PDA

View Full Version : Qantas non-stop PER to LHR?


Pages : 1 [2]

crewmeal
13th Dec 2016, 05:13
Flying from London to Perth it's another story. If the aircraft was unable to land at Perth the closest airfields capable of handling the Dreamliner are at Learmonth, 1097kms away, or Adelaide, which is 2117kms distant. Perth is rarely shut down by bad weather but if that were to happen when a Dreamliner from London was approaching from over the Indian Ocean, the expression "a wing and a prayer" might spring to mind.

Read more: Qantas non-stop Perth to London flights from east coast: The issues (http://www.traveller.com.au/why-qantas-new-nonstop-perthlondon-service-wont-appeal-to-east-coast-passengers-gt9qpv#ixzz4ShCluBZF)
Follow us: @TravellerAU on Twitter | TravellerAU on Facebook

Seems like I'm not the only one concerned about a diversion.

Capn Bloggs
13th Dec 2016, 05:19
Perth is rarely shut down by bad weather but if that were to happen when a Dreamliner from London was approaching from over the Indian Ocean, the expression "a wing and a prayer" might spring to mind.

Idiottttt....

BuzzBox
13th Dec 2016, 05:46
As usual, it's all about the "east coast". Apparently nothing exists west of Melbourne.

For goodness sake, Perth didn't suddenly become isolated yesterday. How do you think Qantas and all the other international airlines have been flying safely into Perth for the last 50+ years? Is it possible that Qantas might have actually done a teensy bit of homework during their planning and might have considered the diversion options as part of that planning? Golly, how novel...

Tuck Mach
13th Dec 2016, 06:26
Is cognitive dissonance a pre-requisite here?

So my recollection was different, but then again I was talking flight time. Did Alan say block time? I have also flown the route many times, and my logbook dusted off is a little different . I was a little light from recollection on the YSSY to WSSS it averaged around 07 .45 flight time, the Mach number roughly the same as the M0.85 as expected from the 787. To EGLL was around 13.30 (without holding) Talking semantics here it is pretty much identical, in flight time.. That is around 5 hours flight time to Perth then another flight time of 17 hours to London. Customers have a choice, it would be interesting to see the research done on the route.

''SYD- SIN was close to 8:30 block- flight time was often just either side of 8 hours. SIN- LHR exceeded 14:00 block and frequently 14:30.

The quickest route to LHR was SYD- HKG- LHR. 9 and 12:30ish on the 744 from memory- 2006 was the last time I flew that route.''


As always Stanwell picked up my theme.

Colin Barnett and Alan with the Dick Emery veneers holding a model is a long way from an RPT service. I hope for the pilots at Qantas it happens, a small caveat if i may ; there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge, some of it beyond the control of Qantas which negatively impacts yield and revenue, not just costs.


Well...
If they are trying to market Perth as a destination, why the need to provide, at great expense to the taxpayer, an international facility within the domestic terminal for the convenient and rapid transhipment of Qantas pax?

As had been noted early on in this thread, Premier Barnett and his party are in serious electoral trouble - and the state elections are looming.
I see the equivalent of a conjurer's trick - something like pulling a rabbit out of a hat or, 'now you see it .. now you don't.'

As for Qantas, well, look at all the beaut media-led brand exposure that's been achieved - at minimal cost.
As we all know, promises cost nothing.

The part played by Geoffrey Thomas and West Australian Newspapers in this funny business should not be ignored, either.
Strong conservative leanings and consistent support for the LNP coalition on their part might also tell you something.
I smell a rat.

As always, trust but verify. Come back in 18 months and say we were wrong am happy to be corrected, until then hope your management are this time being straightforward.

WookieError
13th Dec 2016, 10:47
Very boring Tuck Mach.

cooperplace
13th Dec 2016, 10:52
Yes. This is likely the key to a lot of it, and my personal opinion is that Perth alone will contribute a VAST majority of the business for this service. The UK Passport holding population of Perth alone is almost the size of Darwins total Population.

Add to that there are people who WANT to fly Qantas. They recognise that they have upped their game a bit over the last few years, and if they only flew services to and from where they wanted to go (i.e.; ex ADL and PER), then they'd go QF.

having flown thru Dubai (as pax) numerous times in the last 2-3 yrs, my family and I would pay good money to not do so again. Make of that what you will.

