ikramerica wrote:

Maybe the success of PER-LHR on an aircraft without 300 seats and limited in cargo showed QF that they don't need what they thought they did? Maybe they realized that what they might need is an aircraft that can do it with a few more limitations, but that can also be used on PER-EU/UK flights giving those flights MORE lift? Robbing from peter to pay paul, but in a positive way? Larger fleet of slightly less capable aircraft that can be used effectively on more routes...

I suspect it's a combination of:
(a) what ikramerica said; and
(b) the manufacturers telling QF either (i) they can do what QF is asking but the performance margins will be slim or (ii) they can't get to the specs QF is asking for.

I always had the impression that, with Project Sunrise, QF was pushing the manufacturers to maximise their respective products not because QF was rigid in its requirement for >300 seats and all the fancy bells and whistles (lounges, gyms, etc. that have been mentioned on and off), but to find a spec that will give them the best of both worlds - an aircraft capable of carrying a profitable load nonstop to LHR and JFK, but of also being able to profitably operate to Hong Kong, Japan, China, Singapore, LAX, DFW, etc. I think the B789 has shown QF and the travelling public that this is an achievable goal, given those aircraft will soon be adding HKG to their roster.

SeanM1997 wrote:

Qantas own 4 daily slot pairs at Heathrow. After communication with Qantas, they stated the desire was to use all 4 pairs and launch:
LHR-SYD
LHR-MEL
LHR-PER
LHR-SIN-BNE

The Singapore service needed to be timed for other connecting Qantas flights but operating 3x daily non stop Australia to London would be very impressive

Would be even more impressive if Qantas could pick up an additional pair of slots and operate;
LHR-SYD
LHR-MEL
LHR-BNE
LHR-PER
LHR-SIN-ADL

SeanM1997 wrote:

Qantas own 4 daily slot pairs at Heathrow. After communication with Qantas, they stated the desire was to use all 4 pairs and launch:
LHR-SYD
LHR-MEL
LHR-PER
LHR-SIN-BNE

The Singapore service needed to be timed for other connecting Qantas flights but operating 3x daily non stop Australia to London would be very impressive

This may well be the desire, but it may not be reality for a very long time. I think once both SYD/MEL - LHR are flying daily non stop to LHR (~2022-24), PER will be lucky if its non stop service survives. There seem to be a lot of over exaggeration about what services will be launched by QF will be launched. IMHO it will be very conservative - QF are not the type for rapid international expansion.

smartplane wrote:

If QF can go direct from Melbourne and Sydney, Perth will be gone.

Wouldn't be so sure of that seeing most passenger on PER-LHR are not ex SYD/MEL.
It has been a star performer for the airline.

waoz1 wrote:

smartplane wrote:

If QF can go direct from Melbourne and Sydney, Perth will be gone.

Wouldn't be so sure of that seeing most passenger on PER-LHR are not ex SYD/MEL.
It has been a star performer for the airline.

We DO NOT know that! What we do know is that around 20-25% of passenger continue on to MEL. How many of the 70-75% that do not go on to MEL are PER local O&D and how many are are connecting to SYD, BNE, ADL and other ports? AFAIK we don't know this number, but I'd be surprised if its above 50%.
So we will just have to wait and see what happens to PER when [if] East Coast-LHR takes off.

Gemuser

At the risk of further thread drift, I was talking with someone in the know, and it seems that most passengers ex-Per on the London nonstop choose to go back via an Asian hub, so it's not exactly balanced...yet. A lot can happen in a few years, but I tend to agree that the PER-LHR service would not stand on its own when SYD/MEL-LHR nonstops start.

We have to remember QF were flying A380's between Melbourne and LHR prior to the new Perth routing. As such the underlying demand for MEL-LHR could be far greater than the new stats for the new PER-LHR route suggests.

If it was me I'd fly MEL-HKG-LHR creating a matrix of connecting flights giving passengers as many possible options.

QF742 wrote:

There seem to be a lot of over exaggeration about what services will be launched by QF will be launched. IMHO it will be very conservative - QF are not the type for rapid international expansion.

On the contrary, I think a lot of people are failing to understand what Joyce is saying and doing. SYD-LHR may be an edge case (and it's completely unsurprising that Boeing and Airbus can't give QF an aircraft that can carry a full load of 300 pax and baggage westbound/over the pole on that route).

But London non-stop is part of a wider strategy to transform QF's long haul business - aiming to lock in premium position in the market and boost yields by focusing on ULH non-stop routes to North America and Europe.

