Waterbomber wrote:

Au contraire, big time QF fan. When I was a kid, I always said that QF is my favorite airline even though I've only flown them once.
Not so much of a fan of the current QF management though and not a fan of seeing QF being in permanent restructuring, shrinking in size year after year, putting 9 abreast Y for 17 hour B789 flights, etc...

QF used to stand for something, it was the Austral Pan Am.

9-abreast in a 787 is pretty much the standard, isn't it? UA's 787-9s that fly LAX-SIN & IAH-SYD have the same configuration. Many airlines are cheapening their products in order to remain competitive and QF has no option but to follow suit. I think if the 777X offer a lower CASM in 10-abreast than the A350K in 9-abreast QF is more likely to go for the 777X, that's the reason why I asked the following question...

L0VE2FLY wrote:

Since you guys are comparing the 777X to the A350, I have a question for you, how does the CASM of a 10-abreast 779/778 compares to that of a 9-abreast A35K, provided both aircraft have the same configurations, all Y, 70% Y 30% J, etc...

jupiter2 wrote:

So the 2 x 789s will basically carry the same payload of the 380, but use significantly less fuel. Isn't that what has been said all along ?

No it is not the same load, the 2x787-9 will carry less, if you want to carry the same payload as the A380 you will need to use 3x787-9. My calculations is the average payload difference between a single A380 and 2x787-9s over 8000-8500 nm is around 4 tonnes, which is 40 passengers, closer to 50 passengers at 8000 nm, and 35 passengers at 8500 nm.

If you think it is close enough, have a look at what sort of business jet can fly 4 tonnes of payload over 8000-8500 nm non-stop (none is the answer), and look at their fuel burn. The Global 8000 which is currenlty the longest range business jet can do 8 pax and 4 crew to 7900 nm burning around 21 tonnes.

jupiter2 wrote:

The pax load of 2 x 789s in QF config is equal to the 380 in QF config, less first class

It is not equal, there is 14 seats differance (484 seats on an 4 class QF A380, 470 seats on 2x3 class QF 787-9s). Not only is the number of seats less, the lack of first class product on the 787-9 makes it inferior for revenue generation.

JustSomeDood wrote:

My bad, the fuel volume limit, i.e 2nd kink of the payload-range curve, does decrease with a higher MTOW variant, so if the ACAPs 2nd kink for the baseline is ~8700-8800nm, then it is likely that the ACAPs 2nd kink for the 575t MTOW is more likely at around ~8300nm, coincidentally, where the 789's 2nd kink also lies.

The ACAPS is not the baseline for the QF aircraft, it reflects WV000 as stated above, i.e. the early build A380s which SQ got rid of. QF have later build 575 tonne aircraft, they have reduced OEW, improved engines, and improved aerodynamiocs over the early builds. EK saw around 900 kg/hr less fuel burn on their 575 tonne aircraft than their early builds on ULH sectors.

jupiter2 wrote:

You can stick to your RPK figure if you wish, but QF/JQ domestic carried over 9 mil pax for the first quarter 2017/2018 financial year, while international QF/JQ was just under 3.7 mil. Without domestic, QF would revert back to the pre-merger with Australian Airlines days, a small time player in a medium sized market, if it would survive at all. Domestic traffic gives the airline the bulk and revenue it requires to survive in the modern aviation environment in Australia, while also supplying the majority of profit.

I have actually always wondered why, in 1991, QF too over TN, rather than TN taking over QF. On the other hand, I think perhaps in some ways more of TN survived the merger than QF - e.g. my merged FF account retained the TN number, not the QF number. I also worked with a former QF middle-manager in the mid-1990s and he said most post-merger back-end systems and procedures were inherited from TN.

Back on topic: I have read through this topic, and in particular RJMAZ ans Waterbomber’s conflicting posts, and I am still very confused as to which way QF might go.

Qantas says it is seeing high load factor in business class PER-LHR

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-447138/

zeke wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

So the 2 x 789s will basically carry the same payload of the 380, but use significantly less fuel. Isn't that what has been said all along ?

No it is not the same load, the 2x787-9 will carry less, if you want to carry the same payload as the A380 you will need to use 3x787-9. My calculations is the average payload difference between a single A380 and 2x787-9s over 8000-8500 nm is around 4 tonnes, which is 40 passengers, closer to 50 passengers at 8000 nm, and 35 passengers at 8500 nm.

