Qantas to announce ambitious plan to fly East Coast Australia to London and New York by 2022

qf789 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:29 pm

Qantas is expected to announce an ambitious plan to begin flying from East coast Australia to London and New York by 2022 when group results are announced

Qantas wants to begin non-stop flights from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane to London and New York by 2022 – provided it can convince Airbus and Boeing to develop a new generation of ultra-long range jets capable of conquering the 18 to 20-hour direct routes.
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce will formally launch the ambitious initiative at today's declaration of the airline’s 2017 financial results, where it’s expected to list a pre-tax profit around $1.4 billion – the second largest in its history.

Qantas says both the 777X and A359ULR fall short of carrying passengers and luggage at full capacity. Qantas is challenging both manufacturers to push the envelope.

Qantas is already crunching the numbers of up to 10 years of real weather patterns to identify optimal fuel saving flight paths.

SYD-LHR is expected to have a flight time of 20 hours and 20 minutes while a flight to JFK will take just over 18 hours. Both flights would reduce travel times of 4 hours and 3 hours respectively

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-non-sto ... rk-by-2022

http://www.escape.com.au/news/qantas-to ... 3583739368

slcdeltarumd11 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:38 pm

I really don't see a huge demand for this that is willing to pay a premium. I wouldn't even want to get on that plane, a leg stretch in LAX is nice on such a long flight regardless of class. Can you imagine basic economy on that flight, awful.

pabloeing · Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:39 pm

With 300 seats in the QF dream.....the B777-8X is the clear winner

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qant ... SKCN1B41QY

zeke · Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:52 pm

The only thing I could see them getting from Airbus was the original A350-900ULH proposal which featured the -1000 engine, landing gear, weights, and fuel capacity.

sunrisevalley · Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:55 pm

I can see pressure on Boeing from both QF and NZ for an earlier EIS for the B777-8X. This type looks a very good fit for the ULH aspirations of both carriers.

pabloeing · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:01 pm

The 8x will be a game changer for this route to the down under and NZ.......

qf789 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:10 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
I really don't see a huge demand for this that is willing to pay a premium. I wouldn't even want to get on that plane, a leg stretch in LAX is nice on such a long flight regardless of class. Can you imagine basic economy on that flight, awful.

Qantas research suggests otherwise

Qantas research suggests travellers consider airports among the most stressful parts of their trips.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 39ef3342b8

Qantas would also have the knowledge on how much passengers are prepared to pay, they will be using the data from PER-LHR and from all accounts from what I have heard forward bookings are strong.

Channex757 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:10 pm

pabloeing wrote:
The 8x will be a game changer for this route to the down under and NZ.......

when you have quite finished cheerleading.....

The A359ULR is a strong contender as so far the aircraft hasn't been specified with additional tankage. Airbus could even push the envelope further by adding in a centre section treatment from the A35K for a real globe-spanning version. Triple bogeys and the XWB-97 engine plus additional centre tanks.

This would be when the lower frame weight of the A359 would be a bonus. Lower fuel burn, and seeing as tickets on a nonstop might not be as cheap as a one-stopper then a low density cabin would help even more. Adding back the original A359ULR's extra axle and tanks could put it over the line with a useful payload.

pabloeing · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:12 pm

Channex757 wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
The 8x will be a game changer for this route to the down under and NZ.......

when you have quite finished cheerleading.....

The A359ULR is a strong contender as so far the aircraft hasn't been specified with additional tankage. Airbus could even push the envelope further by adding in a centre section treatment from the A35K for a real globe-spanning version. Triple bogeys and the XWB-97 engine plus additional centre tanks.

This would be when the lower frame weight of the A359 would be a bonus. Lower fuel burn, and seeing as tickets on a nonstop might not be as cheap as a one-stopper then a low density cabin would help even more. Adding back the original A359ULR's extra axle and tanks could put it over the line with a useful payload.

