Qantas and the 787-900

[Transition Layer]

Sounds like Short Haul 😜

[Wingspar]

Jetsbest, you are spot on the money!
All the support functions of the award(WD) are excessive.
Add to that what happens when QF stuff up.
You fill out a form, send it in, gets scrutinised then sent back to you rejected.
Why?
Because there is so much grey in the award(WD) they have taken a different view.
So now you called up admin staff wasting their time and yours only to be frustrated by what seems a ridiculous decision.
Then you call AIPA who then calls up a series of admin staff with no progress.
The matter is then taken up with Flt Ops management who consider the risk in continuing with this stance of the admin staff/industrial manager.
Then a decision is made maybe to your benefit or not, irrelevant really because it is a waste of resources for everyone.
After all your a pilot and are employed to fly planes.
This whole process has taken up the time of half a dozen people.
How many times has this happened to you in your time at QF?
And why?
The award.
It's so complex and grey it's not funny.
It has protections yes, but smarts will keep those while clearing up the messy bits!

[Jackneville]

Spot on Curtains ! , thay is exactly what they did to the Cabin Crew.

It would not surprise me if the LH fleet of 2018 comprised of 787's and
A330's.......Only.

[Wingspar]

Also, sorry but I'm on a a rant.
The company knowing this will frustrate your efforts in the hope you will give up by creating processes that are tedious and time consuming.
People connect anyone?
Sorry People Services!
I bet the title change required a business case, risk analysis by God knows how many people?
OK, rant over.
Almost 9am for therapy session!

[hotnhigh]

Geez, you people.... In a tizz about terms and conditions.
It's a simple fix, lets just have another flight ops reorganisation along with another few power points to highlight the changes.
After all, the 38 we've had this last twelve months have worked wonders.

Did someone mention process simplification?:D:D:D

[CurtainTwitcher]

"Every battle is won or lost before it's ever fought."
-- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
-- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The companies leverage is not as strong as many believe it to be. Belief in the opponents strength or weakness will be a very important factor in the minds of those who will vote on the next agreement. The company needs to convince the you that you weak & defeated before the vote.

The company has carried a very large surplus of pilots across the entire group for an extended period of time. This occurred for a variety of reasons, age extensions, delayed deliveries, duplicated flying by new entities etc. Some of this was foreseeable, some not. However, the more intriguing observation is the way management have responded to the surplus. There have been some MOU transfers, VR & LWOP, but for the most part the surplus it appears to simply have been accepted. Why?

If pilots were to be made redundant due to a surplus, surely it would have been done at the start of this process, not the end? It has cost hundreds of millions of dollars over the last decade or so to carry surplus pilots on the books.

There are other possibilities. One is the company has a legal advise safely buried under lock and key that says it cannot be make mainline pilots redundant given the way it has handed flying to other internal group entities employing outside the group. They would not be required to disclose this advice, even if it did exists.

Another one is they anticipated using the pilots but delivery delays were longer than they anticipated.

I am simply looking at the actions of management, and attempting to infer motives & agenda's, whilst also being cognisant of Hanlon's razor.

The company is clearly playing the rumour-mongering game about "other entities". That is their job F.U.D - Fear Uncertainty & Doubt.

However, stop and consider what would happen the day after the 787 flying is given away (assuming it were even possible under the integration agreement)? How would management deal with the continuing surplus? Could they make a large number of pilots redundant under these circumstances? And if they could, why haven't they already done it?

As the Sun Tzu quotes illustrate, the Art of war is to not fighting at all. It is to convince your opponent they are defeated before the fight, to surrender & submit peacefully.

The company needs to convince you, it needs to control your decision, for to believe in your heart-of-hearts, to your very core that acquiescence is your only choice. It is to convince you that at NO vote to a crap deal is a career destroying move.