If you think it is close enough, have a look at what sort of business jet can fly 4 tonnes of payload over 8000-8500 nm non-stop (none is the answer), and look at their fuel burn. The Global 8000 which is currenlty the longest range business jet can do 8 pax and 4 crew to 7900 nm burning around 21 tonnes.

jupiter2 wrote:

The pax load of 2 x 789s in QF config is equal to the 380 in QF config, less first class

It is not equal, there is 14 seats differance (484 seats on an 4 class QF A380, 470 seats on 2x3 class QF 787-9s). Not only is the number of seats less, the lack of first class product on the 787-9 makes it inferior for revenue generation.

So we know the 789 will make the distance and we know it can do it with a full pax load in QF config (we are talking about SYD/DFW) as we see it doing PER/LHR everyday. We also know that 2 x789s have the same pax load as 1 x 380 less first class (this has been said before by myself). While the lack of first class maybe seen as a lost revenue opportunity, it could also be seen as a plus, as it will just mean there are no cheap upgrades being given out to high ranked FF'ers. If we delve deeper into those seats available though, we will see that the 2 x789s have an extra 20 J class and 19 W class, while having 39 less Y seats, I think that the 2x789s have a superior chance of revenue generation compared to the single 380.

All that and burning a lot less fuel.

jupiter2 wrote:

So we know the 789 will make the distance and we know it can do it with a full pax load in QF config (we are talking about SYD/DFW) as we see it doing PER/LHR everyday. We also know that 2 x789s have the same pax load as 1 x 380 less first class (this has been said before by myself). While the lack of first class maybe seen as a lost revenue opportunity, it could also be seen as a plus, as it will just mean there are no cheap upgrades being given out to high ranked FF'ers. If we delve deeper into those seats available though, we will see that the 2 x789s have an extra 20 J class and 19 W class, while having 39 less Y seats, I think that the 2x789s have a superior chance of revenue generation compared to the single 380.

Lets look at QF 7/8 from yesterday then.

SYD-DFW flew 7601 nm in 15.2 hrs, average ground speed was 500 kts, planned 489 kts, average tailwind component 11 kts, air naurical miles covered 7432nm. DFW-SYD flew 7713 nm in 17.28 hrs, average ground speed 446 kts, planned 491 kts, average headwind wind component 44 kts, air nautical miles flown 8486 nm.

A 787-9 flying 7500nm will carry a payload of 29937 kg, and 8500 nm 23705 kg, total payload capacity for the round trip 53642 kg. The QF A380 would fly 7500 nm with a payload of 71272 kg, and 8500 nm with 50854 kg, round trip 122126 kg. That is a 14840 kg (equivilant to 148 passenger) advantage over 2x787-9s.

It is clear from yesterdays real life example, with the DFW-SYD payload available of 23705 kg on the 787-9, they would probably not even make it back without blocking seats off (235 seats = nominal pax payload of 23500 kg). That is before considering catering, IFE, and more than minimum crew numbers.

Looked also at the last QF9 (PER-LHR), flew 7915 nm in 17.73 hrs, average ground speed 446 kts, planned 485 kts, average 38 kts headwind, air nautical miles flown 8600 nm. That means payload was offloaded for fuel as it is fuel volume limited above around 8500 nm. QF10 (LHR-PER) flew 7967 nm in 16.35 hrs, average ground speed 487 kts, planned 478 kts, average tailwind 9 kts, air nautical miles flown 7815 nm. So a QF A380 would have even further advantage PER-LHR than 2x787-9s as it is not fuel volume limited at 8600 nm.

zeke wrote:

QF have later build 575 tonne aircraft, they have reduced OEW, improved engines, and improved aerodynamiocs over the early builds.

I don’t particularly want to be a part of this pointless discussion again but this is the second time you’ve made this untrue claim. QF’s entire fleet are 560t aircraft - they took delivery of their last aircraft in late-2011, 18 months before Airbus delivered the first 575t frame.

qf002 wrote:

I don’t particularly want to be a part of this pointless discussion again but this is the second time you’ve made this untrue claim. QF’s entire fleet are 560t aircraft - they took delivery of their last aircraft in late-2011, 18 months before Airbus delivered the first 575t frame.