The A359 cant be a 300 seats plane like want QF in this route.....and the B777-787 pilot certification is a very big help in thios case.

ikolkyo · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:15 pm

zeke wrote:
The only thing I could see them getting from Airbus was the original A350-900ULH proposal which featured the -1000 engine, landing gear, weights, and fuel capacity.

That’s what I’m thinking as well, but would it really be worth it for Airbus to build that aircraft for 1 maybe 2 airlines?

smithbs · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:16 pm

With such long flights, the aircraft is so full of fuel that it cuts hugely into revenue weight (pax and cargo). In order to get a margin on the flight, the tickets become a premium in order to pay for the gas. Is QF saying that ticket revenue vs fuel prices equates to a positive margin at 300 seats for these routes?

I was under the impression that ULH suffered with this equation and that airlines had better margins with a stop in the middle. The aircraft can then haul a big revenue weight, albeit it with two fuel cycles instead of one. You also have to deal with where you are stopping in the middle - 5th freedom, etc.

Is QF just trying to convince shareholders that they are trying to "fly over" the ME3 intrusion on their European routes with an announcement that can be quietly backtracked later?

Count me out on those routes. 20 hours in coach? Not unless I've been cryogenically frozen.

Egerton · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:17 pm

zeke wrote:
The only thing I could see them getting from Airbus was the original A350-900ULH proposal which featured the -1000 engine, landing gear, weights, and fuel capacity.

And -1000 wing? This would in effect be like a A330-200 shrink version of the A330-300. Weight is saved by the use of the shorter fuselage, and this weight is put into to more fuel. I expect that this was always part of the A350 game plan. It is asking a lot of new investment to get the -1000 itself up to East Coast Australia and such an animal supposes that there are enough premium customers to fill it. I suspect Qantas are thinking in terms of the seating package to be something like the BA A318 from London City to JFK, a single class of high premium.

Polot · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:26 pm

Channex757 wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
The 8x will be a game changer for this route to the down under and NZ.......

when you have quite finished cheerleading.....

The A359ULR is a strong contender as so far the aircraft hasn't been specified with additional tankage. Airbus could even push the envelope further by adding in a centre section treatment from the A35K for a real globe-spanning version. Triple bogeys and the XWB-97 engine plus additional centre tanks.

This would be when the lower frame weight of the A359 would be a bonus. Lower fuel burn, and seeing as tickets on a nonstop might not be as cheap as a one-stopper then a low density cabin would help even more. Adding back the original A359ULR's extra axle and tanks could put it over the line with a useful payload.

The A359ULR's problem isn't tankage, it is available payload weight. It needs a MTOW bump (like the ~30t bump from the ULR to the -1000), with of course the necessary alterations made to support the weight (triple bogey MLG, etc).

slinky09 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:31 pm

The real journey time saving doesn't seem worth the extra inflight discomfort to me - particularly if you are a premium passenger and get access to lounges and showers on any stopover. The economics must be pushing the envelope too and any variation in demand could mean these routes becoming low to no profit making quickly.

If Qantas's research suggests that the airport experience is the main issue, why not work on that instead?

qf789 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:32 pm

Egerton wrote:
I suspect Qantas are thinking in terms of the seating package to be something like the BA A318 from London City to JFK, a single class of high premium.

I very much doubt that. Qantas wants 300 seats so it would be likely be a 3 class aircraft at least. Also not only will these aircraft to operate the ULH routes but also most likely used to replace the 6 744ER's so they will want an aircraft configured that can rotate through the network

pabloeing · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:34 pm

¿How many planes to cover the daily routes to London and New York?......¿6-7?

kimimm19 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:36 pm

Unless QF (and potentially NZ) are able to require enough planes (which is highly unlikely) to spur on Airbus and Boeing, I don't see how about 15-20 planes (being generous) is going to being enough incentive to invest in the planes. Basically not enough payoff or leverage as Emirates has with massive orders and demand.

KarelXWB · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:38 pm

pabloeing wrote:
The A359 cant be a 300 seats plane like want QF in this route

qf789 wrote:
Egerton wrote:
I suspect Qantas are thinking in terms of the seating package to be something like the BA A318 from London City to JFK, a single class of high premium.