This strategy is not something at the margins of QF's business. It's at the core of it. Look at the points of origin and destinations that Joyce has mentioned for non-stop ULH: services out of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth; destinations including New York, Chicago, Rio, London, Paris and Frankfurt on top of the current (ULH) Dallas service. With some combination of these cities (with each pair requiring two aircraft for a daily service) it is easy to project a fleet of 20+ aircraft.

And don't expect the aircraft (whether it's a 778 or A35K) to be anything too exotic. Both aircraft in even their standard spec are inherently a lot longer-ranged than a 789. With a seating configuration/density similar to the 789 (implying ~300 pax) they should be fine carrying full pax both ways on North American routes and LHR-SYD eastbound. Having to block Y seats westbound to London is hardly going to be a problem if they can fill the premium seats. Assume AJ is thinking in terms of a big fleet in a single configuration that will over time take over most/all North American services and the non-stop UK/Europe services. And the A380s will do just fine on Asian trunk routes.

jfk777 wrote:

Which airlines currently operating ultra long haul flights have First Class ? None, that is not by mistake.

Except that that's not true, by any stretch of the imagination.

EK, EY, AI, and CX all offer 16hr+ flights with F.

For the first three, the longest flights in their system all offer F. EY's was for a time the longest flight in the world, with EK second, until recently.

ewt340 wrote:

Yeah, I never thought A350-1000 or B777-8X would be good for them. It's too big for Ultra Long-haul flights. Most of them are pretty thin. A350-900ULR and B787-9 have the optimum capacity for these kind of flights.

Absolutely none of this is based on empirical fact... particularly that part about the "A359ULR" having optimum capacity as a matter of space, seeing as it cannot achieve it's advertised range in a typical service configuration for an aircraft of its size.

yonikasz wrote:

Why did Delta order the 77L?

Because when it ordered them more than a decade ago, with ambitions to fly to the likes of South Africa, India, Australia, etc nonstop... they were (and still are) the 250-300 seater capable of offering by far the highest payload/range combination over such distances.

What they weren't back then, was competitive with 77Ws, which could fly the majority of such ranges with superior per-pax costs, for the airlines who could fill them to yield).

What they aren't today, is (as) competitive as A350s and 787s, which can fly the majority of such ranges with even more superior per-pax costs; with lesser payload, but still more than enough to be optimally desirable.

LAX772LR wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Which airlines currently operating ultra long haul flights have First Class ? None, that is not by mistake.

Except that that's not true, by any stretch of the imagination.

EK, EY, AI, and CX all offer 16hr+ flights with F.

For the first three, the longest flights in their system all offer F. EY's was for a time the longest flight in the world, with EK second, until recently.

ewt340 wrote:

Yeah, I never thought A350-1000 or B777-8X would be good for them. It's too big for Ultra Long-haul flights. Most of them are pretty thin. A350-900ULR and B787-9 have the optimum capacity for these kind of flights.

Absolutely none of this is based on empirical fact... particularly that part about the "A359ULR" having optimum capacity as a matter of space, seeing as it cannot achieve it's advertised range in a typical service configuration for an aircraft of its size.

yonikasz wrote:

Why did Delta order the 77L?

Because when it ordered them more than a decade ago, with ambitions to fly to the likes of South Africa, India, Australia, etc nonstop... they were (and still are) the 250-300 seater capable of offering by far the highest payload/range combination over such distances.

What they weren't back then, was competitive with 77Ws, which could fly the majority of such ranges with superior per-pax costs, for the airlines who could fill them to yield).

What they aren't today, is (as) competitive as A350s and 787s, which can fly the majority of such ranges with even more superior per-pax costs; with lesser payload, but still more than enough to be optimally desirable.

I guess you don't spend much time to properly read comments in this forum. When people said "I never thought" at the beginning of a sentence, then you should understand that it's probably an opinion.

Looking at the top 10 longest schedule flights in the world right now. Most airlines tend to use aircraft the size of B787-9, A350-900 or B777-200LR. 8 of those flights uses these plane. 2 of the other routes use A380.

And the last time I checked, Airbus clearly specified that A350-900ULR would carry less passengers than the standard A350-900.

ewt340 wrote:

I guess you don't spend much time to properly read comments in this forum.

Then guessing, like industry analytics, is clearly not your strong suit.

ewt340 wrote:

When people said "I never thought" at the beginning of a sentence, then you should understand that it's probably an opinion.

Amusing that you seem to believe that factually deficient statements being opinions, somehow exempts them from criticism......

LAX772LR wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

I guess you don't spend much time to properly read comments in this forum.

Then guessing, like industry analytics, is clearly not your strong suit.

ewt340 wrote:

When people said "I never thought" at the beginning of a sentence, then you should understand that it's probably an opinion.

