readytotaxi wrote:

Will Qantas only offer First Class on the A380 once the queens have gone?

First has been only offered the A380 for a while now.

One 744 (-OEB) still has the old F cabin from the 90s. Until recently a few now retired OJ series had it too. But these have been sold as J and allocated to high tier FF members for least five years now. -OEB is currently on a RTW charter where I believe F is sold. The cabin even had a mini refresh. It won't be in the fleet for much longer.

I think this order gives QF plenty of opportunity to adjust their fleet to market conditions. I suspect we will see a follow on order for 787-10 aircraft in the not too distant future. If not they can simply decide to keep the 747's for an extra year or two.

Market share is not like aeroplanes. The older the market, generally the better it is!

TC957 wrote:

By the time QF retire the last 744 I'm sure HND will be A380 compliant - think there was info on this on another thread that a new international sub-terminal was being built next to ANA's T2 at HND which will have one A380 gate at least.

Not saying it’s entirely impossible but given all the condition I don’t see how you’re so sure about this.

Gate isn’t the issue as they already have the 380 compatible gate in the current international terminal.

There are however some other issues yet to be cleared before they lift up the restriction.

1. Wake turbulence - Interval distance behind a 380 when landing is roughly 10km, twice as much as other aircrafts. (777 5.6km) and this will trouble already complex enough air traffic control in Haneda.

2. D Runway 400T - D runway has the maximum weight restriction of 400T and consider how often this runway is used for departure(especially south bound fight) this would be a structural problem that is hard to solve.

3. C Runway will be fine for 380 but in the midnight slot time only up to 8 fights are allowed to take off from this runway. And since they normally only let flights bounding north to use this runway for noise consideration, Qantas’s flight will be the issue.

I don’t think Qantas decides to retire 744 on the assumption that they can deploy 380 into Haneda so they must have something else in their mind.

Also ANA won’t be operating 380 at Haneda as well, they’ll be based in Narita for Hawaii flight.

B2707SST wrote:

...I wonder where their 6 747-400ERs will go...

I bet Wamos would be interested in a good deal

KICT wrote:

Perhaps BA could pick up these -400ERs?

They have said several times they are more than well served, and moving to 787s anyway

aviationaware wrote:

Looks like early indicators on PER-LHR are good then? What's the next likely EU route we could see? I know Paris was the 2nd EU destination held onto for longest, but does anyone have the actual PDEWs?

Here you go (for 2016).

London (presumably LHR & LGW) is by far the largest at circa 1.3m.

Paris follows at about 250k, Manchester in third at about 225k.

There is a further drop to Frankfurt, Rome, Dublin and Amsterdam (circa 175k - 165k) before Zurich, Athens and Milan at circa 100k.

https://blueswandaily.com/qantas-looks- ... to-europe/

Aware wrote:

The size of this order reflects, to an extent, the uncertainty regarding the JV application by QF and AA. If approved, then I imagine certain additional capacity will be effectively be provided by AA metal (on the understanding that it will be equivalent to the AA-BA JV, so QF shares in any revenue generated by an AA operated flight that is covered by the JV). So AA increasing its Australian flights frees up QF to develop or grow other routes.

No it doesn't, QF have said in the past that they would convert options as they expire. QF also has a history of placing small top up orders rather than in big numbers

bigjku wrote:

Boeing should if they firm AA, Qantas, EK and Hawaiian this year be at 131 orders for the 787 in 2018. So that is pretty close to replacement rate depending on when deliveries accelerate. That’s fairly amazing given the delivery rate for a jet this large. And there is still a lot of the year to go.

Yes, 787 has had a solid sales record this year. Bumping the production rate to 14 now looks obvious in retrospect.

Let's see if this thread can make the 24 hour mark before someone says. "yeah, but deferred production cost"...

RobertPhoenix wrote:

Perhaps there is another thread that answers this, but a new order getting deliveries in 2019 must mean that other orders are being delayed. How much availability is there ?

Boeing effectively added 24 planes of availability each year starting next year basically for stuff like this. They can’t deliver a huge order the next couple of years but they can meet immediate needs and get new customers started from that. It’s huge for making new sales.

Revelation wrote:

Yes, 787 has had a solid sales record this year. Bumping the production rate to 14 now looks obvious in retrospect.

Let's see if this thread can make the 24 hour mark before someone says. "yeah, but deferred production cost"...

