I don't think there was any issue holding ground. The A380 & 787 fleet decisions were sound. The problem was delays that have now opened the window for all this 777 debate. The 787 is very close to being a 777-200.
Europe is not the end game for Jetstar. Look at AirAsia X pulling off Paris and London. They said from the get-go the routes just needed to break even to enhance the brand and build traffic into AirAsia's short-haul networks. Jetstar doesn't need to do that. It has oneworld carriers feeding its SIN hubs. The larger parent (QF Group) has a presence in Europe via Qantas. AirAsia X's larger parent (MAS-AirAsia, admittedly convoluted and only part owners) have a presence in Europe via MAS. Everyone may want to go to Europe and the continent may seem alluring, but the yields are depressing. Things can change with the 787 & A350, but not by much.
“The initial B787s are just A330 replacements. All they’ll do initially is give us a better cost base than the existing business platform. They won’t give us opportunity for new network structures,” Mr Buchanan said. “You’ll see them go into Singapore, Melbourne, Sydney – all the existing routes.” Mr Buchanan affirmed weight issues were not driving the decision to have B787s takeover existing routes rather than open new ones. “No, nothing to do with weight issues or performance issues. The A330s are going back to Qantas to retire B767s.... It’s a fleet issue.”
Once opportunities do come to open new routes, Jetstar will focus on Asia. “Europe and North America are really network extension opportunities for us. They’re not core market or revenue sources for us as opposed to the core Asian market,” Mr Buchanan said.
Qantas and Jetstar change 787 strategy to support Asian growth and unit cost improvement | CAPA