Amusing that you seem to believe that factually deficient statements being opinions, somehow exempts them from criticism......

Did you even read the title of this discussion or read the article?

Your misunderstanding is not my fault. You don't criticize people for your own mistake.

ewt340 wrote:

Did you even read the title of this discussion or read the article?

Your misunderstanding is not my fault. You don't criticize people for your own mistake.

The enquoted can most accurately be summarized as follows:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/word%20salad

tealnz wrote:

But London non-stop is part of a wider strategy to transform QF's long haul business - aiming to lock in premium position in the market and boost yields by focusing on ULH non-stop routes to North America and Europe.

Bingo.

LAX772LR wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Did you even read the title of this discussion or read the article?

Your misunderstanding is not my fault. You don't criticize people for your own mistake.

The enquoted can most accurately be summarized as follows:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/word%20salad

tealnz wrote:

But London non-stop is part of a wider strategy to transform QF's long haul business - aiming to lock in premium position in the market and boost yields by focusing on ULH non-stop routes to North America and Europe.

Bingo.

"Qantas CEO dials back on expectations for Project Sunrise Jet"

That 300 seat in 4 class sounds a bit extreme for Alan Joyce now.

I can see QF going low risk/ high value with a "regular" A350-900/-1000 fleet in the end. If required they can specifiy some -900's as ULR's similar to SQ's. A fleet of the A350-1000's for Pacific & Asian flights would be most important, replacing 744's



Is PER-SYD still as successful as communicated?

The sheerfull "exceeding our expectations" didn't pop a cork with me. Sounded more like promotion. You can use revenue management to artificially boost load factor with connecting passengers, killing margin.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/flights/qantas-defends-perthlondon-passenger-numbers/news-story/d3ab401305ac6897ba9d4240a8e184e1

keesje wrote:

What percentage of the business / flights is SYD/MEL - LHR for QF? At what margins (competing with ME3, SQ and CX)?

Passengers form Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Brisbane, Adelaide or Auckland will make 1 stop anyway.

Anyway 1 stop offers superior flexibility, departure time options and price.

All this to avoid the ~3 hours, doing a shower / Asian food a Silverkris / EK Business lounge after an 11 hour flight.

When reserving 1-1.5 days for travel anyway, that break is really terrible.. I would pay a fortune to avoid it.

travelhound wrote:

I'd suggest QF's international business has more pressing priorities. Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and China are all growth markets that are / will be crying out for increased investment by QF.

Are you campaigning against the nonstop options with a 777-8 because you love airport lounges? I’ve never heard that line of reasoning before. Or is it because you want them to order the A350-1000?

keesje wrote:

I can see QF going low risk/ high value with a "regular" A350-900/-1000 fleet in the end. If required they can specifiy some -900's as ULR's similar to SQ's. A fleet of the A350-1000's for Pacific & Asian flights would be most important, replacing 744's



Is PER-SYD still as successful as communicated?

The sheerfull "exceeding our expectations" didn't pop a cork with me. Sounded more like promotion. You can use revenue management to artificially boost load factor with connecting passengers, killing margin.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/flights/qantas-defends-perthlondon-passenger-numbers/news-story/d3ab401305ac6897ba9d4240a8e184e1

I may be naive, but I tend to believe what the airline executives say.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I may be naive, but I tend to believe what the airline executives say.

Then better be flexible, ready to adjust all the time. They tend to change their minds, and communicate what helps them short term, keeping their longer term strategy under the table. E.g. the airline executive in question, Joyce, now dials back on project Sunrise expectations. It has nothing to do with your beloved 777-8.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-dials-back-project-sunrise-expectations

keesje wrote:

I can see QF going low risk/ high value with a "regular" A350-900/-1000 fleet in the end. If required they can specifiy some -900's as ULR's similar to SQ's. A fleet of the A350-1000's for Pacific & Asian flights would be most important, replacing 744's



Is PER-SYD still as successful as communicated?

The sheerfull "exceeding our expectations" didn't pop a cork with me. Sounded more like promotion. You can use revenue management to artificially boost load factor with connecting passengers, killing margin.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/flights/qantas-defends-perthlondon-passenger-numbers/news-story/d3ab401305ac6897ba9d4240a8e184e1

Sounds pretty reasonable. Assuming A330 and A380 would stay in their fleet for at least a decade to come.

So I guess, A330, A350, A380 and B787. With A330 and A380 being retired in mid-late 2020's and early 2030's

ewt340 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I can see QF going low risk/ high value with a "regular" A350-900/-1000 fleet in the end. If required they can specifiy some -900's as ULR's similar to SQ's. A fleet of the A350-1000's for Pacific & Asian flights would be most important, replacing 744's



Is PER-SYD still as successful as communicated?