Consider any deal for a new type carefully, and how it may affect you for a very long time, no matter how remote that possibility may appear now. You don't need to take a crap first offer to "secure the flying" & hope to improve T&C's later (see the Jetstar EBA - it won't happen). The next agreement will be a watershed, a pivot point in history. Given the likely changes in fleet, there is no "B Scaling" someone else. Pilots will get to live with the full consequences of their own choices. This is the biggie.


History says you have more leverage than management would have you believe, if for no other reason than your continued employment.

[FFRATS]

There was strong rumours about JQ internationals' A330's (QF's actually...) being flown by external contract company, South African pilots etc when the 'Wide Body' was added to the JQ EBA?

All turned out to be crap and just helped Oldmeadow get the lowest rate for the company.

FFRATS

[Jetsbest]

You've focused on a relatively small part of what I wrote. I also said;

I just regret that QF management seem either unwilling or incapable of describing, with real incontrovertible facts, where they want to get to in order to 'move forward' with the pilots.

The pilots did not write the L/H award in a vacuum. Every clause & provision is there because the company wanted AND/or agreed to it over many years of negotiation. I lament my doubts that the company can ever honestly state the whole truth but if they want pilots to "buy into" an understanding of;
a) what management see as the most important problems to be addressed,
b) the benchmarks being aspired-to,
c) the fixes imagined to achieve what they think is necessary, and then
d) clear plans for the future once success is reached,
they will have to do much better at explaining themselves.

To repeat myself;

... everything, even now with all the urgency, sounds like spin, posturing, scare-mongering and disingenuous contrivance because, evidently, the truth cannot sustain the assertions being inferred.:rolleyes:

Sad really.

[fearcampaign]

Want to think long and hard about selling the farm in boom times.

Whilst it's an easy one liner to say it won't affect other types or I'm alright Jack it won't affect me, is so naive.

Especially as the 787 will replace both the 747 and probably most of the A330 fleet in time.

What happens if you get RINed off any other QF type to the 787? Think you'll keep your Terms and Conditions.

Extremely dangerous.

If we were losing 2.6 billion then perhaps a different story.

Qantas are trying to rush a deal before the full year results and profit upgrades as we profit from the full effects of a 50% plus fuel price plunge.
5000 people sacked, yields up, dollars down. Hardly crisis times. What's the share price now? 90cents?

Funny as for years they dragged EBAs on and on and on.

But perhaps they have seen the follies of the past, and just want to sign up their beloved and treasured pilots ASAP to make you all feel warm and fuzzy.

Alan loved you all along. He just wanted to see you commit self harm first.

Who's going to be the highest bidder in the race to the bottom.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Tuner 2]

Mate, anyone with at least half a brain can see that there are obvious issues with different T&Cs and the consequences of a RIN or otherwise ending up involuntarily on a new type and this is being discussed with the company.

The company is keeping the $40-50m cost of each 747 D-check up its sleeve as the excuse to blame the pilots if the deal doesn't come off in time. The other issue is that oil is freakishly low and if (when) it goes back to $110 per barrel then we (international) will likely be losing money again. I reckon most guys are more than open minded to restructuring the agreement to avoid the massive spikes in unit costs on long sectors, provided that the overall take home pay is reasonably maintained. The traditional overtime sectors may end up being the junior trips!

[C441]

Alan loved you all along. He just wanted to see you commit self harm first.
No he didn't and still doesn't.

But what he does see is the share price at worst, holding its current position or growing as long as there's no threat of industrial action.

I'd be feeling reasonably keen to avoid confrontation and thus hurrying the negotiations too if the value of my bonus was tied to the share price.

[FYSTI]

The other issue is that oil is freakishly low and if (when) it goes back to $110 per barrel then we (international) will likely be losing money again

What does the data say?