Keg
13th Dec 2016, 20:17
Cognitive dissonance? On a thread where you've constantly bagged QF's approach to this route and lambasted them over their 'spin' of the issue you're getting uppity because someone points out a flaw in your numbers?

Trust but verify has always been the mantra in aviation. I've always been an advocate of the "it's not assured until the first aeroplane in mainline couloirs and crewed by mainline pilots pulls away from the terminal on the first revenue service" approach to management. For those employed by their respective airlines, the only game in town is to trust their respective managements make the right calls. Then again it's easier to trust this call than the pie in the sky announcement that was Red Q.

Capn Bloggs
13th Dec 2016, 20:53
Oh well, the 'bridges were nice while they lasted... back to the 500 bays with ya! :{

blow.n.gasket
14th Dec 2016, 04:26
Would upgrading Perth and Pearce to Cat111 be the cheapest way of solving Qantas' alternate dellemma for Perth , which is effectively an Isolated Airport?
Would be a lot cheaper than upgrading a nearby airport to full international widebody capabilities.

Like this event dejapoo?

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24331/aair200605473_001.pdf

BuzzBox
14th Dec 2016, 04:39
Would upgrading Perth and Pearce to Cat111 be the cheapest way of solving Qantas' alternate dellemma for Perth...

Nope. Pearce is only 16nm north of Perth and the forecasts for the two are invariably the same. If the forecast for Perth is rubbish then Pearce will also be rubbish and not suitable for planning as an alternate, even with Cat III. By the way, Perth is already being upgraded to Cat III.

fearcampaign
14th Dec 2016, 05:08
So PER LHR will be the QF 9/10 and take the LHR slot off the A380 from MEL early 2018.
QF Pax from MEL able to go via PER rather than DXB(still one stop) or go on one of 3 EK A380 services daily on a QF codeshare if going to Europe.
EK will take the QF 9 slot from MEL-DXB.

Very smart from QF as they will provide a greater feed on PER-LHR as the 787 will fly from MEL-PER anyway before doing the PER-LHR sector. They can fill seats from MEL and PER to London as a one and direct stop respectively.

Got to pay credit to Alan. QF were always going to fly PER-LHR. When PER airport didn't Donate the dollars, the WA government stepped in and gave $14 million in public funds.

The Australian article also says that the MEL-LAX 787 flights will allow them to retire the 747s faster.

The A380s free from MEL-DXB-LHR can replace the 747 on Asian routes to HKG or HND in order to retire more of the 747s.

maggot
14th Dec 2016, 05:20
Nope. Pearce is only 16nm north of Perth and the forecasts for the two are invariably the same. If the forecast for Perth is rubbish then Pearce will also be rubbish and not suitable for planning as an alternate, even with Cat III. By the way, Perth is already being upgraded to Cat III.

If (biiiig if) PEA was also cat3 a reduced alt criteria may be available.

Never happen tho

Timing will be interesting, avoiding late night/early morning would avoid the fog issue and just leave the fickle winds and fast changes to deal with but invariably 30mins would be good for it. (For starters at least)

SandyPalms
14th Dec 2016, 05:29
The A380s free from MEL-DXB-LHR can replace the 747 on Asian routes to HKG or HND in order to retire more of the 747s

Have to agree.

Head of Base Ops sent an email today with the first hints of a Perth 787-9 base. It contains a "however", but I think we should bet on a western base. Feels like he's trying to influence expectation more than anything. Rumours abound that there will be restrictions on commuting also. Interesting times.

Chris2303
14th Dec 2016, 05:45
So PER LHR will be the QF 9/10 and take the LHR slot off the A380 from MEL early 2018.

There were always 3 slots at LHR - QF1/9 dawn arrival, QF2/10 evening departure, QF32 middle of the day departure - not sure what the inbound was.

Was one slot sold after 9/10 took the middle of the day slots?

blow.n.gasket
14th Dec 2016, 06:18
To Buzzbox & Maggot
I must have misunderstood what my Qantas mates told me reference their Reduced Alternate Weather Criteria FAM requirements.
I was told for an aircraft to go past DPA (decision point)
The destination must have 1 or more Cat 11/111 ILS
With WX equal or better than CAT11/111 minima.