The sheerfull "exceeding our expectations" didn't pop a cork with me. Sounded more like promotion. You can use revenue management to artificially boost load factor with connecting passengers, killing margin.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/flights/qantas-defends-perthlondon-passenger-numbers/news-story/d3ab401305ac6897ba9d4240a8e184e1

Sounds pretty reasonable. Assuming A330 and A380 would stay in their fleet for at least a decade to come.

So I guess, A330, A350, A380 and B787. With A330 and A380 being retired in mid-late 2020's and early 2030's

I think most people see the 28 ship A330-200/-300 fleet being replaced with 787-9 overtime. There have just <10 787s in service today, a far cry from the 115 orders / option / purchase rights in 2004. I can see the 787 fleet growing to 40-50 in the next decade.

I must have somehow read a completely different article from the hot link.......There was little to nothing negative in it what so ever in fact Joyce should be 'jumping with joy'.Furthermore the article advises waiting a week when fuller numbers will be available.
I do wonder whether they have a timing/scheduling issue though.I know one person who has has to circle twice for an hour both times because they got to the UK too early!They could probably knock an hour off safely if they wanted to.
If one is looking for holes in the non stop debate then I would accept that it appears that 'Y' might be an issue.Singapore appear to know this and Qantas seems to be confirming it.Not that it hits profitability much because it doesn't But non the less they do appear to accept that for price conscious people,paying less and stopping over may have too bigger attraction.
Not gonna knock the fabulous 787 but frankly sitting in a 17.0" seat with rods for armrests for that length of time wouldn't excite me when I could pay less and get an 18.5" seat on a silent spacious A388 (and do some bloody shopping I suppose).
But all in all ( and seriously) this is good learning stuff for Qantas.Perhaps this is why they are going hazy on the 300 min pax number.They may not be so confident about filling Y whether it be Perth,Melbourne or Sydney.

For going direct LHR-PER you pay $3000 extra, to avoid a stop in SIN, DXB or BKK, for a business class seat.

https://www.google.nl/flights?lite=0#flt=/m/04jpl.PER.2018-12-06*PER./m/04jpl.2018-12-10;c:EUR;e:1;sc:b;sd:1;t:f

I would plan an extra holiday for that money. Not reduce my travel time from 20 to 17 hrs.

That's $1000 per hour..

Time is money, hence why direct will always be more expensive. You can recover the $3000 back but not the time.

Also, majority of business class passengers are not the ones paying for their seat.

I find it interesting that the 778 hasn’t been firmed yet (design). They must know exactly what the options are for this derivative, if built as marketed so far.

getluv wrote:

Time is money, hence why direct will always be more expensive. You can recover the $3000 back but not the time.

Also, majority of business class passengers are not the ones paying for their seat.

As a boss I'm not blind either. If it's a weak story, it is.

texl1649 wrote:

I find it interesting that the 778 hasn’t been firmed yet (design). They must know exactly what the options are for this derivative, if built as marketed so far.

A 779 frame is mostly built already, so the potential changes are limited to tinkering around the edges. Still, that tinkering could produce some interesting results. At the current 351.5 t MTOW, Boeing is projecting 8700 nm range in a dense 365-seat configuration. A Qantas-style configuration of around 250 seats would add around 1.5 hours of range to that, getting to around 9400 nm, so far without an aux tank. An increase in MTOW to 355 t would add about another 250 nm range. 9650 nm is probably good enough for SYD-LHR most of the time, but it's close.

Further range increases are harder. Empty weight reductions would pay off but of course are always extremely hard. An aux tank would allow more fuel volume, but at a steep cost, probably requiring a further MTOW increase which will present pavement loading issues. It will be interesting to see if Boeing's final proposal takes the weight reduction approach or the big beefy flying fuel tank approach.

seabosdca wrote:

A 779 frame is mostly built already, so the potential changes are limited to tinkering around the edges. Still, that tinkering could produce some interesting results. At the current 351.5 t MTOW, Boeing is projecting 8700 nm range in a dense 365-seat configuration. A Qantas-style configuration of around 250 seats would add around 1.5 hours of range to that, getting to around 9400 nm, so far without an aux tank. An increase in MTOW to 355 t would add about another 250 nm range. 9650 nm is probably good enough for SYD-LHR most of the time, but it's close.

Usually the predicted range is on the conservative side, so perhaps once flight testing begins it will be better than expected. I'm looking forward to seeing the real data - as long as they haven't made a total balls up of it, the range numbers should be higher and fit even better. Time will tell!

keesje wrote:

getluv wrote:

Time is money, hence why direct will always be more expensive. You can recover the $3000 back but not the time.

