

Seriously, people are going to die. This is complete insanity.

Get a grip: people have been doing flights of/near this length in 9-abreast 787s and 10-abreast 777s for a long time now. No one's dropping dead at any rate that wasn't seen on flights of shorter lengths in the past.

StTim wrote:

So for the MEL traveller you still have a stop - just this time it isn’t around half way. Not sure what benefits this brings to the MEL-LHR traveller?

Depends on their preferences: I know that on a long distance trip, plenty of travelers (particular HVFs) would rather cover as much ground in a single flight as possible for the sake of a full sleep and undisturbed meals.

Granted that's not to say that plenty of flyers wouldn't rather have equal segments as well, and there's plenty of options for those who do. But the belief that everyone would rather "break up" longhauls directly in the middle, is a consensus that exists only among AvGeeks.

StTim wrote:

So for the MEL traveller you still have a stop - just this time it isn’t around half way. Not sure what benefits this brings to the MEL-LHR traveller?

Having their layover before bedtime instead middle of the night?

Best regards
Thomas

Having done the kangaroo route a few times and turning left I appreciated the chance to get a shower and change of clothes at the half way stop. I don’t get much sleep even when in a fully lie flat bed.

Everyone has a preference on the kangaroo route. I used to prefer Bangkok because it was almost half and half. Singapore was good because you got a good sleep going into London. I hate Dubai because you have such a short flight from Dubai to London meaning very little sleep before your 5am arrival.

As for the stops. The first time i did the kangaroo it was a welcome reprieve to get off the plane. But after that if becomes a chore to land, taxi, disembark, wander around, security, etc. I just count the minutes till I can get underway again.

For us sand gropers in Perth it’s a no brainer. For the melburnians it will be a better experience. The remodeled space at the airport for the flight is so compact that it will be pleasure to connect in. The flight then gives you maximum sleep before you land in London.

Qantas have done a lot of modelling to make it work. Reducing weight; arriving at 5am to miss the rush hour; etc. I have no doubt there will be some refuelling stops like there was with DFW but given a bit of time they will know exactly how to manage the load.

As for the 9 across. Look it’s not great but I’ve been on the aircraft. The economy cabin is so small it doesn’t feel too bad. The service should be pretty good down the back with such a small cabin and only 160 people. The leg room is definitely better (and I’m tall). The IFE screens are amazing.

If there is anything qantas know how to do well it’s fly long haul.

One last point... Aussies are different. We have a different perception of time and distance than the rest of the planet because we live on a vast, empty continent at the end of the earth. I’ve know families that have done PER DFW and said “it was fine, just a bit more than LAX”.