Could we please not feed the trolls

DobboDobbo wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Looks like early indicators on PER-LHR are good then? What's the next likely EU route we could see? I know Paris was the 2nd EU destination held onto for longest, but does anyone have the actual PDEWs?

Here you go (for 2016).

London (presumably LHR - (London - Heathrow) & LGW) is by far the largest at circa 1.3m.

Paris follows at about 250k, Manchester in third at about 225k.

There is a further drop to Frankfurt, Rome, Dublin and Amsterdam (circa 175k - 165k) before Zurich, Athens and Milan at circa 100k.

https://blueswandaily.com/qantas-looks- ... to-europe/

Thank you, very interesting. Does the 789 have enough of a reserve to do the 80 additional miles to MAN compared to LHR?

Bricktop wrote:

Are these options being exercised before they expire (which something rattling in my brain is telling me) or new orders?

Yes, they are options. They had 7 options, decided to let one expire in January, and are now exercising their remaining options.

qf789 wrote:

Aware wrote:

The size of this order reflects, to an extent, the uncertainty regarding the JV application by QF and AA. If approved, then I imagine certain additional capacity will be effectively be provided by AA metal (on the understanding that it will be equivalent to the AA-BA JV, so QF shares in any revenue generated by an AA operated flight that is covered by the JV). So AA increasing its Australian flights frees up QF to develop or grow other routes.

No it doesn't, QF have said in the past that they would convert options as they expire. QF also has a history of placing small top up orders rather than in big numbers

You are very confident that a significant commercial arrangement in one of their largest markets wouldn’t be taken into account at all. I wouldn’t be so dismissive.

So very sad to hear that QF will be retiring the 747 fleet. Anybody here remember the stretch of a few years when QF was the world's only all-747 airline? They boasted of it in their marketing...my dad was pax sales manager for KE in WAS and at some interline party or such, he picked up what would now be a collector's item/treasure...QF partnered with Fosters and had beer cans (the big ones, not the 12oz. type) specially printed to announce either a new route or a freq. increase on an existing route (I don't remember which, or what city, dates, etc.) where in smaller print at the bottom it was printed:
747's
then under that in even smaller print:
Of Course
Wonder if he still has it? I'll have to ask!
So yes, as someone stated in an early post here...end of an era.

For those who'd like it...here is a fabulous web page I found some time ago with the entire history of VH-EBA, their first 742, with a ton of fabulous pictures:
http://www.aussieairliners.org/b-747/vh-eba/vheba.html
Enjoy!

aviationaware wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Looks like early indicators on PER-LHR are good then? What's the next likely EU route we could see? I know Paris was the 2nd EU destination held onto for longest, but does anyone have the actual PDEWs?

Here you go (for 2016).

London (presumably LHR (London (Heathrow) - England) - (London - Heathrow) & LGW (London (Gatwick) - England)) is by far the largest at circa 1.3m.

Paris follows at about 250k, Manchester in third at about 225k.

There is a further drop to Frankfurt, Rome, Dublin and Amsterdam (circa 175k - 165k) before Zurich, Athens and Milan at circa 100k.

https://blueswandaily.com/qantas-looks- ... to-europe/

Thank you, very interesting. Does the 789 have enough of a reserve to do the 80 additional miles to MAN compared to LHR (London (Heathrow) - England)?

I have no idea! I expect Boeing will introduce incremental upgrades to the B789 (e.g. Improved aerodynamics, software upgrades etc) to improve the range as time evolves so I suspect PER-MAN is likely to be technically achievable.

Whether it makes commercial sense is another question. You would imagine CDG has a higher aggregate premium demand, whether that applies to the smaller markets im not sure.

I agree QF should definitely retire the 744s with big fanfare. It is the end of an era. I flew a QF 744 LAX-SYD and a 744ER MEL-LAX in 2007 and have great memories. All 747 flights are memorable for aviation geeks, and the super rare ER flights even more so! In any event, it is great that QF has been able to restructure and is now renewing its fleet with state-of-the-art 789s. Congrats to QF!

So what can we expect in terms of SYD-JNB and SYD-SCL? I understand there might be some EDTO issues involved here when switching from a quad to a twin?

EddieDude wrote:

I agree QF should definitely retire the 744s with big fanfare. It is the end of an era. I flew a QF 744 LAX-SYD and a 744ER MEL-LAX in 2007 and have great memories. All 747 flights are memorable for aviation geeks, and the super rare ER flights even more so! In any event, it is great that QF has been able to restructure and is now renewing its fleet with state-of-the-art 789s. Congrats to QF!