Alternate for destination must have one or more CAT11/111 ILS approaches
With WX forecast to be equal to or greater than CAT1 RVR.

Therefore wouldn't upgrading both Perth and Pearce to CAT 11/111 ( CAT 111 being cheaper to install than CAT11 ,isn't it?) be the quickest ,easiest and cheapest solution to the most fuel efficient alternate for long range ops into Perth?

Agreed , won't solve all of Qantas' problems but wil improve schedule reliability quite dramatically,
Would it not?

The only remaining problem would be the crosswind problems caused by The Doctor .

BuzzBox
14th Dec 2016, 06:46
blow.n.gasket:

The destination must have 1 or more Cat 11/111 ILS
With WX equal or better than CAT11/111 minima.

Alternate for destination must have one or more CAT11/111 ILS approaches
With WX forecast to be equal to or greater than CAT1 RVR.

If the forecast/actual weather at Perth requires Cat II/III, then it's likely the same will apply at Pearce. I'm not familiar with QF Reduced Alternate Weather Criteria, but if what you say is correct then it sounds similar to the standard ICAO rules. If the destination requires Cat II/III, then the alternate must be equal to or better than Cat I. If Pearce has the same weather as Perth (ie Cat II/III), then it won't be suitable as an alternate.

Band a Lot
14th Dec 2016, 06:58
Happy to be called a fool, but with longer term vision for international travel into Perth and the usage of an alt being fairly low.

Why not upgrade an airport like Kalgoorlie or Geraldton?

Troo believer
14th Dec 2016, 06:59
Go to KGI. It's fine the way it is. Long enough and the 789 RNP AR capable. Simple.

Band a Lot
14th Dec 2016, 07:22
Long delay will require customs/ immigration control of some sort.

Airport hotel? but a more back packers style for say 4-6 hrs after 18+ flying it will need to be off aircraft requirement.

BuzzBox
14th Dec 2016, 08:02
Go to KGI. It's fine the way it is. Long enough and the 789 RNP AR capable. Simple.

Not so simple if you actually had to go there after a long-haul flight from LHR:

- Limited runway length.

- Tiny apron with limited parking for large aircraft. What if several other A320/737 type aircraft diverted there before you?

- No RFF.

- No CIQ. All passengers & crew would have to remain on board the aircraft and wait for a relief crew to arrive to fly the aircraft back to Perth. That could mean a long wait on the ground for passengers and crew who have already been on the aircraft for over 17 hours.

Troo believer
14th Dec 2016, 08:47
Yeah right.
The probability of a diversion is minimal and it's not a large aircraft. Extend the apron but seriously you cross that bridge when you come to it. The runway is heaps long enough! That's all that really matters. You have an alternate. You don't need CIQ you don't require RFF.

Cavallier
14th Dec 2016, 09:12
The question really should be:- "Could David Boons record be broken?"

The Cav

Band a Lot
14th Dec 2016, 12:36
Fact is it could be a great Alt & for far less than other options.

SeenItAll
14th Dec 2016, 13:33
I'm not an Aussie, but isn't this worry about the lack of alternates for PER a bit misplaced? Due to prevailing winds from west to east, I would expect the block time from LHR to PER to be at least an hour shorter than PER to LHR. Therefore, if the latter flight is feasible, the former should be able to have at least an extra hour of fuel to divert to a more distant alternate.

slf.au
14th Dec 2016, 13:45
Has anyone noticed that the 789 qantas proposes to use only has 236 seats in comparison to air New Zealand's 789 with 3 classes which has 302 seats?

BuzzBox
14th Dec 2016, 22:46
Troo believer:

I guess you missed the bit where I said "Not so simple if you actually had to go there".

Not a large aircraft? Well I guess that's debatable. It's a darn sight larger than the B738s and F100s that regularly use the place. It's also bigger than the B763, the largest type for which there are parking bays available on the apron.

Cross that bridge when you come to it? So what do you do when you arrive there in your B789 and find the apron is already full? Park on the runway and block the entire airport? Jeez, you'd be popular.

Runway heaps long enough? At 2,000m try barely long enough.