I very much doubt that. Qantas wants 300 seats so it would be likely be a 3 class aircraft at least. Also not only will these aircraft to operate the ULH routes but also most likely used to replace the 6 744ER's so they will want an aircraft configured that can rotate through the network

Studies show that even the 777-8 cannot do the westbound trip with 300 seats. So whatever aircraft QF selects, it will have to settle with payload restrictions.

and the B777-787 pilot certification is a very big help in thios case.

Not really a good argument as QF operates A330s and A380s.

qf789 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:48 pm

pabloeing wrote:
¿How many planes to cover the daily routes to London and New York?......¿6-7?

I would say 3 for each, SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK.

mercure1 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:54 pm

Personally, I think QF is going 1-step too far with such plans.

Forget the questionable economics of such flying, it seems they are robbing humanity expecting one to be encased in a steel tube for 22-hours.

I would take a LAX or DXB stop on the way any day. As is flying 12-14 hours can be a challenge.

ro1960 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:57 pm

kimimm19 wrote:
Unless QF (and potentially NZ) are able to require enough planes (which is highly unlikely) to spur on Airbus and Boeing, I don't see how about 15-20 planes (being generous) is going to being enough incentive to invest in the planes. Basically not enough payoff or leverage as Emirates has with massive orders and demand.

Exactly what I was thinking. Beside QF and NZ how many other airlines would purchase such planes to make it worth the investment from A or B?

anstar · Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:01 pm

qf789 wrote:

Qantas would also have the knowledge on how much passengers are prepared to pay, they will be using the data from PER-LHR and from all accounts from what I have heard forward bookings are strong.

I would hope the bookings are strong. The reality is that it is just a reroute and downguage of the existing service.

MEL-DXB-LHR on an A380 (484 pax) is replaced with MEL-PER-LHR on a 787 (236 seats) so in terms of capacity it has been cut by more than half.

14F 64J 35W 371Y on the A380 > 42J 28W 166Y

Thats a loss of 14F 22J 7W and 205Y = 248 seats.

KarelXWB · Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:04 pm

ro1960 wrote:
kimimm19 wrote:
Unless QF (and potentially NZ) are able to require enough planes (which is highly unlikely) to spur on Airbus and Boeing, I don't see how about 15-20 planes (being generous) is going to being enough incentive to invest in the planes. Basically not enough payoff or leverage as Emirates has with massive orders and demand.

Exactly what I was thinking. Beside QF and NZ how many other airlines would purchase such planes to make it worth the investment from A or B?

Boeing will build the 777-8 anyway. So if QF wants to fly SYD-LHR, a payload restricted 777-8 can do the job.

Polot · Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:06 pm

anstar wrote:
qf789 wrote:

Qantas would also have the knowledge on how much passengers are prepared to pay, they will be using the data from PER-LHR and from all accounts from what I have heard forward bookings are strong.

I would hope the bookings are strong. The reality is that it is just a reroute and downguage of the existing service.

MEL-DXB-LHR on an A380 (484 pax) is replaced with MEL-PER-LHR on a 787 (236 seats) so in terms of capacity it has been cut by more than half.

14F 64J 35W 371Y on the A380 > 42J 28W 166Y

Thats a loss of 14F 22J 7W and 205Y = 248 seats.

QF's JV partner EK is upgauging their 77W flight (EK408/409) to a A380 however adding back 6F, 34J, ???(at least 89)Y, assuming they are using 3 class planes (no idea).

airzona11 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:15 pm

mercure1 wrote:
Personally, I think QF is going 1-step too far with such plans.

Forget the questionable economics of such flying, it seems they are robbing humanity expecting one to be encased in a steel tube for 22-hours.

I would take a LAX or DXB stop on the way any day. As is flying 12-14 hours can be a challenge.

That is the beauty of it. People can fly countless 1-stop options. If they want to pay a premium they can do it in premium cabins. If they want to do it for the lowest cost, they have lots of options.