Also, majority of business class passengers are not the ones paying for their seat.

As a boss I'm not blind either. If it's a weak story, it is.

I hate using generalities, but it is well established in aviation that people pay more for nonstop service. You have a weak story arguing against nonstop service

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I may be naive, but I tend to believe what the airline executives say.

Then better be flexible, ready to adjust all the time. They tend to change their minds, and communicate what helps them short term, keeping their longer term strategy under the table. E.g. the airline executive in question, Joyce, now dials back on project Sunrise expectations. It has nothing to do with your beloved 777-8.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-dials-back-project-sunrise-expectations

If Qantas says the Perth to London route is doing well, I am far more likely to believe Qantas than someone on the internet casting shade with no evidence behind it. Joyce has a whole lot more credibility than you. Why do you say I love the 777-8?

texl1649 wrote:

I find it interesting that the 778 hasn’t been firmed yet (design). They must know exactly what the options are for this derivative, if built as marketed so far.

Maybe a delay with the 778, as the FAA review fail safes and documentation of behaviour 'masking' software per Lion 737, which presumably is also used by the 787 and 747.

keesje wrote:

For going direct LHR-PER you pay $3000 extra, to avoid a stop in SIN, DXB or BKK, for a business class seat.

https://www.google.nl/flights?lite=0#flt=/m/04jpl.PER.2018-12-06*PER./m/04jpl.2018-12-10;c:EUR;e:1;sc:b;sd:1;t:f

I would plan an extra holiday for that money. Not reduce my travel time from 20 to 17 hrs.

That's $1000 per hour..

I just looked at some Australia point if sale numbers and fares for the nonstop flight are as much as $5000 over one stop options. Fares follow demand so that means people are willing to pay a very high premium for the nonstop PER-LHR flight. I can see why Qantas kicked off the whole project to begin with. There is money to be made.

When not flying ultra long haul, the higher weight planes will help with freight since we know cargo is super important Perhaps the 777x can fulfill the ultra long haul while also having enough payload to carry more freight SYD-LAX. I am sure Qantas would be more than pleased to reduce their contract with Atlas Air who is flying 747Fs on behalf of Qantas.

Newbiepilot wrote:

If Qantas says the Perth to London route is doing well, I am far more likely to believe Qantas than someone on the internet casting shade with no evidence behind it. Joyce has a whole lot more credibility than you. Why do you say I love the 777-8?

There is an information asymmetry between shareholders and Mr. Joyce. As he is probably motivated by his compensation, it is doubtful that if PER-LHR were doing bad, he would have an incentive to admit it (throw in the fact that Project Sunrise can be interpreted as a derivation of PER-LHR). Just think about how many times CEOs have boasted about how great everything is and only to be up a creek without a paddle a few months later (take WOW Air as a current example).

Newbiepilot wrote:

Perhaps the 777x can fulfill the ultra long haul while also having enough payload to carry more freight SYD-LAX.

The 777-8 should be able to carry maximum structural payload, or close to it, on Australia East Coast-US West Coast routes.

If that were important to Qantas, though, you would have thought they would have ended up with 777-200LRs.

seabosdca wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Perhaps the 777x can fulfill the ultra long haul while also having enough payload to carry more freight SYD-LAX.

The 777-8 should be able to carry maximum structural payload, or close to it, on Australia East Coast-US West Coast routes.

If that were important to Qantas, though, you would have thought they would have ended up with 777-200LRs.

Good point. I think Qantas has shared that the A380 decision wasnt the best for them, but getting 777s a decade ago may have been too costly. The 787s appear to be working out well

seabosdca wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I find it interesting that the 778 hasn’t been firmed yet (design). They must know exactly what the options are for this derivative, if built as marketed so far.

A 779 frame is mostly built already, so the potential changes are limited to tinkering around the edges. Still, that tinkering could produce some interesting results. At the current 351.5 t MTOW, Boeing is projecting 8700 nm range in a dense 365-seat configuration. A Qantas-style configuration of around 250 seats would add around 1.5 hours of range to that, getting to around 9400 nm, so far without an aux tank. An increase in MTOW to 355 t would add about another 250 nm range. 9650 nm is probably good enough for SYD-LHR most of the time, but it's close.

Further range increases are harder. Empty weight reductions would pay off but of course are always extremely hard. An aux tank would allow more fuel volume, but at a steep cost, probably requiring a further MTOW increase which will present pavement loading issues. It will be interesting to see if Boeing's final proposal takes the weight reduction approach or the big beefy flying fuel tank approach.