For more information see Annual Average Oil Prices in Table Form (http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp).
The red line on the chart shows oil prices adjusted for inflation in January 2014 dollars. The black line indicates the nominal price (in other words the price you would have actually paid at the time).Current prices as of December 17th 2014 are $49.50 down significantly from recent highs but still above the average inflation adjusted price of $41.70 from 1946 - 2014.

source: InflationData: Historical Oil Prices Chart (http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp)

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart_small.jpg

[fearcampaign]

FYSTI,

You make a very good point.
Oil is currently in oversupply. Shale production in the USA is still high.
Oil is forecast to stay low for a considerable time.
The whole point of the 787 is the lower maintenance cost AND lower fuel burn should I fact the unexpected happen and prices rise again.
That alone will be the future proofing of QF.

Pilot salaries are not the make or break here. They are 1-5% of the overall cost.
Im not suggesting some win wins not be considered.
Just don't think it wise to sell the farm at the start of a big turnaround.
There is no rush, unless your Qantas.

[Tuner 2]

Average inflation adjusted prices do not account for reduced supply - hence the growth of shale oil etc - becasue they are only adjusted for INFLATION and not for supply source availability. There is a reason that countries like the USA are trying to boost domestic sources of oil. The Saudis have learnt from history and want to starve these guys out of the game with their cost base of $10/barrel. That is the single reason proces are at current levels - because the Saudis are choosing to maintain OPEC output for their own selfish, long term reasons and they could change their minds at anytime. Your data also doesn't adjust for increasing future demand for oil with the emergence of China, India and other countries' middle classes. That's why I'd rather go with my future scenario of oil heading back towards $100 than your 'inflation adjusted' figure from the past. It's a nice graph looking BACK, but I don't think it tells us much looking FORWARD. Why don't you start your graph even further back at the year 1800 so the average price oil is 5 bucks? So what? It would just been even more irrelevant.

Anyway I think this is meant to be about the long haul EBA...

Airlines typically operate on proft margins of less than 4% (http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2014-12-10-01.aspx) and labour costs are one of the few major differences, since fuel and aircraft costs are much less variable between airlines. To that extent, pilots costs absolutely can be the difference between a route being profitable or unprotiable over the medium to long term - we shouldn't stick our heads in the sand about that. That doesn't mean selling the farm though, I do agree, but I don't think we should be militant in not being willing to structure our terms differently to reflect the possibility of more proftiable ULH operations over the next decade or two and I'm bloody sure most pilots feel the same way. There will be plenty of politics to be played and slogans to be thrown around by a small number of senior pilots with this EBA, but in the end the majority will decide.

[fearcampaign]

From the Sydney Morning Herald

"In February, over 2600 members of the Transport Workers Union working at Qantas agreed to the wage freeze in return for commitments that they would continue to work under the existing terms if Qantas creates a new corporate entity for its international business, improved consultation and training provisions and access to long service leave".

TWU got to keep existing terms and conditions with a pay freeze back in September.

[howyoulikethat]

New International Hub being looked at out of Perth using 777x/A350 to open up Europe!
Jetstar to get remaining 789's!
"The futures so bright gotta wear shades"

[bdcer]

Here we go again.....What's your source howyoulikethat? I reckon we should have to substantiate any rumours with a source (other than 'from a mate who would know'!). :)

[Keg]

The 789s can do the same out of Perth. Not sure where JQ would fly 50 789s :rolleyes:

[OneDotLow]

Based on current profitability measures.... Pretty much anywhere in the world really!

Bourke to Halls Ck
Mt Gambier to Napier
Katherine to Mt Hagen

Ok, ok. I'll stop giving them all the good ideas.;)

[73to91]

10 months since the last post.

Qantas 787-9s likely to fly MEL-DFW | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/01/26/qantas-787-9s-said-to-offer-dreamy-comfy-235-seat-count/)

There are credible rumours that the seat count in the Qantas Boeing 787-9s due from the end of 2017 will be a low, and comfortable 235, and Melbourne-Dallas will be one of the routes.

Another new route mentioned is Perth-London, presumably via Dubai, although with improved bad weather landing systems at the Perth end, non-stop flights eastbound mightn’t be out of the question.