I was told they were paper upgraded to 575 tonne in service, however looking at the aircraft register on the CASA website I see they have a mix of 560 and 569 tonne aircraft.

zeke wrote:

qf002 wrote:

I don’t particularly want to be a part of this pointless discussion again but this is the second time you’ve made this untrue claim. QF’s entire fleet are 560t aircraft - they took delivery of their last aircraft in late-2011, 18 months before Airbus delivered the first 575t frame.

I was told they were paper upgraded to 575 tonne in service, however looking at the aircraft register on the CASA website I see they have a mix of 560 and 569 tonne aircraft.

IIRC some of them can be upgraded. QANTAS has not chosen to do so.

zeke wrote:

Looked also at the last QF9 (PER-LHR), flew 7915 nm in 17.73 hrs, average ground speed 446 kts, planned 485 kts, average 38 kts headwind, air nautical miles flown 8600 nm. That means payload was offloaded for fuel as it is fuel volume limited above around 8500 nm. QF10 (LHR-PER) flew 7967 nm in 16.35 hrs, average ground speed 487 kts, planned 478 kts, average tailwind 9 kts, air nautical miles flown 7815 nm. So a QF A380 would have even further advantage PER-LHR than 2x787-9s as it is not fuel volume limited at 8600 nm.

Then the simple question is, why don't they use the 380 on the route, it is obviously more suitable ? It's not like QF don't have the 380 capacity to operate it.

And yet, with 2 years plus of planning the route, QF still went with the 789, even though they had the 380 in the fleet.

Why is it that airlines are using the 789 (and the 350) for these ULH routes, if they are so inefficient, well at least compared to the 380 ?

I have nothing against the 380, but it is not the be all and end all, especially on these ULH routes. There are simply more suitable alternatives and there are more coming.

jupiter2 wrote:

zeke wrote:

Looked also at the last QF9 (PER-LHR), flew 7915 nm in 17.73 hrs, average ground speed 446 kts, planned 485 kts, average 38 kts headwind, air nautical miles flown 8600 nm. That means payload was offloaded for fuel as it is fuel volume limited above around 8500 nm. QF10 (LHR-PER) flew 7967 nm in 16.35 hrs, average ground speed 487 kts, planned 478 kts, average tailwind 9 kts, air nautical miles flown 7815 nm. So a QF A380 would have even further advantage PER-LHR than 2x787-9s as it is not fuel volume limited at 8600 nm.

Then the simple question is, why don't they use the 380 on the route, it is obviously more suitable ? It's not like QF don't have the 380 capacity to operate it.

And yet, with 2 years plus of planning the route, QF still went with the 789, even though they had the 380 in the fleet.

Why is it that airlines are using the 789 (and the 350) for these ULH routes, if they are so inefficient, well at least compared to the 380 ?

I have nothing against the 380, but it is not the be all and end all, especially on these ULH routes. There are simply more suitable alternatives and there are more coming.

Because use of biggest available A/C to open new route is not optimal. They have to find out if there is enought demand.

zeke wrote:

qf002 wrote:

I don’t particularly want to be a part of this pointless discussion again but this is the second time you’ve made this untrue claim. QF’s entire fleet are 560t aircraft - they took delivery of their last aircraft in late-2011, 18 months before Airbus delivered the first 575t frame.

I was told they were paper upgraded to 575 tonne in service, however looking at the aircraft register on the CASA website I see they have a mix of 560 and 569 tonne aircraft.

Surprise surprise.

Zeke your strong bias towards Airbus strikes again.

You try so hard to find the smallest hole in my argument yet you provide payload range charts for the A380 that aren't even relevent to this discussion.

You said it best on page six.

zeke wrote:

Caught red handed again.

So i guess that ends that discussion the 787-9 clearly burns less fuel per ton of payload as Qantas doesn't have any 575T aircraft.

QF didn’t use the A380 because they struggled to fill two A380s every day into LHR. the QF9 always had more way availability for staff travel than the QF1.

I think the load factors in the flight global article linked above is the real key information.The CEO is pointing out that forward bookings are already at 90%.And that profitability is key to filling the premium section of the aircaft- and this is at higher than one stop prices.
Qantas has a very good flat bed business product and an equally good new premium 'lazy z' seat.
Both these products with the ancillary benefits can make a long flight acceptable - even good.Both classes let the consumer sleep comfortably and that is (imho) the key to these sort of flights.
No doubt people will watch the load factors carefully.But if they hold up then it's. Easy to see the future ULR flights being a success as well.
They didn't give numbers for standard economy -have they released them?
I do wonder whether over time they will need to develop something better for this class.Even if 'just' moving to a wider X8 layout?After all they are charging a premium.