So what can we expect in terms of SYD-JNB and SYD-SCL? I understand there might be some EDTO issues involved here when switching from a quad to a twin?

I'd imagine they will mark the occasion in some special way - maybe a "farewell tour" like DL did. I'd expect a video retrospective like both DL and UA did at the very least, probably something more than that. A sad but inevitable transition - not many 747's left on the passenger side of things. At least LH, KE and CA will have the 748's for a (hopefully) long while

I recall Qantas let a 787 option expire, then they exercise these 6 options. How many more options do they have and what are the expiration dates?

EddieDude wrote:

I agree QF should definitely retire the 744s with big fanfare. It is the end of an era. I flew a QF 744 LAX-SYD and a 744ER MEL-LAX in 2007 and have great memories. All 747 flights are memorable for aviation geeks, and the super rare ER flights even more so! In any event, it is great that QF has been able to restructure and is now renewing its fleet with state-of-the-art 789s. Congrats to QF!

So what can we expect in terms of SYD-JNB and SYD-SCL? I understand there might be some EDTO issues involved here when switching from a quad to a twin?

Fully agree with "big fanfare"!! I have very fond albeit slightly fuzzy memories (I was only 12!) of the privilege of flying the old QF004/003 SFO/HNL/SFO in First Class, outstanding cabin crew and inflight service, onboard VH-EBB & -EBC, still with the Captain Cook lounge on the upper deck. Those were the days! (and this was thanks to airline pass privileges, non-rev's being able to fly cabotage sectors!)

JBusworth wrote:

They need something bigger than the 787 for SYD-HND, an A330-300 probably would be a better replacement that the 787 would.

The 787-9 and A330-300 have effectively identical cabin areas so QF could choose to configure a 787-9 sub-fleet with the "regional" seating used on the A333 and get 300 seats.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I recall Qantas let a 787 option expire, then they exercise these 6 options. How many more options do they have and what are the expiration dates?

They had 15 Options and 30 Purchase Rights, so they have exercised 14 of those options which should leave 1 more plus the 30 rights.

Stitch wrote:

They had 15 Options and 30 Purchase Rights, so they have exercised 14 of those options which should leave 1 more plus the 30 rights.

Not to pick nits, but #61 above ( @jeffrey0032j ) says one option lapsed in January not taken up.

Thanks for filling us in on the remaining 30 Purchase Rights.

a19901213 wrote:

TC957 wrote:

By the time QF retire the last 744 I'm sure HND will be A380 compliant - think there was info on this on another thread that a new international sub-terminal was being built next to ANA's T2 at HND which will have one A380 gate at least.

Not saying it’s entirely impossible but given all the condition I don’t see how you’re so sure about this.

Gate isn’t the issue as they already have the 380 compatible gate in the current international terminal.

There are however some other issues yet to be cleared before they lift up the restriction.

1. Wake turbulence - Interval distance behind a 380 when landing is roughly 10km, twice as much as other aircrafts. (777 5.6km) and this will trouble already complex enough air traffic control in Haneda.

2. D Runway 400T - D runway has the maximum weight restriction of 400T and consider how often this runway is used for departure(especially south bound fight) this would be a structural problem that is hard to solve.

3. C Runway will be fine for 380 but in the midnight slot time only up to 8 fights are allowed to take off from this runway. And since they normally only let flights bounding north to use this runway for noise consideration, Qantas’s flight will be the issue.

I don’t think Qantas decides to retire 744 on the assumption that they can deploy 380 into Haneda so they must have something else in their mind.

Also ANA won’t be operating 380 at Haneda as well, they’ll be based in Narita for Hawaii flight.

QF arrives into HND early am and departs late pm so before/after the vast majority of the busy domestic flying times. So I don't think the slots issue is a hurdle to QF operating A380 to HND at those times.

Qantas current schedule for July 2018


Origin Code Destination Code Airline Code Alliance Equipment Code Flights Seats
BNE LAX QF oneworld 744 7 2,548
SYD HND QF oneworld 744 7 2,537
SYD JNB QF oneworld 744 7 2,515
SYD LAX QF oneworld 744 1 364
SYD SCL QF oneworld 744 4 1,456
SYD SFO QF oneworld 744 6 2,184
SYD YVR QF oneworld 744 3 1,092
TOTAL 35 12,696



Will be interesting to see what markets change to A380s and what change to B789s as the B789 has ~236 seats vs ~361 on the B744 vs ~484 on the A380. The B744 is right in between so routes will have to go up or down ~120 seats unless frequencies are changed.