250 seats in 4 class configurations seem too low for B777-8.

According to the pdf file Boeing release regarding the seating capacity, B777-9 able to carry 8F 49C and 292Y. The seat map shows how the premium cabin took almost half of the cabin area of the plane. They also use the Apex suites for the business class configurations.
If we consider the possibility for B777-8. It seems like the seating count would be closer to 280 pax more or less. Unless they went with a really high premium cabin.

It could probably reach London, but no cargo whatsoever.

DGVT wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

If Qantas says the Perth to London route is doing well, I am far more likely to believe Qantas than someone on the internet casting shade with no evidence behind it. Joyce has a whole lot more credibility than you. Why do you say I love the 777-8?

There is an information asymmetry between shareholders and Mr. Joyce. As he is probably motivated by his compensation, it is doubtful that if PER-LHR were doing bad, he would have an incentive to admit it (throw in the fact that Project Sunrise can be interpreted as a derivation of PER-LHR). Just think about how many times CEOs have boasted about how great everything is and only to be up a creek without a paddle a few months later (take WOW Air as a current example).

Are you seriously suggesting that with an average of some 92-94% load factor and a big price premium for both Y and Cover one-stop options (if you ever bother to do your own research) QF never makes money and never will simply because your "information asymmetry" assumption? Please enlighten me with your logic and why all these airlines bother doing ULRs at all.

Michael

eamondzhang wrote:

DGVT wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

If Qantas says the Perth to London route is doing well, I am far more likely to believe Qantas than someone on the internet casting shade with no evidence behind it. Joyce has a whole lot more credibility than you. Why do you say I love the 777-8?

There is an information asymmetry between shareholders and Mr. Joyce. As he is probably motivated by his compensation, it is doubtful that if PER-LHR were doing bad, he would have an incentive to admit it (throw in the fact that Project Sunrise can be interpreted as a derivation of PER-LHR). Just think about how many times CEOs have boasted about how great everything is and only to be up a creek without a paddle a few months later (take WOW Air as a current example).

Are you seriously suggesting that with an average of some 92-94% load factor and a big price premium for both Y and Cover one-stop options (if you ever bother to do your own research) QF never makes money and never will simply because your "information asymmetry" assumption? Please enlighten me with your logic and why all these airlines bother doing ULRs at all.

Michael

I think you are mixing something up. I didn't say PER-LHR is doing bad or that it never makes money. I said that if PER-LHR would be doing bad, Joyce wouldn't necessarily be very compelled to admit that.

keesje wrote:

getluv wrote:

Time is money, hence why direct will always be more expensive. You can recover the $3000 back but not the time.

Also, majority of business class passengers are not the ones paying for their seat.

As a boss I'm not blind either. If it's a weak story, it is.

You will know then that companies have corporate accounts with airlines or agents and rarely pay the quoted figures you see on the airline’s website or google flights.

getluv wrote:

keesje wrote:

getluv wrote:

Time is money, hence why direct will always be more expensive. You can recover the $3000 back but not the time.

Also, majority of business class passengers are not the ones paying for their seat.

As a boss I'm not blind either. If it's a weak story, it is.

You will know then that companies have corporate accounts with airlines or agents and rarely pay the quoted figures you see on the airline’s website or google flights.

Off topic Still the value / pricing can differ and every trip is different. Agents / contracts / loyalty often drives up pricing instead of savings, if you get lazy. Sometimes a day earlier in a week-end + hotel, or a stop enabling a better seat is way cheaper. I try to reward cost saving / value adding instead of simply sending in the request to the agency. A little creavity pays off for employee & employer.

seabosdca wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I find it interesting that the 778 hasn’t been firmed yet (design). They must know exactly what the options are for this derivative, if built as marketed so far.

A 779 frame is mostly built already, so the potential changes are limited to tinkering around the edges. Still, that tinkering could produce some interesting results. At the current 351.5 t MTOW, Boeing is projecting 8700 nm range in a dense 365-seat configuration. A Qantas-style configuration of around 250 seats would add around 1.5 hours of range to that, getting to around 9400 nm, so far without an aux tank. An increase in MTOW to 355 t would add about another 250 nm range. 9650 nm is probably good enough for SYD-LHR most of the time, but it's close.

Further range increases are harder. Empty weight reductions would pay off but of course are always extremely hard. An aux tank would allow more fuel volume, but at a steep cost, probably requiring a further MTOW increase which will present pavement loading issues. It will be interesting to see if Boeing's final proposal takes the weight reduction approach or the big beefy flying fuel tank approach.