QF can differentiate by offering a unique non-stop option. They are not doing this blind. There is a lot of premium traffic daily that flies the Kangaroo route, they have a piece of the pie and even more with partnerships with EK among others. They know if there is demand and the routes have lots of it.

Plus, there are lots of articles talking about very healthy demand / premium for their soon to start PER-LHR flight. Non-stop ULH earns a premium in strong markets.

qf789 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:17 pm

anstar wrote:
qf789 wrote:

Qantas would also have the knowledge on how much passengers are prepared to pay, they will be using the data from PER-LHR and from all accounts from what I have heard forward bookings are strong.

I would hope the bookings are strong. The reality is that it is just a reroute and downguage of the existing service.

MEL-DXB-LHR on an A380 (484 pax) is replaced with MEL-PER-LHR on a 787 (236 seats) so in terms of capacity it has been cut by more than half.

14F 64J 35W 371Y on the A380 > 42J 28W 166Y

Thats a loss of 14F 22J 7W and 205Y = 248 seats.

There are 2 things wrong with your assessment.

Firstly the A388 on the current MEL-LHR via DXB was the wrong aircraft and has too much capacity, in fact most days between MEL-LHR traffic numbers off the BITRE show it would struggle to fill a 787

Secondly its not just a reroute, they could have put a 787 on DXB if they wanted to however they have gone with PER as that allows for most of QF FF base to have a one stop option on QF metal currently not available

holzmann · Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:17 pm

I was under the impression this kind of job would be the bread and butter of the 777-8X by default. It was to be built for this sort of thing instead of a tweaked, tricked-out A359. What kind of pax/payload restrictions are we talking for the 778X to do the job with "ease"?

I, for one, would hate to be on the plane. LAX stop preferred.

ikolkyo · Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:22 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
The A359 cant be a 300 seats plane like want QF in this route

qf789 wrote:
Egerton wrote:
I suspect Qantas are thinking in terms of the seating package to be something like the BA A318 from London City to JFK, a single class of high premium.

I very much doubt that. Qantas wants 300 seats so it would be likely be a 3 class aircraft at least. Also not only will these aircraft to operate the ULH routes but also most likely used to replace the 6 744ER's so they will want an aircraft configured that can rotate through the network

Studies show that even the 777-8 cannot do the westbound trip with 300 seats. So whatever aircraft QF selects, it will have to settle with payload restrictions.

and the B777-787 pilot certification is a very big help in thios case.

Not really a good argument as QF operates A330s and A380s.

You would have to think the 777-8 can't be that far off to this 300 seat no restriction marker, especially compared to the A359.

qf789 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:24 pm

airzona11 wrote:
mercure1 wrote:
Personally, I think QF is going 1-step too far with such plans.

Forget the questionable economics of such flying, it seems they are robbing humanity expecting one to be encased in a steel tube for 22-hours.

I would take a LAX or DXB stop on the way any day. As is flying 12-14 hours can be a challenge.

That is the beauty of it. People can fly countless 1-stop options. If they want to pay a premium they can do it in premium cabins. If they want to do it for the lowest cost, they have lots of options.

QF can differentiate by offering a unique non-stop option. They are not doing this blind. There is a lot of premium traffic daily that flies the Kangaroo route, they have a piece of the pie and even more with partnerships with EK among others. They know if there is demand and the routes have lots of it.

Plus, there are lots of articles talking about very healthy demand / premium for their soon to start PER-LHR flight. Non-stop ULH earns a premium in strong markets.

Qantas plans to work with the University of Sydney to enhance the onboard experience

To improve passenger experience during what is slated to be the world's longest-ever commercial flight, cutting across 10 time zones, Qantas has said it will work with the University of Sydney's Charles Perkins Centre on research projects including strategies to counteract jetlag, on-board exercise and movement, and cabin environment including lighting and temperature.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/0 ... _23166738/

Qantas is pushing forward with more ULH routes due to the strong performance of PER-LHR

Qantas is keen to develop more non-stop routes after the surge of bookings for the Perth to London Boeing 787 non-stop service that will start in March.

http://www.airlineratings.com/news/qant ... bus-range/

dtw2hyd · Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:59 pm

World's ULH obsession continues.