These are among the details heard in informed gossip. The real announcement is believed to be made this April, at least at this stage, although there is another high visibility option for Qantas to provide details when it announces its anticipated record first half year profit result on 23 February.


According to information the configuration of the 787-9s will be 42 business class seats in a new product, apparently further improved compared to the new J class sleepers now being fitted in the Qantas A330 fleet.


There will be 28 premium economy seats, and 165 in normal economy. It wasn’t known if the economy seats will be the originally intended eight across totally ‘dreamy’ seats Boeing intended for its Dreamliners, or the horrid nine across bum crushers so enthusiastically endorsed by sadistic bean counters for many 787 configurations.


But on a 17 hour flight between Dallas and Melbourne, there is hope, as well as a need on humanitarian grounds, for the seats to as wide as those on the Qantas A380s that fly its Sydney-Dallas Fort Worth dailies.

[griffin one]

Townsville refueller rumor.
744 ER to have cabin reconfig extended life past 2020.
789 SYDNEY LAX MEL LAX SYD DFW SYD-DXB EK only to LHR
A380 Reduced to 7 to 11 hour sectors high yield Asia routes.
A330 Current with new routes opening.
2017/2018 interesting times ahead.

[CurtainTwitcher]

A380 Reduced to 7 to 11 hour sectors high yield Asia routes.
That will damn near kill the barons.

[Offchocks]

That will damn near kill the barons.

Why so, since there would be less time zone shift, I would have thought it would have extended their life expectancy!

[standard unit]

Townsville refueller rumor.
744 ER to have cabin reconfig extended life past 2020.

Does the refueller have any word on whether the last two 744s not to be refitted are getting the new cabin reconfigs ?

[Derfred]

A380 Reduced to 7 to 11 hour sectors high yield Asia routes.

Haha! The TSV refueller must have had an evil grin on his face when he announced that pearl! :D

The only problem with that theory is that there are no high yield Asia routes.

[dragon man]

Why would they bother to reconfigure the last two 747s when they can continue to treat the poor paying customers with the contempt with which Qantas believe they deserve. They did it with the classics for years. Save the money so someone can have good KPIs and a bonus. Remember I think EBU sat at Avalon for so long that eventualy they couldn't fix it due to corrosion, but they had purchased all the interior parts already.

[standard unit]

Yes as somebody who deals directly with the passengers and their disappointment with the worn out non reconfigured 744s I know what you mean.

All things considered you'd imagine doing the last two would make sense.

Oh, that right.......

British Airways Stays Loyal to Its Boeing 747-400s (http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/09/16/british-airways-stays-loyal-to-its-boeing-747-400s/)

[topend3]

The interior on the upgraded birds is superb, I'd hate to be a punter down the back on the old models :bored:

[Keg]

The only problem with that theory is that there are no high yield Asia routes.

That runs contrary to the internal chatter which suggests that load factors and yield to all Asian destinations is running at historical highs.

Admittedly, that may mean slightly less crap than they were but the person I spoke to about it in December is in a position to know. The term he used was 'making Sh!tloads'.

[cyclone8888]

I was fortunate enough to travel JFK-LAX-BNE on OJM a few weeks back in J and it was very very average. Nothing wrong with 744, but the seats & IFE were rubbish.

OJT & OEH on the way over was light years better, maybe not the best around but I think perfectly acceptable product.

[Offchocks]

cyclone8888

maybe not the best around

Just curious, who do you find better as in the quality of seats? I may consider booking them!

[cyclone8888]

Over the Pacific??

NZ I think has the best product (EX BNE anyway), that is if you can deal with the AKL transit....

VA Product I think is a touch better, more comfortable as a bed.

I do think Delta's offering is better also - I am a sucker for aisle access.

Like I said though - nothing wrong with the refit QF cabins, I was just wasn't overly happy with OJM and the ancient product.