That’s what I assume as well, generally, but the lack of finalization makes me wonder if they’d consider any “minor” fuse length adjustments if needed/allowed based on how the 779 comes out (with engines of course). Who knows though, maybe they’ll try something exotic (common floor beams with a freighter version?) if it brings in a key order, or perhaps a stabilizer tank. They’ve been studying ‘tweaks’ for over a year now, so some of it has me curious if they are really just tweaks for the 8x, or if it could be stuff to be incorporated into an eventual 10x, from the ‘’smallest” family member, being an LR (fuel tankage, wing tweaks, landing gear revisions, etc).

DGVT wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

If Qantas says the Perth to London route is doing well, I am far more likely to believe Qantas than someone on the internet casting shade with no evidence behind it. Joyce has a whole lot more credibility than you. Why do you say I love the 777-8?

There is an information asymmetry between shareholders and Mr. Joyce. As he is probably motivated by his compensation, it is doubtful that if PER-LHR were doing bad, he would have an incentive to admit it (throw in the fact that Project Sunrise can be interpreted as a derivation of PER-LHR). Just think about how many times CEOs have boasted about how great everything is and only to be up a creek without a paddle a few months later (take WOW Air as a current example).

There is a what??? Mr JOYCE (yes, he has earned that respect) is not a boastful airline CEO. You can't give examples when trying to compare apples with oranges or is it strawberries with grapes!!

keesje wrote:

getluv wrote:

keesje wrote:

As a boss I'm not blind either. If it's a weak story, it is.

You will know then that companies have corporate accounts with airlines or agents and rarely pay the quoted figures you see on the airline’s website or google flights.

Off topic

Then why did you bring the google prices up for J class?

keesje wrote:

Still the value / pricing can differ and every trip is different. Agents / contracts / loyalty often drives up pricing instead of savings, if you get lazy. Sometimes a day earlier in a week-end + hotel, or a stop enabling a better seat is way cheaper. I try to reward cost saving / value adding instead of simply sending in the request to the agency. A little creavity pays off for employee & employer.

You obviously are blind to multinational companies, the way they conduct business, their travel policies and employee perks. $2-3k difference is not an impediment when you consider you could be paying that by the hour for a consultant. In any event, QF's load factor on PER-LHR in premium classes is in the 90% range so their strategy is working. And as I have said in this thread, QF isn't targetting the entire market, just the cream of the crop.

keesje wrote:

getluv wrote:

keesje wrote:

As a boss I'm not blind either. If it's a weak story, it is.

You will know then that companies have corporate accounts with airlines or agents and rarely pay the quoted figures you see on the airline’s website or google flights.

Off topic Still the value / pricing can differ and every trip is different. Agents / contracts / loyalty often drives up pricing instead of savings, if you get lazy. Sometimes a day earlier in a week-end + hotel, or a stop enabling a better seat is way cheaper. I try to reward cost saving / value adding instead of simply sending in the request to the agency. A little creavity pays off for employee & employer.

From the original article:

The airline is already talking with seatmakers regarding new designs for the ultra-long flights
“to see what kind of a step change we can create for our customers,” Qantas International CEO Alison Webster told Australia Business Traveller earlier this year.

However, this rethink could see the Project Sunrise jets shaped along the premium-heavy lines of the Boeing 787s and place more emphasis on premium seating which attracts higher fares.


The focus appears to have shifted from 300 seats to less than that with a focus on business class. The demand for nonstop service which will generate a revenue premium is quite a good story. Not everyone loves airport lounges or transiting in Kazakhstan like you do.

seabosdca wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Perhaps the 777x can fulfill the ultra long haul while also having enough payload to carry more freight SYD-LAX.

The 777-8 should be able to carry maximum structural payload, or close to it, on Australia East Coast-US West Coast routes.

If that were important to Qantas, though, you would have thought they would have ended up with 777-200LRs.

It's not important to QF and how much freight ANY aircraft can carry on Australia East Coast-US West Coast routes is not particularly important to QF and especially to the Atlas contract.
This is because the Atlas aircraft under charter to QF fly North America [manufactured goods] - Australia [food & other primary products] - CHINA [manufactured goods] - North America. So belly cargo NA - Australia & vv is a relatively minor matter.

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Perhaps the 777x can fulfill the ultra long haul while also having enough payload to carry more freight SYD-LAX.

The 777-8 should be able to carry maximum structural payload, or close to it, on Australia East Coast-US West Coast routes.

If that were important to Qantas, though, you would have thought they would have ended up with 777-200LRs.