Have a tech stop at a low-cost air field halfway. Give passengers two-hour break, fill her up, service cabin/lavs, load fresh food and continue the journey.

Cheaper to fly and less taxing on passengers' legs.

airzona11 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:28 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
World's ULH obsession continues.

Have a tech stop at a low-cost air field halfway. Give passengers two-hour break, fill her up, service cabin/lavs, load fresh food and continue the journey.

Cheaper to fly and less taxing on passengers' legs.

But as noted above, people are paying a premium to fly without the tech stop or any stop. They aren't being forced to endure. They are paying more to get there faster.

ScottB · Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:29 pm

slinky09 wrote:
The real journey time saving doesn't seem worth the extra inflight discomfort to me - particularly if you are a premium passenger and get access to lounges and showers on any stopover.

If one is a premium passenger these days, I don't think the passenger experience inflight can be classified as "discomfort." There's ample personal space and a seat which reclines into a flat bed, excellent food & beverage offerings, ample on-demand in-flight entertainment, onboard wireless internet, often a bar area, etc. An 18-20 hour non-stop flight would allow a business passenger to get an uninterrupted eight hours of sleep and work for several hours on the flight. The stopover in the middle often means a shorter time available to sleep and/or waiting around in airport lounges at an hour when the body's internal clock expects to be sleeping. I personally would prefer to just go straight through rather than having to collect my personal belongings (and make sure I haven't forgotten anything), schlep to the lounge, undress, shower, dress, schlep to the gate, wait to board, and get settled in my seat again.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
Can you imagine basic economy on that flight, awful.

QF is definitely not going to operate ULH to cater to bottom-of-the-fare-barrel economy passengers.

KarelXWB · Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:33 pm

ScottB wrote:
If one is a premium passenger these days, I don't think the passenger experience inflight can be classified as "discomfort." There's ample personal space and a seat which reclines into a flat bed, excellent food & beverage offerings, ample on-demand in-flight entertainment, onboard wireless internet, often a bar area, etc.

Except most people are not premium passenger.

All nice & well for tor those 70 passengers in J and W, but what you are describing doesn't apply to those 166 passengers in Y.

incitatus · Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:42 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
World's ULH obsession continues.

Have a tech stop at a low-cost air field halfway. Give passengers two-hour break, fill her up, service cabin/lavs, load fresh food and continue the journey.

Cheaper to fly and less taxing on passengers' legs.

There is already plenty of one-stops. Do you really think people preferring the one-stop service would choose a desolate airport to connect instead of Dubai?

ssteve · Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:42 pm

Remember that in the end, Singapore's ULH a345s were configured with no economy seats. So it is actually possible that worrying about people in economy seats... doesn't apply. Maybe Y+.

Stitch · Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:44 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
All nice & well for tor those 70 passengers in J and W, but what you are describing doesn't apply to those 166 passengers in Y.

Well they do know going in what to expect. And QF did hire that university to study the effects of ULH flying to try and help mitigate them on PER-LHR and they will be doing the same for the SYD/MEL-JFK/LHR missions. Plus the 777X, 787 and A350's onboard environmental controls helps (as it does on the A380).

DfwRevolution · Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:53 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
I really don't see a huge demand for this that is willing to pay a premium. I wouldn't even want to get on that plane, a leg stretch in LAX is nice on such a long flight regardless of class. Can you imagine basic economy on that flight, awful.

I've done six ULH flights in economy over 15 hours. I find it significantly more enjoyable then two flight with stopover. You get a longer block of time to sleep. You avoid the hassle of de-boarding and re-boarding again. You don't have to lug your bags around the airport for a few hours. You get there earlier. It's really not bad at all.