Mrakula, redroo, I know exactly why the 789 was chosen, was just trying to prove a point with zeke. Just over the bias towards all Airbus products that he shows. The 789 is obviously quite able to operate the sector with the pax load that QF want from it, as would be the case if they decide to put it onto DFW at some point in the future. The 359 would be in the same position as well, configure it right and it will do the job.

redroo wrote:

the QF9 always had more way availability for staff travel than the QF1.

That is simply not true.

I don't see why people are discussing about A380 vs 789 in this thread while the thread is about competition between 777X and A350. Sure, the PER-LHR flight is also ULR and is flown with 789, but that is not what Qantas looking for in the thread's topic

c933103 wrote:

I don't see why people are discussing about A380 vs 789 in this thread while the thread is about competition between 777X and A350. Sure, the PER-LHR flight is also ULR and is flown with 789, but that is not what Qantas looking for in the thread's topic

Exactly!

And the simple fact is that neither the 777X nor the A350 currently gives QF what it needs to operate the routes envisaged. So neither get an order from QF yet. To me, I don't think QF has a bias towards either Airbus or Boeing in this competition, it's purely going to come down to the business case and having an aircraft that can comfortably make the distance.

Qantas is pushing the manufacturers for non-stop Oz - Europe capability because this is the best hope they have for staying in that market long-term. If you look at a world map there are a hell of a lot of transit points between Oz and Europe, which means a lot of competition, both now and in the future. Already QF has battled for decades against carriers who have taken traffic from Oz, through their hubs, and on to a myriad of European cities. QF used to operate to a handful of European cities, now just one. The EK/QF agreement was recognition of this - QF simply can't fly into every European city, so they had to find a partner for traffic feed.

It's not just the existing ME3 and Asian carriers, think of all the future potential airlines that might also grow and take traffic. Sri Lankan and Air India are already in the market. Potentially other Asian or Middle Eastern carriers could join. TK keeps threatening.

There's a whole bleak future for QF unless they can do something different - and for QF, that's operating non-stops. If they can get the right plane, they will go from battling dozens of carriers for traffic to potentially having the field to themselves, at least if and until either other Oz carriers or European carriers decide to do the same.It seems less likely that European carriers will follow suit, because they would be looking at such a small, specialised fleet that it wouldn't make sense. So, if they can get the right aircraft and if they convince the public that flying non-stop is worth paying for, they could potentially have the Oz - Europe non-stop market to themselves for some time.

Understandably Joyce needs to get the aircraft choice right. There's no threat of getting beaten to the market by other carriers. But every day there is the continuing pressure on yield.

You aussies mostly live on the wrong side of the island.

Anyway a big dedicated hub on the NorthWest would put Europe under 8000NM.

Enabling most WB's to by pass hot & sandy places.



Thinking about it, there must have been ideas / initiatives on this ?

keesje wrote:

You aussies mostly live on the wrong side of the island.

Anyway a big dedicated hub on the NorthWest would put Europe under 8000NM.

Enabling most WB's to by pass hot & sandy places.



Thinking about it, there must have been ideas / initiatives on this ?

Resources and ports determined most large cities...

The eastern side actually has useful land
and access to food and fresh water always takes precedent over minerals...

Non stop to Europe is a fact waiting to happen.The relentless technological progress of both engines and aerodynamics make it a certainty.This particular moment in time is interesting as it will be the 'first time' it has been achieved.Also (other than NZ) all major points of the globe will then have been connected in this way ,which is a hell of a technological milestone imho.
As stated above it is clearly the right ( and only) way for Qantas to proceed internationally from a commercial standpoint.Today it's from the west coast but by 2020 it will include the East coast.Well done them for laying down the challenge to A and B.

When will LH try as well to feed via MUC to OZ/NZ? with the right planes they could compete as well. I see also TK and SU in the race. And somebody admitted also AY.

Kikko19 wrote:

When will LH try as well to feed via MUC to OZ/NZ? with the right planes they could compete as well. I see also TK and SU in the race. And somebody admitted also AY.

I don't see the market, and LH are realists. Star Alliance will do them fine from a commercial perspective. And we are yet to find out where their ´new romance´ with EY will take us. Back to the subject, I firmly believe this will go the 350´s way, even if some people think AJ is a BA (Boeing, not British Airways....) fanboy!