[bankrunner]

OGJ was purchased by Boeing on 23/01/2015 and the registration has changed to N324BC

OGJ has gone to WestJet in Canada. They're picking up a total of four ex-QF 767s.

[Taildragger67]

OGJ has gone to WestJet in Canada. They're picking up a total of four ex-QF 767s.

... and sticking winglets on them to keep them competitive for years to come.

[Troo believer]

The over 60's will be watching closely what the policy announcements will be by the LNP Government regarding Super taxation. If some of the changes being discussed become legislation then the ramifications could be significant. 100's could resign creating a training and recruitment nightmare. This could easily become the single biggest recruitment driver in the next few years.

[IsDon]

The over 60's will be watching closely what the policy announcements will be by the LNP Government regarding Super taxation. If some of the changes being discussed become legislation then the ramifications could be significant. 100's could resign creating a training and recruitment nightmare. This could easily become the single biggest recruitment driver in the next few years.

Agree completely TB.

I don't know what the government has planned, but they are certainly talking about superannuation since putting a 15% GST in the too hard basket.

One thing is for certain. If they do start tinkering with super, any changes will likely hit those with large nest eggs, and those with large incomes stuffing as much into super as they can before retirement, the most. Any change will most certainly not benefit this cohort.

If I were a couple of years out from retirement, I'd certainly be taking the bird in the hand.

[cwmh]

If the GST was too hard any changes to Super will come with Grandfathering.

It might have an incremental effect but that is all.

[C441]

If they do start tinkering with super, any changes will likely hit those with large nest eggs, and those with large incomes stuffing as much into super as they can before retirement, the most. Any change will most certainly not benefit this cohort.
….or they may decide they can't leave until they're 65 in order to bolster their super for the impending tax-attack! :ooh:

[dragon man]

C441 I'm with you . However I think the changes will have little effect on pilots with 2 to 3 years to go.

[compressor stall]

I was fortunate enough to travel JFK-LAX-BNE on OJM a few weeks back in J and it was very very average. Nothing wrong with 744, but the seats & IFE were rubbish.


Code shared on Emirates and LAN on an economy QF ticket to Santiago a year ago. Our three little kids loved the headset games on the IFE - they don't have much video game time at home.

At the end of our holiday, we travelled home economy on a newly refurbed QF747. For the week leading up to the flight, the kids were getting all excited about playing video games for 14 hours non stop on the way home. It's all they talked about the night before we left.

The look on their faces when they saw they saw the IFE and realised that there were no games was heartbreaking. First world problems I know. Very much so, but now when they flick through magazines and see an emirates tail, they talk about the fun trip. Not a peep when they see the roo tail. Advertising and experience starts young. (Shell and Lego anyone?)

[73to91]

In case you missed it.
What a 16-hour non-stop flight on Qantas's Boeing 787 Dreamliner will be like

In a little over a year, Qantas will add the first Boeing 787 Dreamliner to its fleet.

And in as little as two years, business travellers could be flying the advanced jet on non-stop routes from Sydney to Chicago, Melbourne to Dallas and possibly even Perth to London.

Those flights will top the 16 hour mark, representing a dramatic shift from journeys broken by stopovers due to the limits of other aircraft, such as as the Airbus A380 and Boeing 747.

So what will it be like to travel in the Red Roo's new ride, and how bearable would those longer trips be?

Luxurious configuration

Qantas gave its first hints earlier this month, with CEO Alan Joyce promising the Dreamliner would see "a very luxurious configuration" to match its very long-range routes.

This doesn't necessarily mean showers, bars and spas at 30,000 feet. If you want that, you'd better pony up north of $350 million for your own Boeing 787-9, and that's just for the jet – fancy fittings are extra.

What Joyce has tipped will include "a big business class and a big premium economy cabin", with the airline's latest generation of seats.