Stitch · Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:04 pm

I hate making connections so I'd be willing to pay more (and have) for a non-stop over a one-stop, regardless of class of service I am booked in.

airbazar · Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:10 pm

sunrisevalley wrote:
I can see pressure on Boeing from both QF and NZ for an earlier EIS for the B777-8X. This type looks a very good fit for the ULH aspirations of both carriers.

I think it's too big. These routes will be very premium heavy routes with low seating configurations and there's no guarantee that ever premium passenger will prefer the non-stop option. But time will tell.

DfwRevolution wrote:
I've done six ULH flights in economy over 15 hours. I find it significantly more enjoyable then two flight with stopover. You get a longer block of time to sleep. You avoid the hassle of de-boarding and re-boarding again. You don't have to lug your bags around the airport for a few hours. You get there earlier. It's really not bad at all.

It comes down to a lot of variables. First, there's a big different between a 16hr flight and a 20hr flight, I think

Then there's the connection point and the length of the layover. DOH and SIN, are not the same as LAX, for example. And if' it's only a 2 hour connection vs. 4 hours, that's even better. And personally I don't carry any carry-on luggage other than my laptop bag so that's not an issue for some people either.

Stitch · Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:17 pm

airbazar wrote:
sunrisevalley wrote:
I can see pressure on Boeing from both QF and NZ for an earlier EIS for the B777-8X. This type looks a very good fit for the ULH aspirations of both carriers.

I think it's too big. These routes will be very premium heavy routes with low seating configurations and there's no guarantee that ever premium passenger will prefer the non-stop option. But time will tell.

This argument keeps being raised, but it is an argument evidently in direct contradiction to QF's statements that their research with their own passengers shows that enough of them want to fly a non-stop that it justifies a configuration of 300 seats which is not my definition of a "low density" configuration on an A350-900 or 777-8.

DaveFly · Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:20 pm

I love the idea of the nonstops. Of course, my longest flight thus far was only 13 hours. But I settled in, made myself as comfortable as possible, and recognized that upon landing I'd be at my destination. I've done the one-stops of 6-hours per leg, and I find them endless. A long journey made even worse by a landing/deplaning/airport experience when I know that those four hours could have been better spent in the air, closer to my destination. I've never been to Australia, but I have open invitations from a few friends. I said I'd visit when I can fly nonstop from New York.

b747400erf · Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:22 pm

Good luck staffing this kind of flight. You might find only the junor pilots jumping at the chance to do 18+ hour routes. And sitting in a hold after 18+ hours or diverting is a fatigue caused accident just waiting to happen.

Polot · Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:23 pm

Stitch wrote:
airbazar wrote:
sunrisevalley wrote:
I can see pressure on Boeing from both QF and NZ for an earlier EIS for the B777-8X. This type looks a very good fit for the ULH aspirations of both carriers.

I think it's too big. These routes will be very premium heavy routes with low seating configurations and there's no guarantee that ever premium passenger will prefer the non-stop option. But time will tell.

This argument keeps being raised, but it is an argument evidently in direct contradiction to QF's statements that their research with their own passengers shows that enough of them want to fly a non-stop that it justifies a configuration of 300 seats which is not my definition of a "low density" configuration on an A350-900 or 777-8.

Indeed if QF was interested in low density super premium no Y heavy configurations then they would have little to no issue with the A350ULR and especially the 777-8.

Jayafe · Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:26 pm

A380Neo / A380Neo-Combi?

airbazar · Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:29 pm

Stitch wrote:
airbazar wrote:
sunrisevalley wrote:
I can see pressure on Boeing from both QF and NZ for an earlier EIS for the B777-8X. This type looks a very good fit for the ULH aspirations of both carriers.

I think it's too big. These routes will be very premium heavy routes with low seating configurations and there's no guarantee that ever premium passenger will prefer the non-stop option. But time will tell.

This argument keeps being raised, but it is an argument evidently in direct contradiction to QF's statements that their research with their own passengers shows that enough of them want to fly a non-stop that it justifies a configuration of 300 seats which is not my definition of a "low density" configuration on an A350-900 or 777-8.