SonaSounds wrote:

Qantas current schedule for July 2018


Origin Code Destination Code Airline Code Alliance Equipment Code Flights Seats
BNE LAX QF oneworld 744 7 2,548
SYD HND QF oneworld 744 7 2,537
SYD JNB QF oneworld 744 7 2,515
SYD LAX QF oneworld 744 1 364
SYD SCL QF oneworld 744 4 1,456
SYD SFO QF oneworld 744 6 2,184
SYD YVR QF oneworld 744 3 1,092
TOTAL 35 12,696



Will be interesting to see what markets change to A380s and what change to B789s as the B789 has ~236 seats vs ~361 on the B744 vs ~484 on the A380. The B744 is right in between so routes will have to go up or down ~120 seats unless frequencies are changed.

In the press release, Qantas said the seat count difference will be "negligible" because of payload restrictions on the 744 now.

jbs2886 wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

Qantas current schedule for July 2018


Origin Code Destination Code Airline Code Alliance Equipment Code Flights Seats
BNE LAX QF oneworld 744 7 2,548
SYD HND QF oneworld 744 7 2,537
SYD JNB QF oneworld 744 7 2,515
SYD LAX QF oneworld 744 1 364
SYD SCL QF oneworld 744 4 1,456
SYD SFO QF oneworld 744 6 2,184
SYD YVR QF oneworld 744 3 1,092
TOTAL 35 12,696



Will be interesting to see what markets change to A380s and what change to B789s as the B789 has ~236 seats vs ~361 on the B744 vs ~484 on the A380. The B744 is right in between so routes will have to go up or down ~120 seats unless frequencies are changed.

In the press release, Qantas said the seat count difference will be "negligible" because of payload restrictions on the 744 now.

I don't think you are interrupting it quite right. The article says

Interiors of the additional 787s will feature the same configuration as the existing aircraft. The Qantas Dreamliner carries fewer passengers than the larger 747 (236 seats vs 364) and has a greater focus on Business and Premium Economy seating.

However, the reduced maintenance needs of the 787 plus more efficient aircraft patterning and reduced payload restrictions on long routes mean the actual impact on overall capacity for Qantas International is expected to be negligible. The Dreamliner burns approximately 20 per cent less fuel.

There is a huge seat difference but because the new B789 will need less maintenance and but utilization of rotations means they will get more flights out of each of these birds each week than they do out of the B744s. Not to say there may not be payload restrictions on some B744 flights but it's not like they are blocking off 100+ seats on most flights....

Overall because of the increased utilization and less down town and not having to deal with minimal payload restrictions on certain routes these aircraft should keep up the same number of passengers as the current B744s although we are likely going to see quite a few more flights than we are now.

Revelation wrote:

Stitch wrote:

They had 15 Options and 30 Purchase Rights, so they have exercised 14 of those options which should leave 1 more plus the 30 rights.

Not to pick nits, but #61 above ( @jeffrey0032j ) says one option lapsed in January not taken up.

Thanks for filling us in on the remaining 30 Purchase Rights.

The option didn't expire, but the delivery slot did.

In simple terms QF had to convert the option to a firm order by a certain date if they wanted to retain the contracted delivery slot.

SonaSounds wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

Qantas current schedule for July 2018


Origin Code Destination Code Airline Code Alliance Equipment Code Flights Seats
BNE LAX QF oneworld 744 7 2,548
SYD HND QF oneworld 744 7 2,537
SYD JNB QF oneworld 744 7 2,515
SYD LAX QF oneworld 744 1 364
SYD SCL QF oneworld 744 4 1,456
SYD SFO QF oneworld 744 6 2,184
SYD YVR QF oneworld 744 3 1,092
TOTAL 35 12,696



Will be interesting to see what markets change to A380s and what change to B789s as the B789 has ~236 seats vs ~361 on the B744 vs ~484 on the A380. The B744 is right in between so routes will have to go up or down ~120 seats unless frequencies are changed.

In the press release, Qantas said the seat count difference will be "negligible" because of payload restrictions on the 744 now.