At the pointy end of the plane that'll mean the airline's highly-regarded Airbus A330 Business Suite, which is already tick-tacking on Australia's east-west and east coast 'triangle' route as well as most flights to Asia.

Refined and redesigned

Expect a refined and slightly redesigned version of this seat, based on traveller feedback since the seat debuted some 18 months ago.

With its direct aisle access, ample storage space, lie-flat bed and large personal video screen this is going to put the 'Dream' into the Dreamliner.

It'd still be nice if the Boeing 787 allowed some social space where travellers could get out of their seat to mix and mingle en route, but the plane's relatively modest footprint doesn't permit such creature comforts as you'll find on the A380 superjumbo.

Premium pitch

Behind the business class cabin Qantas will fit a smaller premium economy section, and behind that lies economy – of which Joyce says "we will be giving some very good seat pitch for economy seats given the the lengths we'll be flying."

That's a good sign even if the seats themselves will be ranked nine-across, in a 3-3-3 arrangement which means three of those usually unwanted middle seats per row.

But smart developments in seat design are freeing up more room down the back of the bus.

For example, advanced materials and manufacturing allows for seats to be thinner without sacrificing comfort and all-important lower back support, while the pocket for the safety card, magazines and barf bags can be relocated higher up the seat.

Such tweaks can easily add more than than inch around the knees – and that's where passengers find it's needed the most.

Add the Boeing 787's other passenger-friendly traits – clearer air, higher cabin pressure to provide greater humidity and oxygen for reduced inflight fatigue and jet-lag, and an overall smoother ride – and that 16 hour flight may not be quite the torture chamber that you'd think.



Read more: What a 16-hour non-stop flight on Qantas's Boeing 787 Dreamliner will be like (http://www.executivestyle.com.au/what-a-16hour-nonstop-flight-on-qantass-boeing-787-dreamliner-will-be-like-gpippw#ixzz4BbB9mKFQ)
Follow us: @executivestyle on Twitter | executivestyleau on Facebook

[Stanwell]

Thanks for that, 73291.
Who is David Flynn - the 'writer' of that article? Never heard of him.
Bears a very close resemblance to a particular QF press-release, it does.

[22k]

9 across in a 78?

Not again! That's horrible. Seat pitch means nothing without width. I actively avoid the screamliner now because of their seat width... Horrible.

[chuboy]

Eh. I'll take 34" seat pitch and 9-across over the realistic alternative... 9-across with standard seat pitch :eek:

Then again, my waistline doesn't protrude very far ;)

[22k]

Neither does mine at all but when your shoulders don't fit within the seat width is pretty hard to get comfortable. At least with a bit of width you can semi rotate to get comfy...

[mcgrath50]

Neither does mine at all but when your shoulders don't fit within the seat width is pretty hard to get comfortable. At least with a bit of width you can semi rotate to get comfy...

Why are you flying with the plebs in economy? There is no width or pitch issues in business :E

[Stanwell]

Onya, mcgrath.
Except ... in my case at least, now that I've retired, I can no longer pressure the bean-counter into Business Class tickets on the company account.
So, if I need to go somewhere at short notice, cattle-class it is.
The real point about seat-width is that, while you yourself might be of relatively slim build, the persons either side of you may not be.

Because of this, you'll find that your corpulent fellow travellers invariably spill over into your allocated seating space.
It can thus be quite unpleasant - particularly when many overweight people can also tend to be malodourous.
The sympathetic looks on the faces of the cabin crew don't really help much.

[downunder35]

How do Qantas manage to get the 787-900 to travel the non stop distance between Perth and London. I thought the normal range was much smaller? Did they forgo some cargo for larger fuel tanks?

[C441]

How do Qantas manage to get the 787-900 to travel the non stop distance between Perth and London. I thought the normal range was much smaller? Did they forgo some cargo for larger fuel tanks?
Only having 236 seats probably helps. It means they can often fill 'er up and still be below MTOW. It means they are somewhat reliant on a full Premium cabin to make a dollar but that doesn't seem to be a problem as its a popular service at the front end.