Kashmon wrote:

keesje wrote:

You aussies mostly live on the wrong side of the island.

Anyway a big dedicated hub on the NorthWest would put Europe under 8000NM.

Enabling most WB's to by pass hot & sandy places.



Thinking about it, there must have been ideas / initiatives on this ?

Resources and ports determined most large cities...

The eastern side actually has useful land
and access to food and fresh water always takes precedent over minerals...

Well they are upgrading Port Hedland International, but a hub is something else I guess.



https://thewest.com.au/news/regional/wo ... b88704339z

I assume Qantas will take a big twin decision in the not to far future? The 744's will be out in 3 years time, maybe faster if fuel rises. And however efficient an 787 is, it's not a perfect 747 replacement. even if QF says so. It's capacity / payloads are far off.

DXB it ain't!

keesje wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

keesje wrote:

You aussies mostly live on the wrong side of the island.

Anyway a big dedicated hub on the NorthWest would put Europe under 8000NM.

Enabling most WB's to by pass hot & sandy places.



Thinking about it, there must have been ideas / initiatives on this ?

Resources and ports determined most large cities...

The eastern side actually has useful land
and access to food and fresh water always takes precedent over minerals...

Well they are upgrading Port Hedland International, but a hub is something else I guess.



https://thewest.com.au/news/regional/wo ... b88704339z

I assume Qantas will take a big twin decision in the not to far future? The 744's will be out in 3 years time, maybe faster if fuel rises. And however efficient an 787 is, it's not a perfect 747 replacement. even if QF says so. It's capacity / payloads are far off.

The thought of Port Hedland as “International Gateway to Australia” is very amusing.

It would be an authentic outback experience full of tourist stereotypes... lots of red dirt and indigenous wildlife.

“No shirt; no thongs; no service”

Well maybe the new flights to Ho Chi Minh City on Vietnam Airlines are just the start of whats to come for PHE.

cougar15 wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

When will LH try as well to feed via MUC to OZ/NZ? with the right planes they could compete as well. I see also TK and SU in the race. And somebody admitted also AY.

I don't see the market, and LH are realists. Star Alliance will do them fine from a commercial perspective.

Bearing in mind too that AY and QF have an extensive and long-standing relation for trips via Asia - HEL is in fact a specific exclusion from the QF-EK JV.

LH go even further than their Star ties and have an interline agreement with QF - you'll see QF tickets to German destinations can include sectors on LH (and also even Deutsche Bahn), while LH can and do sell QF-operated sectors to Australian ports.

I agree there's a market for expansion of non-stop offerings between Australia and Europe, but commercial realism dictates that we're nowhere near seeing this expansion in markets that don't already have strong one-stop performance and the associated brand loyalty.

redroo wrote:

keesje wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

Resources and ports determined most large cities...

The eastern side actually has useful land
and access to food and fresh water always takes precedent over minerals...

Well they are upgrading Port Hedland International, but a hub is something else I guess.



https://thewest.com.au/news/regional/wo ... b88704339z

I assume Qantas will take a big twin decision in the not to far future? The 744's will be out in 3 years time, maybe faster if fuel rises. And however efficient an 787 is, it's not a perfect 747 replacement. even if QF says so. It's capacity / payloads are far off.

The thought of Port Hedland as “International Gateway to Australia” is very amusing.

It would be an authentic outback experience full of tourist stereotypes... lots of red dirt and indigenous wildlife.

“No shirt; no thongs; no service”

PHE was more chosen a s a north west reference point. the right place from a hub & spoke perspective. Someone would have to put down 10 billion, a few runways and serious terminal. Not that it hasn't happened before. The ME3 , SIN, AMS don't exist out of a strong O&D market.

XAM2175 wrote:

Bearing in mind too that AY and QF have an extensive and long-standing relation for trips via Asia - HEL is in fact a specific exclusion from the QF-EK JV.

It's not an exclusion, it just doesn't fall within the scope of the JV because EK doesn't fly to HEL. It seems that QF is free to do what they want outside EK's network (which for the most part means codeshares with BA).

If EK did decide to open service to HEL then QF would terminate their agreement with AY and shift across to DXB, just as they will with EDI and the current BA codeshares later this year (of course, that doesn't stop AY from codesharing on QF services into Australia).

qf002 wrote:

XAM2175 wrote:

Bearing in mind too that AY and QF have an extensive and long-standing relation for trips via Asia - HEL is in fact a specific exclusion from the QF-EK JV.