I don't think you are interrupting it quite right. The article says

Interiors of the additional 787s will feature the same configuration as the existing aircraft. The Qantas Dreamliner carries fewer passengers than the larger 747 (236 seats vs 364) and has a greater focus on Business and Premium Economy seating.

However, the reduced maintenance needs of the 787 plus more efficient aircraft patterning and reduced payload restrictions on long routes mean the actual impact on overall capacity for Qantas International is expected to be negligible. The Dreamliner burns approximately 20 per cent less fuel.

There is a huge seat difference but because the new B789 will need less maintenance and but utilization of rotations means they will get more flights out of each of these birds each week than they do out of the B744s. Not to say there may not be payload restrictions on some B744 flights but it's not like they are blocking off 100+ seats on most flights....

Overall because of the increased utilization and less down town and not having to deal with minimal payload restrictions on certain routes these aircraft should keep up the same number of passengers as the current B744s although we are likely going to see quite a few more flights than we are now.

Even though QF state actual capacity will drop by 2%, the reality is economy seats will drop by a greater amount because the 787-9's are premium heavy.

I would suggest QF are rejigging their network in coordination with Jetstar. Considering the A321NEO's will free up three 787-8's, these aircraft could be used to take up the slack associated with QF offering less economy seats.

Just a thought!

From the ANA A380 thread it seems like the A380 requires extra separation when landing/departing which would disrupt flight operation at the airport so in the daytime it would be problematic if someone want to send an A380 in despite the airport being capable of taking them in

TC957 wrote:

a19901213 wrote:

TC957 wrote:

By the time QF retire the last 744 I'm sure HND will be A380 compliant - think there was info on this on another thread that a new international sub-terminal was being built next to ANA's T2 at HND which will have one A380 gate at least.

Not saying it’s entirely impossible but given all the condition I don’t see how you’re so sure about this.

Gate isn’t the issue as they already have the 380 compatible gate in the current international terminal.

There are however some other issues yet to be cleared before they lift up the restriction.

1. Wake turbulence - Interval distance behind a 380 when landing is roughly 10km, twice as much as other aircrafts. (777 5.6km) and this will trouble already complex enough air traffic control in Haneda.

2. D Runway 400T - D runway has the maximum weight restriction of 400T and consider how often this runway is used for departure(especially south bound fight) this would be a structural problem that is hard to solve.

3. C Runway will be fine for 380 but in the midnight slot time only up to 8 fights are allowed to take off from this runway. And since they normally only let flights bounding north to use this runway for noise consideration, Qantas’s flight will be the issue.

I don’t think Qantas decides to retire 744 on the assumption that they can deploy 380 into Haneda so they must have something else in their mind.

Also ANA won’t be operating 380 at Haneda as well, they’ll be based in Narita for Hawaii flight.

QF arrives into HND early am and departs late pm so before/after the vast majority of the busy domestic flying times. So I don't think the slots issue is a hurdle to QF operating A380 to HND at those times.

Just because it arrives in the morning doesn't mean the points raised are invalid. Qantas flight departs at 10pm which is not defined as the midnight - morning slot time period and under normal operation (North wind) Qantas flight needs to take off from D runway. (Even in midnight)

Allowing airlines to operate an aircraft can't takeoff on one the of most used runway in Haneda is traffic control disaster.
Also of course they can't just permit Qantas to operate 380, if they do so others will also follow. Imagine how much trouble that is.

ANA doesn't even have the chance to operate 380 in Haneda on their soil ground, I really don't see what chance Qantas has.

Quoting aviationaware "Thank you, very interesting. Does the 789 have enough of a reserve to do the 80 additional miles to MAN compared to LHR?"]

I am told by someone who should know that when the 787 lands at LHR it has about an hour of cruise fuel left + reserves.
The issue has always been not if the 789 can make the distance, but how often it might need to divert, if unforeseen circumstances arise.

I guess that the extra 80 miles would increase that, but not by much. The fact that the 787 arrives early at LHR, means delays for traffic are less likely.

No idea what the situation might be at MAN, but I think this would be the main limiting factor not the range.


Ruscoe

Stitch wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I recall Qantas let a 787 option expire, then they exercise these 6 options. How many more options do they have and what are the expiration dates?

They had 15 Options and 30 Purchase Rights, so they have exercised 14 of those options which should leave 1 more plus the 30 rights.

