Not true.
A PER/LHR pattern is longer than a SYD/DFW
So as an example Using a DFW pattern that's more conservative than a PER/LHR.
Non 787 you would get 39.72 credit hours plus 15.13 hours overtime.
That's 54.9 credit hours paid per trip.
787 EA you only get the stick hours of 32.4. 787 you get no overtime.
Without night credits 787 you get 7.32 hours less (39.72 Credit hours with night credits vs 32.4 stick)
These figures would look worse on a PER/LHR pattern.
On this example It's 69% less paid hours per trip on the 787. The higher hourly rate is not enough to compensate for the loss of overtime and night credits.
Let's say for example the hourly rate was $100 on the 787. That would be $3240 per trip.
The hourly rate on existing types could be only $59 or nearly half and still earn the same. Eg 54.9 CREDIT hours x $59 per credit hour= $3240
So the higher hourly rate definitely does not compensate. If you compare A330 rates for Captains or even 767 vs 787 stick hour higher rate it's significantly less. I remember Wayne Kearns complaining that the hourly rate was far to high in Short Haul. What he knew but didn't admit was that SH pilots often did 12 hours duty for 4-5 hours pay so the hourly rate was irrelevant.
If the 787 were flying Asia trips with no overtime you claw a little back from the losses on the ULR routes. But for Qantas the 787 flies ultra long thin routes. The longest Qantas has ever flown.
Alan's a mathematician after all. Pilots have been fooled by the appearance of a bigger number that results in significantly less money in your pocket.
Nothing can be changed now and it's a fantastic achievement for Qantas. I think Alan Joyce is smarter than people give him credit for. The savings are massive and the productivity significantly improved without night credits.