It's not an exclusion, it just doesn't fall within the scope of the JV because EK doesn't fly to HEL. It seems that QF is free to do what they want outside EK's network (which for the most part means codeshares with BA).

If EK did decide to open service to HEL then QF would terminate their agreement with AY and shift across to DXB, just as they will with EDI and the current BA codeshares later this year (of course, that doesn't stop AY from codesharing on QF services into Australia).

Flydubai partner of Emirates will fly soon from HEL.. That doesn't count?

keesje wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

keesje wrote:

You aussies mostly live on the wrong side of the island.

Anyway a big dedicated hub on the NorthWest would put Europe under 8000NM.

Enabling most WB's to by pass hot & sandy places.



Thinking about it, there must have been ideas / initiatives on this ?

Resources and ports determined most large cities...

The eastern side actually has useful land
and access to food and fresh water always takes precedent over minerals...

Well they are upgrading Port Hedland International, but a hub is something else I guess.



https://thewest.com.au/news/regional/wo ... b88704339z

I assume Qantas will take a big twin decision in the not to far future? The 744's will be out in 3 years time, maybe faster if fuel rises. And however efficient an 787 is, it's not a perfect 747 replacement. even if QF says so. It's capacity / payloads are far off.

Is there a piece of floating doctrine that says quads HAVE to be replaced with quads, vice-versa with twins?? I think not. The CEO of Qantas (Allan Joyce) and Willy WALSH, who is the current CEO of AIG, are and will continue to replace the 747 with 787s and A350s. You're gonna have to live with it and respectfully move on. =)

rotating14 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

Resources and ports determined most large cities...

The eastern side actually has useful land
and access to food and fresh water always takes precedent over minerals...

Well they are upgrading Port Hedland International, but a hub is something else I guess.



https://thewest.com.au/news/regional/wo ... b88704339z

I assume Qantas will take a big twin decision in the not to far future? The 744's will be out in 3 years time, maybe faster if fuel rises. And however efficient an 787 is, it's not a perfect 747 replacement. even if QF says so. It's capacity / payloads are far off.

Is there a piece of floating doctrine that says quads HAVE to be replaced with quads, vice-versa with twins?? I think not. The CEO of Qantas (Allan Joyce) and Willy WALSH, who is the current CEO of AIG, are and will continue to replace the 747 with 787s and A350s. You're gonna have to live with it and respectfully move on. =)

If you re-read the post you will realize she's asking the opposite of it, as in which large twins will replace their large quads

parapente wrote:

Non stop to Europe is a fact waiting to happen.The relentless technological progress of both engines and aerodynamics make it a certainty.This particular moment in time is interesting as it will be the 'first time' it has been achieved.Also (other than NZ) all major points of the globe will then have been connected in this way ,which is a hell of a technological milestone imho.
As stated above it is clearly the right ( and only) way for Qantas to proceed internationally from a commercial standpoint.Today it's from the west coast but by 2020 it will include the East coast.Well done them for laying down the challenge to A and B.

Rather than "other than NZ", I think it will be, or could be as well as NZ. NZ are positioned to fly east-bound in both directions, something SYD-LON isn't able to take advantage of.
I'd be interested to know how much of an advantage this would be... 10-15% reduction over still air distance???

keesje wrote:

redroo wrote:

keesje wrote:

Well they are upgrading Port Hedland International, but a hub is something else I guess.



https://thewest.com.au/news/regional/wo ... b88704339z

I assume Qantas will take a big twin decision in the not to far future? The 744's will be out in 3 years time, maybe faster if fuel rises. And however efficient an 787 is, it's not a perfect 747 replacement. even if QF says so. It's capacity / payloads are far off.

The thought of Port Hedland as “International Gateway to Australia” is very amusing.

It would be an authentic outback experience full of tourist stereotypes... lots of red dirt and indigenous wildlife.

“No shirt; no thongs; no service”

PHE was more chosen a s a north west reference point. the right place from a hub & spoke perspective. Someone would have to put down 10 billion, a few runways and serious terminal. Not that it hasn't happened before. The ME3 , SIN, AMS don't exist out of a strong O&D market.

Air-port Hedland... your gateway to Australia.

Free iron ore to all connecting passengers

Just my revised two cents after watching the last couple months' developments...