Qantas originally had options for 20 787's and purchase rights for 30 more. I believe the first 3 of the 8 787-9's initially ordered were conversions of the 3 previously deferred Jetstar 787-8's. After this initial order QF retained 15 options. The number of excercised options would now stand at 11 after yesterdays add-on order which leaves 9 remaining options.

I wonder if they will be better off ordering some -10's instead of more 9's?

joffie wrote:

I wonder if they will be better off ordering some -10's instead of more 9's?

I'm guessing they will go with the 787-9 as an A330-300 replacement when it comes time as the two frames have very similar floor space so they would have similar capacities.

Newbiepilot wrote:

It has been a while since the last 747-400 BCF was even converted.

Asiana had a B747-400 Combi converted to full freighter last year, if I remember correctely. At Bedek in Israel.
Yeah, surely the work was easier - the cargo door and half of cargo space were already there - but still is something. If someone wants, it can be done.

Jayafe wrote:

I bet Wamos would be interested in a good deal

My first thoughts aswell! They have a nice fleet of 6 747-400s at the moment. I bet that 2000s-built Jumbos would be good for them.

With Qantas's 787 order, were the first 15 options (now all used up) at the bargain price?

I've calculated the seats for the 11 747s that they had prior to the 787s and the 14 787s and there is a bit of a loss in capacity (some capacity might be added by extra a330 deployed internationally)

Qantas will lose 66 business seats, gain 4 premium economy, lose 616 economy for a total of 678 seats lost with the change.

Now I'm wondering if since there are no more cheap options on the 787 left, will Qantas soon order a larger aircraft with range (a350 or 777x) to fill the gap.

Edit: I just remembered that Qantas has created a few new routes (Per-Lhr and Mel-Sfo) so the seat loss capacity is likely to be greater (even with higher utilisation rates for the 787)

leleko747 wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

It has been a while since the last 747-400 BCF was even converted.

Asiana had a B747-400 Combi converted to full freighter last year, if I remember correctely. At Bedek in Israel.
Yeah, surely the work was easier - the cargo door and half of cargo space were already there - but still is something. If someone wants, it can be done.

Jayafe wrote:

I bet Wamos would be interested in a good deal

My first thoughts aswell! They have a nice fleet of 6 747-400s at the moment. I bet that 2000s-built Jumbos would be good for them.

Especially 400ER's that can haul more weight than a factory 400F.

Pcoder wrote:

With Qantas's 787 order, were the first 15 options (now all used up) at the bargain price?

I've calculated the seats for the 11 747s that they had prior to the 787s and the 14 787s and there is a bit of a loss in capacity (some capacity might be added by extra a330 deployed internationally)

Qantas will lose 66 business seats, gain 4 premium economy, lose 616 economy for a total of 678 seats lost with the change.

Now I'm wondering if since there are no more cheap options on the 787 left, will Qantas soon order a larger aircraft with range (a350 or 777x) to fill the gap.

Edit: I just remembered that Qantas has created a few new routes (Per-Lhr and Mel-Sfo) so the seat loss capacity is likely to be greater (even with higher utilisation rates for the 787)

It isn’t that black and white. Take the PER-LHR route you mention, that replaced an existing A380 service (QF9/10 MEL-DXB-LHR) so that (1) means that capacity has been reduced to LHR, but (2) that frees up 2.5 frames of A380 flying that can be reallocated elsewhere. As it is, that capacity has not been fully reallocated as the A380 fleet will all be going through heavy maintenance, cabin refurbishment and repainting over the next couple of years, but that program will end and they will be back to full strength around 2020... when the 747s are retired.

Similarly if you look at the currently announced changes to the USA you will see that SYD-DFW looses one weekly frequency whereas SYD-SFO gains one frequency. Taking account of seat blocking on DFW-SYD that is close enough a wash in terms of capacity. BNE-LAX-JFK is going from a 747 to 789 later this year, but MEL-LAX/SFO have added a fare bit of capacity, so overall capacity will be up slightly just flowing over different ports.

Then you have the fact that frequencies will be increased on other routes. While there is nothing official, logic would say that we will see 5-7 eeekly frequencies on SYD-SCL and probably 10-14 weekly to JNB split over SYD and PER. That would require more frames than the current schedule. PER-JNB could be an A330, but SYD-SCL would go from needing 1 frame to 1.5-2 frames.

Then you have those A380s coming back eventually. SYD-HKG would probably become a year round A380 circa 2020, replacing the 747 (maybe 3 daily A330 once the new runway is open but that wont be until 2023).