Don't need CIQ? No, you don't, but all pax and crew would have to remain onboard until the aircraft could be flown out. That would mean waiting for a relief crew to arrive from Perth, because the crew that flew it in would be out of hours. That could be a long time, depending on the time of day, especially if flights can't get out of Perth.

Don't require RFF? Maybe not under Australian rules, but only because Australia has filed a variation to ICAO's Annex 14 requirements, which most certainly do require RFF. International operators such as CX are not allowed to plan airports such as Kalgoorlie or Learmonth as alternates because those airport have no RFF.

Sure, you could legally plan Kalgoorlie as an alternate for Perth (although I'd be interested to hear CASA's views), but the practicalities of actually going there would not be anywhere near as simple as you suggest.

BuzzBox
14th Dec 2016, 22:57
Originally Posted by slf.au
Has anyone noticed that the 789 qantas proposes to use only has 236 seats in comparison to air New Zealand's 789 with 3 classes which has 302 seats?

NZ's 789 has smaller Business and Premium Economy cabins than QF and their seat pitch in Economy is tighter in some rows. If you want comfort, try JAL. Their 789s are configured for only 195 passengers, with eight abreast seating in Economy, at a pitch of 33".

Ken Borough
15th Dec 2016, 00:39
Does anyone know the limiting factor on PER/LHR for the B789? Is it TOW or tankage?

Going Boeing
15th Dec 2016, 01:15
There were always 3 slots at LHR - QF1/9 dawn arrival, QF2/10 evening departure, QF32 middle of the day departure - not sure what the inbound was.
Was one slot sold after 9/10 took the middle of the day slots?

My understanding is that QF own five slots at Heathrow, three of them are currently leased to other carriers but can be returned for QF use with appropriate notice.

I would think that these PER-LHR services are in addition to the current A380 services from Sydney and Melbourne.

Keg
15th Dec 2016, 02:16
I hope you're right GB. The rumour though is we bleed a shite load of $$$ on MEL- DXB- LHR. It wouldn't surprise me if we drop the DXB- LHR sector at the very least and possibly the entire route.

Dropping the DXB- LHR frees up one airframe. Suspect that'll replace the 744 SYD- HKG. That 744 goes to MEL- HKG to replace an A330 and the A330 heads off somewhere else- the possibilities are endless.... daily HNL or PER- AKL- PER, PER- HKG- PER, etc.

Dropping the entire service frees up two airframes. One as per the above, the second one? Dunno. What are the loads like BNE- LAX on the 744. Could it be replaced by a Dugong?

KEGASUS
15th Dec 2016, 02:54
What are the loads like BNE- LAX on the 744. Could it be replaced by a Dugong?

It sure could!!! The resultant load factor would be approximately 64.3%

Capn Bloggs
15th Dec 2016, 06:52
Is it TOW or tankage?
Any aeroplane that cannot takeoff at MTOW at Sea Level from a 3500m runway with no obstacles at 35°C needs some bigger donks!

maggot
15th Dec 2016, 07:03
^^^ but are the tanks full

With a qf fitout I'd guess no, rtow MTOW or MLW

Going Boeing
15th Dec 2016, 08:11
The rumour though is we bleed a shite load of $$$ on MEL- DXB- LHR.

Yes Keg, I had heard that was mainly due to the poor timing that doesn't allow connecting flights.

What are the loads like BNE- LAX on the 744. Could it be replaced by a Dugong?

The loads on that route are perfect for the B747 but probably a bit lean for the A380. The other issue would be no B747 to go to JFK and the A380 would be unsuitable on the route due to very cramped terminal space, longer transit/turnaround times and slower cruise speeds. It's a very tight schedule with the amount of complexing in LAX in both directions. I believe that the 5th & 6th B787's will probably take over the BNE-LAX-JFK route with some B747 services in addition to provide the right capacity.

Capt Fathom
15th Dec 2016, 09:10
Lots of A380 into JFK.
What is the cruise speed of a A380?
Why would the turn around time be greater than a 747?