It's not important to QF and how much freight ANY aircraft can carry on Australia East Coast-US West Coast routes is not particularly important to QF and especially to the Atlas contract.
This is because the Atlas aircraft under charter to QF fly North America [manufactured goods] - Australia [food & other primary products] - CHINA [manufactured goods] - North America. So belly cargo NA - Australia & vv is a relatively minor matter.

Gemuser

If a 777x can carry the cargo, they can potentially reduce the 747F frequency. Cargo is important enough to Qantas to charter freighters, so we know it matters.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

For going direct LHR-PER you pay $3000 extra, to avoid a stop in SIN, DXB or BKK, for a business class seat.

https://www.google.nl/flights?lite=0#flt=/m/04jpl.PER.2018-12-06*PER./m/04jpl.2018-12-10;c:EUR;e:1;sc:b;sd:1;t:f

I would plan an extra holiday for that money. Not reduce my travel time from 20 to 17 hrs.

That's $1000 per hour..

I just looked at some Australia point if sale numbers and fares for the nonstop flight are as much as $5000 over one stop options. Fares follow demand so that means people are willing to pay a very high premium for the nonstop PER-LHR flight. I can see why Qantas kicked off the whole project to begin with. There is money to be made.

When not flying ultra long haul, the higher weight planes will help with freight since we know cargo is super important Perhaps the 777x can fulfill the ultra long haul while also having enough payload to carry more freight SYD-LAX. I am sure Qantas would be more than pleased to reduce their contract with Atlas Air who is flying 747Fs on behalf of Qantas.

It is fine selecting dates to mount this argument however for the one mounting the argument on prices on LHR-PER in the first week of December 2 of the 3 transit points will have plenty of available seats so to fill those seats they will need to discount them to try and fill them. Where EK is concerned the 77W EK424/425 rotation is treated as a freight run with paying passengers a bonus

keesje wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I can see QF going low risk/ high value with a "regular" A350-900/-1000 fleet in the end. If required they can specifiy some -900's as ULR's similar to SQ's. A fleet of the A350-1000's for Pacific & Asian flights would be most important, replacing 744's



Is PER-SYD still as successful as communicated?

The sheerfull "exceeding our expectations" didn't pop a cork with me. Sounded more like promotion. You can use revenue management to artificially boost load factor with connecting passengers, killing margin.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/flights/qantas-defends-perthlondon-passenger-numbers/news-story/d3ab401305ac6897ba9d4240a8e184e1

Sounds pretty reasonable. Assuming A330 and A380 would stay in their fleet for at least a decade to come.

So I guess, A330, A350, A380 and B787. With A330 and A380 being retired in mid-late 2020's and early 2030's

I think most people see the 28 ship A330-200/-300 fleet being replaced with 787-9 overtime. There have just <10 787s in service today, a far cry from the 115 orders / option / purchase rights in 2004. I can see the 787 fleet growing to 40-50 in the next decade.

Qantas has been on record and said they are not likely to use all options and purchase rights. They have expressed an interest in replacing the A333's with 787-10's. They have also been quite vocal on the 797 which would replace the A332 fleet. They have also stated that flying the 787 on domestic routes, the economics don't stack up, nor does the A330. Currently they have 7 789's in service with the 7th only entering service 48 hours ago and the 8th to be delivered in the coming days.

jfk777 wrote:

Qantas need First only on the A380.

How would that happen; an A-380 with all first class seats?Going to be some unhappy passengers on that last row on the lower level.

Braniff1 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Qantas need First only on the A380.

How would that happen; an A-380 with all first class seats?Going to be some unhappy passengers on that last row on the lower level.

The most likely interpretation of that sentence construction is that the only aircraft on which QF 'need' to deploy First is the A380, not that QF should deploy First-only A380s.

Newbiepilot [Reply94]
I think you missed the point. The cargo flow on the Atlas charters is one way North America-Australia-China-North America. My understanding is that QF fifth freedom rights China to North America are for FREIGHT ONLY! So belly cargo is irrelevant to the charter operations, belly cargo Australia - North America is currently sufficient for demand, I doubt cargo capacity will be a major consideration for the Project Sunrise aircraft, a consideration certainly but not a major one.

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

Newbiepilot [Reply94]
I think you missed the point. The cargo flow on the Atlas charters is one way North America-Australia-China-North America. My understanding is that QF fifth freedom rights China to North America are for FREIGHT ONLY! So belly cargo is irrelevant to the charter operations, belly cargo Australia - North America is currently sufficient for demand, I doubt cargo capacity will be a major consideration for the Project Sunrise aircraft, a consideration certainly but not a major one.

Gemuser

The two 747Fs mostly fly North America to Australia via Hawaii.