I think there is a real incentive for both Qantas and Boeing to do whatever is necessary to get the 777-8 flying nonstop from SE Australia to Europe.

The ME3 (including Emirates) are in weakened positions at the moment. For Qantas, that calls into question whether EK will be able to put Qantas's interests front and center in future network and scheduling decisions. If EK continues to shrink for lack of pilots, that could damage Qantas's kangaroo route business. But on the other side of the coin, it could provide Qantas with a few extra passengers and a bit more financial breathing room for high-cost, high-risk nonstop services.

For Boeing, the ME3 troubles (particularly at QR and EY) increase pressure on the 777X and make it more important to bring new blue-chip customers (the only kind of customers that can profit from the 777X) into the fold. There is no question that the 777X backlog currently carries more risk than that of the A350. A Qantas nonstop service on the 777-8 would showcase its USP and be a marketing coup, while adding maybe 20 frames to the backlog, and also improving the prospects of the 777-9 as a 747 replacement and possibly A380 replacement in the future.

Boeing made a number of tweaks to the 777-200LR to eke out enough hot and high performance to make JNB-ATL viable, and that was for just 10 orders (with a hope of further 777-300ER orders that never materialized). I expect they are studying nips and tucks to the 777-8 as we speak.

Kikko19 wrote:

qf002 wrote:

XAM2175 wrote:

Bearing in mind too that AY and QF have an extensive and long-standing relation for trips via Asia - HEL is in fact a specific exclusion from the QF-EK JV.

It's not an exclusion, it just doesn't fall within the scope of the JV because EK doesn't fly to HEL. It seems that QF is free to do what they want outside EK's network (which for the most part means codeshares with BA).

If EK did decide to open service to HEL then QF would terminate their agreement with AY and shift across to DXB, just as they will with EDI and the current BA codeshares later this year (of course, that doesn't stop AY from codesharing on QF services into Australia).

Flydubai partner of Emirates will fly soon from HEL.. That doesn't count?

That's interesting actually, could Flydubai change the AY+QF deal?

Australia is surprisingly big market for AY, a few years back Finnair CEO said in the Australian Business Traveller that Australia was in their top 10 by revenue, most probably still so.

Kikko19 wrote:

Flydubai partner of Emirates will fly soon from HEL.. That doesn't count?

No, QF doesn't have a partnership with FZ.

If they can't get you somewhere in one stop via DXB on EK then they will offer you a connection over LHR if possible or send you to somewhere like MUC with EK then onward with an LH flight (just one example, I've also seen LO flights pop up and I'm sure there are others).

seabosdca wrote:

Just my revised two cents after watching the last couple months' developments...

I think there is a real incentive for both Qantas and Boeing to do whatever is necessary to get the 777-8 flying nonstop from SE Australia to Europe.

I agree with your general point, but IMHO there is just as much incentive for Airbus to do the same with the A350 [in whatever version]. It'll consolidate the A350's position and expand its appeal some and it'll make QF happy. I'm really hoping for the real ULR with the 1000 wing & the 900 fuselage, that will be a true ULR aircraft!

Gemuser

Stitch wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Interestingly, the carrier does not specify the 300-seat requirement anymore, suggesting any aircraft that can perform the mission at full nominal load will be good enough.

But design payload of the 777-8 is a fair bit higher than design payload of the A350-900ULR. A 777-8 at an A359-900ULRs design payload would probably be able to fly a fair bit farther if the frame does not become fuel-volume/fuel-weight limited.

LAX772LR wrote:

In fact, what they do say, is:

which jet will allow it to operate with a full load nonstop from Australia's east coast to Europe

...that's focusing on the westbound.

Channex757 wrote:

East Coast Australia to Europe "is" a Westbound route.

c933103 wrote:

The article say, "a full load nonstop from Australia's east coast to Europe", this is westbound.

JetBuddy wrote:

I do believe they mean from east coast Australia to Europe westbound, and to east coast North America eastbound.

They may be looking at just flying eastbound for both legs. When Boeing did their HKG-LHR non-stop on the 777-200LR they flew eastbound to take advantage of winds aloft.

And you're onto something. QF have already stated they are looking at polar routes that would likely take the aircraft up the pacific ocean northing to Europe etc even though it was longer to avoid stronger headwinds. So the guess is they'd be crossing eastern Russia or Western Alaska (or the ocean in between) before tracking across the pole Arctic to either America or Europe. This one could be a little harder to call than people think.