Anyone? Someone! Bueller!

maggot
15th Dec 2016, 09:18
Maybe not much through traffic for the leg to jfk and back?
380... .83 - .85 or so depending

Transition Layer
15th Dec 2016, 11:43
Keg,

PER-AKL-PER daily year round would make a lot of sense if it's timed to meet the inbound/outbound LHR flights in PER. Could be a relatively popular way to travel UK-NZ and vice versa, with much the same overall flight time as the sandpit route.

fearcampaign
15th Dec 2016, 12:04
The early morning arrival slots are worth $75 million USD.
The old QF 9 slot that got in at 5am has been leased out as it's the most valuable. I'm led to believe that this is still lucratively leased out.

As Keg alluded to, its most likely that one A380 slot Into LHR at the very least will convert to the QF9/10 to PER. Press articles reflect this.
QF may still have to send two A380s to DXB. One from SYD and MEL as per the EK agreement unless EK agree otherwise. QF1 to LHR to remain.


Possibly BNE-LAX-JFK in the future will allow greater retirements of the jumbo although I suspect it will more likely be SCL or JNB as BNE-LAX-JFK has higher loads than SCL or JNB.
The 787 QF 95/96 from MEL/LAX will be 6 days a week in the evening to compliment the morning A380 departure.

Having said all that I'll believe it when I see it.

Going Boeing
15th Dec 2016, 12:47
Lots of A380 into JFK.
What is the cruise speed of a A380?
Why would the turn around time be greater than a 747?

1. Into JFK, Yes, but not into Terminal 7 (British Airways Terminal)
2. It appears to operate at least M.01 slower than the B747, &
3. Without going into the large number of reasons, QF staff just can't turn the A380 around in less than 2 hours & that is too long for the way the LAX-JFK-LAX flights with the complexing restrictions in both directions.

Matvey
15th Dec 2016, 16:37
Lots of A380 into JFK.
What is the cruise speed of a A380?
Why would the turn around time be greater than a 747?

Anyone? Someone! Bueller!
JFK-T7 isn't Group VI capable, and more likely to be town down than upgraded. That's one of the reasons that BA is doing a damn-near hourly shuttle with the 744s instead of their own 380 upgrade. I don't believe that T8 (AA) can take 380s, either. That leaves 1 and 4, both of which are bursting at the seams. The only plausible scenario is if they can get Emirates to cough up their late afternoon 380 slot at T4 while the QF service is on the ground, but EK will no doubt extract a hefty price.

maggot
15th Dec 2016, 21:20
Qf aint sending 380s to jfk. Not over .01 mach, they just aint.
787 5&6 bne-lax-jfk.

goodonyamate
15th Dec 2016, 21:53
The reconfig of the 380's will be well over 500 seats. The future of the 380 is Asia. That's it.

maggot
15th Dec 2016, 22:35
Another reconfig planned?

B772
18th Dec 2016, 23:06
Apparently some of the International carriers operating ex PER are not happy with the WA Government tipping in $14M plus to assist QF with a marketing edge. Stay tuned !

Metro man
18th Dec 2016, 23:37
NT government did the same thing with Jetstar as they wanted Darwin to be a hub airport.

PoppaJo
19th Dec 2016, 02:53
Singapore and Scoot are in bed with various governments also. Tiger has been funded by various states over the years.

Nothing new.

Capn Rex Havoc
19th Dec 2016, 03:31
2. It appears to operate at least M.01 slower than the B747, &
3. Without going into the large number of reasons, QF staff just can't turn the A380 around in less than 2 hours & that is too long for the way the LAX-JFK-LAX flights with the complexing restrictions in both directions.

The 380 cruises faster than a 747. (I have passed numerous 747s over the years in an A380.

Don't know why QF staff can't turn around an A380 in under 2 hours? The contracted staff at JFK seem to be able to do it with other carriers.


Is all not well with QF EK alliance? Hubbing out of Perth has got to cut into the hub out of Dubai situation. I guess EK will have to park an A380 at the domestic terminal in Perth, - Only fair to the tax payers that are paying for the QF shenanigans.

crosscutter
19th Dec 2016, 04:58
The 380 cruises faster than a 747. (I have passed numerous 747s over the years in an A380.

Just No. Not to Hong Kong, nor LA, nor Dallas where QF have operated both types.



I agree. Perhaps the bigger issue is utilisation rate and flow on effects after delay?