Then they should put their money where their mouth is. The plane has been available to purchase since 2013. I'm not buying that the reason is because it can't fly the route with a full payload. At those ranges you have to sacrifice something. It's not stopping SQ and UA from flying SFO-SIN with a less than ideal aircraft, until something better comes up.

winginit · Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:31 pm

Fascinating, but I'll believe it when I see it. Such an ULH (and all of this feels reminiscent of SQ's SIN-JFK nonstop) is in my mind only viable so long as the global economy strengthens in a meaningful manner and oil remains below ~$80/barrel, neither of which are guaranteed.

speedbird2263 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:33 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
I really don't see a huge demand for this that is willing to pay a premium. I wouldn't even want to get on that plane, a leg stretch in LAX is nice on such a long flight regardless of class. Can you imagine basic economy on that flight, awful.

I've done six ULH flights in economy over 15 hours. I find it significantly more enjoyable then two flight with stopover. You get a longer block of time to sleep. You avoid the hassle of de-boarding and re-boarding again. You don't have to lug your bags around the airport for a few hours. You get there earlier. It's really not bad at all.

Agreed. I was apprehensive going into my first ULH flight (15hrs) and found it appreciably more enjoyable than I had previously thought. The one stop to connect to my ultimate destination didn't do much for me, except add 2hours to the overall journey and if given the opportunity I'd have taken a non-stop if it existed.

Polot · Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:34 pm

airbazar wrote:
It's not stopping SQ and UA from flying SFO-SIN with a less than ideal aircraft, until something better comes up.

Yes, and QF wants as best possible from the get go. Not something that would be compromised in the meantime and then pointless/inefficient in the fleet when the "something better" is available (like how SQ got stuck with A345s).

Boeing and Airbus don't have to build what QF wants to QF's exact specification. QF doesn't have to put money where their mouth is and order this very day to satisfy A.net. At some point Boeing/Airbus are going to tell them this is the best we can do unless you are willing to spend XX so that we build Y, and QF will make a decision (on what, if any aircraft, they will select and the optimal configuration possible with said aircraft). Rolling over and just taking something off the shelf without pressing the manufacturers is exactly how you don't get any improvement on what you want.

Stitch · Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:40 pm

airbazar wrote:
I think it's too big. These routes will be very premium heavy routes with low seating configurations and there's no guarantee that ever premium passenger will prefer the non-stop option. But time will tell.

Stitch wrote:
This argument keeps being raised, but it is an argument evidently in direct contradiction to QF's statements that their research with their own passengers shows that enough of them want to fly a non-stop that it justifies a configuration of 300 seats which is not my definition of a "low density" configuration on an A350-900 or 777-8.

airbazar wrote:
Then they should put their money where their mouth is. The plane has been available to purchase since 2013. I'm not buying that the reason is because it can't fly the route with a full payload. At those ranges you have to sacrifice something. It's not stopping SQ and UA from flying SFO-SIN with a less than ideal aircraft, until something better comes up.

Well QF have put their money where their mouth is with the announcement of the LHR-PER non-stop with the 787-9 (the first frame having just emerged from the FAL at PAE). That plane only has 236 seats, but PER (and, by extension, Western Australia) is a significantly smaller catchment area than Victoria and New South Wales.

winginit wrote:
Fascinating, but I'll believe it when I see it. Such an ULH (and all of this feels reminiscent of SQ's SIN-JFK nonstop) is in my mind only viable so long as the global economy strengthens in a meaningful manner and oil remains below ~$80/barrel, neither of which are guaranteed.

The A350-900ULR consumes around half the fuel of the A340-500 on that mission.

mig17 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:42 pm

Jayafe wrote:
A380Neo / A380Neo-Combi?

Exactly what I was thinking ...
There is no way neither A359 nor 778 can fit 300 "prenium" seats while Qantas density on other aircrafts is rather "low" (236 on 789 or 484 on A388).

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net