[Troo believer]

Only having 236 seats probably helps. It means they can often fill 'er up and still be below MTOW. It means they are somewhat reliant on a full Premium cabin to make a dollar but that doesn't seem to be a problem as its a popular service at the front end.
Are you sure about that?

[Fatguyinalittlecoat]

What is it you are alluding to troo? We are not mind readers.

[Troo believer]

Only having 236 seats probably helps. It means they can often fill 'er up and still be below MTOW. It means they are somewhat reliant on a full Premium cabin to make a dollar but that doesn't seem to be a problem as its a popular service at the front end.
236 seats maximum

[Going Boeing]

Yes, the QF configuration is 236 seats with a large business class (42 seats/beds). I understand that United has about 280 seats in their B787-9's.

[propnut]

and Jetstar with 335 with their 787-8s

[maggot]

Yes, the QF configuration is 236 seats with a large business class (42 seats/beds). I understand that United has about 280 seats in their B787-9's.
I do wonder if they'll keep that config for when it inevitability begins replacing the regional bus flying.

[downunder35]

When I look on the Qantas site, it shows the 787-900 at MTOW of 254,000kgs, max fuel at 123,656L with a range of 9,008nm and 236 pax. When you look on the Boeing site, it shows the 787-900 at the max TOW of 254,000kgs with a range of 7,635nm with seating of 290 for the "typical" aircraft.

So, I wonder if the Qantas 787-900 while having a possible 254,000kgs MTOW, actually restricts cargo, has 'only' 236 pax + crew, tops up the tanks in Perth, and this way achieving the longer range?

And I agree for these long haul routes, the front end is the place to be. In Y when the seat in front gets reclined into 'your space', it gets a tad squeezy.

[catseye]

Down under
Think about a few more variables...
- 23.6 tonne payload or less, long range cruise, drift climb, lots of places to recalculate variable reserve and enroute alternate min holding fuel on arrival, not in the morning fog risk etc etc. etc.

Then have a look at the published payload range graph and see what's included. vis variable fuel reserve, mandatory alternate

no etops additional fuel requirement and lots of places to go on the way if a bit short on gas for this trip. Spare crew in LHR for a recovery if have to plonk into FRA/CDG/ATH/FCO etc due lovely LHR weather.

Not a problem most of the time:eek:

[downunder35]

Down under
Think about a few more variables...
- 23.6 tonne payload or less, long range cruise, drift climb, lots of places to recalculate variable reserve and enroute alternate min holding fuel on arrival, not in the morning fog risk etc etc. etc.

Then have a look at the published payload range graph and see what's included. vis variable fuel reserve, mandatory alternate

no etops additional fuel requirement and lots of places to go on the way if a bit short on gas for this trip. Spare crew in LHR for a recovery if have to plonk into FRA/CDG/ATH/FCO etc due lovely LHR weather.

Not a problem most of the time:eek:

catseye, thanks for more reasoning. The devil is always in the detail. I am sure the Qantas / Boeing guys have a detailed knowledge of the payload range optimisation and the dispatch guys play a balancing game of cargo, pax, fuel and weather and at least one weather diversion.

[Capt Fathom]

Ok! B787-900?
That would be the B787-9?
Or is the B787-10 called a 787-1000?

[skysook]

Ok! B787-900?
That would be the B787-9?
Or is the B787-10 called a 787-1000 (tel:787-1000)?


This is exactly the kind of guy I wouldn’t want to sit next to for the next 4 sectors. 🙄

[downunder35]

Ok! B787-900?
That would be the B787-9?
Or is the B787-10 called a 787-1000?
Yes, Capt Fathom, you are of course correct. So used to thinking of Boeing's use of 'hundreds in the various versions of a aicraft, eg. 747-400 and the 777-300, I mistakenly applied the same numbering system to the 787.