If recent growth in demand continues then I could easily see SYD-TYO become 2 daily which could be done with A330s, meaning that 1.5 frames of 747 flying is freed up. I can envisage one daily SYD-HND mirroring the current times and one daily SYD-NRT with a similar schedule to MEL/BNE-NRT which gives a choice of flight times northbound and an earlier departure from Tokyo southbound (note that during AEDT QF26 doesn’t land until about 10:00 which could be a bit late from some business travellers, who might opt for an earlier departure even if it is from Narita instead of Haneda).

By 2021 Qantas’ network and schedules will probably look quite different to what they do now.

It's going to be incredibly sad to no longer see QF 744s flying around.

Super happy I get to fly them one last time on SYD-JNB-SYD this coming June.

I wonder if JNB could become a night time departure from SYD and morning arrival in JNB in the years to come.

It would then fit nicely between a SYD-PER-CDG-PER-SYD-JNB-SYD rotation.

I don’t think the same would work for SCL given the arrival in SCL would be late at night. SCL would likely slot into rotation with HND.

Flyerqf wrote:

I wonder if JNB could become a night time departure from SYD and morning arrival in JNB in the years to come.

A 10pm departure from SYD would mean a 3am arrival into JNB during the summer and 4am during the winter, far too early.

In any case, CDG won't be happening until the end of 2020 at the very earliest if the current fleet plan sticks. They will be replacing 9 active 744s with 8 new 789s (2 this year, 3 next year and 3 in 2020) plus the 1 spare A380 currently tied up with paint/refurbishments.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Then you have the fact that frequencies will be increased on other routes. While there is nothing official, logic would say that we will see 5-7 eeekly frequencies on SYD-SCL and probably 10-14 weekly to JNB split over SYD and PER. That would require more frames than the current schedule. PER-JNB could be an A330, but SYD-SCL would go from needing 1 frame to 1.5-2 frames.

Indeed, the daily B744 SYD-JNB is nearly identical capacity to a daily B789 SYD-JNB and a 4x weekly A332 SYD-PER. The alternative to maintain capacity would be to operate a 5x weekly SYD-JNB A380. The 10x weekly split operation would no doubt be a more competitive product, although the lower frequency would reduce costs.

Flyerqf wrote:

I wonder if JNB could become a night time departure from SYD and morning arrival in JNB in the years to come.

It would then fit nicely between a SYD-PER-CDG-PER-SYD-JNB-SYD rotation.

Keeping in mind the curfew for the moment, departing SYD at 10:55pm would arrive at JNB at 5:00am (4am in summer). If keeping the current departure from JNB at 7:10pm would be an awfully long turnaround for a new aircraft which you would want to keep in the air. So bringing the departure forward, and timing the departure for a 6am arrival in SYD, would mean a 10:15am (9:15am in summer) departure from JNB. 10:15am departure would be possible, barely. You'd still get most of the domestic and regional connections, however, 9:15am in the summer would probably mean missing most of the connections and having to have a much longer turnaround time. So it's not a totally crazy idea!

Revelation wrote:

Let's see if this thread can make the 24 hour mark before someone says. "yeah, but deferred production cost"...

How ironic considering your history with the Superjumbo, the A400M and their respective financials. Boeing dearly needs every order it can get to get out of the hole but unfortunately even these are probably not enough.

Not suggesting it does in any way but.Does this early phasing out of 744's and additional 787's suggest in any way that their confidence in the proposed ULA non stop flights has increased? Probably non relevant but some of these aircaft used to do the destinations involved.

parapente wrote:

Not suggesting it does in any way but.Does this early phasing out of 744's and additional 787's suggest in any way that their confidence in the proposed ULA non stop flights has increased? Probably non relevant but some of these aircaft used to do the destinations involved.

Probably not. The B747-400s are paid off and nearly fully depreciated and as long as fuel prices remained low the acquisition costs of new aircraft meant that the B747-400s were probably more profitable in the short run than new aircraft. However, oil prices have increased from $45 a barrel for Brent Crude a year ago to above $70 at present. This changes the cost equation between paid off and depreciated B747-400s and new B787s. I wouldn't be surprised to see the remaining B747-400 operators start to accelerate their retirement plans for the same reason.

Stitch wrote:

I'm guessing they will go with the 787-9 as an A330-300 replacement when it comes.