This is such an interesting discussion, the ultimate route really for normal commercial aviation. How does the recent increase in Oil prices to nearly $80 effect the viability of such a route and perhaps the forthcoming SINNYC route too? Without getting into a discussion of the up and downs of the Oil industry, for arguments, sake let's say the previous $40-$60 range becomes $80-90? Also, please without an A/B argument would the higher oil price favour a 777-8 solution or an A350 solution or neither?

Lufthansa wrote:

Stitch wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Interestingly, the carrier does not specify the 300-seat requirement anymore, suggesting any aircraft that can perform the mission at full nominal load will be good enough.

But design payload of the 777-8 is a fair bit higher than design payload of the A350-900ULR. A 777-8 at an A359-900ULRs design payload would probably be able to fly a fair bit farther if the frame does not become fuel-volume/fuel-weight limited.

LAX772LR wrote:

In fact, what they do say, is:
...that's focusing on the westbound.

Channex757 wrote:

East Coast Australia to Europe "is" a Westbound route.

c933103 wrote:

The article say, "a full load nonstop from Australia's east coast to Europe", this is westbound.

JetBuddy wrote:

I do believe they mean from east coast Australia to Europe westbound, and to east coast North America eastbound.

They may be looking at just flying eastbound for both legs. When Boeing did their HKG-LHR non-stop on the 777-200LR they flew eastbound to take advantage of winds aloft.

And you're onto something. QF have already stated they are looking at polar routes that would likely take the aircraft up the pacific ocean northing to Europe etc even though it was longer to avoid stronger headwinds. So the guess is they'd be crossing eastern Russia or Western Alaska (or the ocean in between) before tracking across the pole Arctic to either America or Europe. This one could be a little harder to call than people think.

No need to do that heading to the U.S. even JFK would be "only" around 18 hours from SYD. Coming westbound would be more problematic, but a standard routing over the southern U.S.A. and Mexico would be preferable. LHR westbound may see benefits, but again eastbound would be with the prevailing winds and a more direct route, even going over northern Africa may be more benficial.

Routings will always be interesting as winds will create massive swings. When SQ was flying the A345 from SIN to EWR, I used to see it come as far south as northern England to benefit from (or avoid) the jetstream. Qantas will assuredly be doing the same and the weather maps will be crucial.

Getting the right tracks (wherever and in both hemispheres) will knock up to a couple of hours off the journey!

jupiter2 wrote:

Lufthansa wrote:

Stitch wrote:

But design payload of the 777-8 is a fair bit higher than design payload of the A350-900ULR. A 777-8 at an A359-900ULRs design payload would probably be able to fly a fair bit farther if the frame does not become fuel-volume/fuel-weight limited.






They may be looking at just flying eastbound for both legs. When Boeing did their HKG-LHR non-stop on the 777-200LR they flew eastbound to take advantage of winds aloft.

And you're onto something. QF have already stated they are looking at polar routes that would likely take the aircraft up the pacific ocean northing to Europe etc even though it was longer to avoid stronger headwinds. So the guess is they'd be crossing eastern Russia or Western Alaska (or the ocean in between) before tracking across the pole Arctic to either America or Europe. This one could be a little harder to call than people think.

No need to do that heading to the U.S. even JFK would be "only" around 18 hours from SYD. Coming westbound would be more problematic, but a standard routing over the southern U.S.A. and Mexico would be preferable. LHR westbound may see benefits, but again eastbound would be with the prevailing winds and a more direct route, even going over northern Africa may be more benficial.

Routing over Southern US/MEX would be a bit more longer than over Alaska/Canada. Probably depend on winds

qf002 wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

Flydubai partner of Emirates will fly soon from HEL.. That doesn't count?

No, QF doesn't have a partnership with FZ.

If they can't get you somewhere in one stop via DXB on EK then they will offer you a connection over LHR if possible or send you to somewhere like MUC with EK then onward with an LH flight (just one example, I've also seen LO flights pop up and I'm sure there are others).

still they code-share and you can buy hel-dxb-syd with EK so only one stop... I guess this will affect AY.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Agree I’m not sure why the said user keeps bringing up the A380ULR which doesn’t exist when QF have said 2 789’s are cheaper to run than a single A380.

That is a horse apple vs apple comparison.
2 "Sardine carriers" vs one bigger "Royal conveyance"

then my impression was that the QF guy offered that quip for some juicy rebate points from B.