QF has already lagged that they are unlikely to take up all 787 rights/options as they are other aircraft (eg. The 797) as more suitable for replacing the bulk of the 332 fleet (which is mostly domestic and shorthaul Asian ops)

evanb wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Then you have the fact that frequencies will be increased on other routes. While there is nothing official, logic would say that we will see 5-7 eeekly frequencies on SYD-SCL and probably 10-14 weekly to JNB split over SYD and PER. That would require more frames than the current schedule. PER-JNB could be an A330, but SYD-SCL would go from needing 1 frame to 1.5-2 frames.

Indeed, the daily B744 SYD-JNB is nearly identical capacity to a daily B789 SYD-JNB and a 4x weekly A332 SYD-PER. The alternative to maintain capacity would be to operate a 5x weekly SYD-JNB A380. The 10x weekly split operation would no doubt be a more competitive product, although the lower frequency would reduce costs.

I thought there was an issue flying SYD/PER to JNB due to Australian ETOPS rules hence why a 4 engine aircraft is used. If I recall correctly a 2 engine aircraft would have to fly more north (closer to land) adding a couple of hours to the trip. This was a few years back so the ETOPS rules might have changed for the B789/A330. Anyone know?

SonaSounds wrote:

I thought there was an issue flying SYD/PER to JNB due to Australian ETOPS rules hence why a 4 engine aircraft is used. If I recall correctly a 2 engine aircraft would have to fly more north (closer to land) adding a couple of hours to the trip. This was a few years back so the ETOPS rules might have changed for the B789/A330. Anyone know?

SYD-JNB would need EDTO/ETOPS 330. The B789 is certified for it, however, the Australian authorities have not allowed it as yet, but the general consensus is that it's a matter of time before it's allowed.

PER-JNB would need only a very slight diversion for EDTO/ETOPS 240. Again, the A330 is certified for it. It's up to the Australian authorities now. (edit: SAA occasionally operate the A332 on PER-JNB).

evanb wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

I thought there was an issue flying SYD/PER to JNB due to Australian ETOPS rules hence why a 4 engine aircraft is used. If I recall correctly a 2 engine aircraft would have to fly more north (closer to land) adding a couple of hours to the trip. This was a few years back so the ETOPS rules might have changed for the B789/A330. Anyone know?

SYD-JNB would need EDTO/ETOPS 330. The B789 is certified for it, however, the Australian authorities have not allowed it as yet, but the general consensus is that it's a matter of time before it's allowed.

PER-JNB would need only a very slight diversion for EDTO/ETOPS 240. Again, the A330 is certified for it. It's up to the Australian authorities now. (edit: SAA occasionally operate the A332 on PER-JNB).

So this is still the case then. I've worked on route forecast before for various destinations, and this issue always comes up with twin engine aircraft based in Australia. While it is approved for pretty much the rest of the world it isn't approved down there although for many years I keep hearing it is supposedly about to be approved. SAA doesn't have to follow the Australian ETOPS rules which has always put Qantas and Virgin Australia at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to route cases like this.

moa999 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

I'm guessing they will go with the 787-9 as an A330-300 replacement when it comes.

QF has already lagged that they are unlikely to take up all 787 rights/options as they are other aircraft (eg. The 797) as more suitable for replacing the bulk of the 332 fleet (which is mostly domestic and shorthaul Asian ops)

I think it would make sense to take up the 787-10 as an A330-300 replacement. The seating capacity of the aircraft aren't too dissimilar and they are designed to serve a similar role. Whilst the A332 is used for domestic, trans Tasman and South East Asia routes that could be replaced well by a theoretical 797, some routes such as flights to HKG, NRT, KIX, PVG, etc which are operated with the A333 are likely suited more to the 787-10. The A330 won't be in the fleet forever and unless they go for a 777 or A350 replacement for the A333, then I'd say a 787-10 replacement isn't a bad option.

SonaSounds wrote:

So this is still the case then. I've worked on route forecast before for various destinations, and this issue always comes up with twin engine aircraft based in Australia. While it is approved for pretty much the rest of the world it isn't approved down there although for many years I keep hearing it is supposedly about to be approved. SAA doesn't have to follow the Australian ETOPS rules which has always put Qantas and Virgin Australia at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to route cases like this.

Well, not that any of us know for sure, but the general consensus is that it's just a matter of time. Qantas has already published draft schedules of the PER-JNB A332 route so I think the consensus is correct.