[quote=Is all not well with QF EK alliance? Hubbing out of Perth has got to cut into the hub out of Dubai situation. I guess EK will have to park an A380 at the domestic terminal in Perth, - Only fair to the tax payers that are paying for the QF shenanigans.

There's nothing stopping them. Apparently, both sides are getting what they want. Maybe they won't operate domestically because it'll BLEED money and not increase their global footprint. Out of interest, the revenue from Qantas Domestic is around a fifth of the total Emirates revenue. There must be something that stops the big bad bully's from the ME from throwing on the gloves?

halas
19th Dec 2016, 17:27
Not sure what you mean about tax payer shenanigans.
There will be no parked A380 at domestic in Perth.
Will "drop" to 777 if loads are shit like has happened.
236 seats between Perth and Heathrow is minimal in the scheme of the agreement between QF & EK.
In fact l'd wager EK have code share seats on that very flight!

halas

donpizmeov
19th Dec 2016, 18:36
I hope it works well. Fingers crossed more new flying is announced for QF. The Oz industry needs some growth.

B772
19th Dec 2016, 21:50
halas

EK do not have traffic rights between Aust and the U.K or vv so no code share with QF on the PER-LHR-PER nonstop.

Metro man
19th Dec 2016, 22:36
Surely they could still sell seats on the EK website ? A while back I was watching the screen at a departure gate as it scrolled through nine different airlines for the same aircraft, some of which didn't come within a thousand miles of the airport.

Capn Rex Havoc
20th Dec 2016, 07:03
@ Halas - Not sure what you mean about tax payer shenanigans.

The state and federal Government is putting millions of tax payers dollars into this arrangement to provide services, e.g. Border force operating out of the domestic terminal and other infrastructure mods.

Icarus2001
20th Dec 2016, 10:21
Yes indeed, a private company (Perth Airport Ltd) and a publicly listed 51% Australian owned company have convinced the taxpayers representatives to cough up around $20 million (that they admit to) to further their commercial interests.

There is a perfectly suitable international terminal staffed and with duty free shops only a short (12 mins) bus trip away.

Well played QF.

Bug Smasher Smasher
20th Dec 2016, 12:42
There is a perfectly suitable international terminal...
That's debatable.
Well played QF.
That's not!:D

Taildragger67
20th Dec 2016, 16:44
Yes indeed, a private company (Perth Airport Ltd) and a publicly listed 51% Australian owned company have convinced the taxpayers representatives to cough up around $20 million (that they admit to) to further their commercial interests.

There is a perfectly suitable international terminal staffed and with duty free shops only a short (12 mins) bus trip away.

Well played QF.

You have to be joking. The buses only run every 20-30 mins, so if you miss one because your bag took a while to appear, you've a wait on your hands and suddenly a very tight transfer. Also, they are picky about who can get on (you have to have a printed, paper intinerary, none of this new-fangled phone business is acceptable), so whilst the buses are reasonably comfy, it is absolutely not a service designed for constant use. It is designed for the very occasional transfer punter; there is no way it could cope with the numbers. A same-terminal transfer is a no-brainer. In any case governments use taxpayer funds to invest in lots of things on a regular basis, this is no different.

Matvey
20th Dec 2016, 18:04
Don't know why QF staff can't turn around an A380 in under 2 hours? The contracted staff at JFK seem to be able to do it with other carriers.

Korean and Asiana both have 2-hour turnarounds for their 380s at JFK, but those are in the morning when the airport is less busy. AF schedules 3 hours and is on the ground at the same time as QF. The four Emirates services are blocked at 2h25, 2h40, 3h20, and 2h20 on the ground.

IsDon
20th Dec 2016, 20:32
The QF A380 is turned around in 90 minutes in DXB.

I operated QF10 DXB to MEL on Wednesday and the ground staff were lamenting the fact. Not sure what services it applies to but certainly QF10 on that day.

We did push 1 minute late though.

Metro man
20th Dec 2016, 22:18
The QF A380 is turned around in 90 minutes in DXB.

With non unionised slave labour from the Indian sub continent who are in fear of losing their jobs and being returned home if targets aren't met.

Ken Borough
21st Dec 2016, 00:13
Qantas set the standards required of handling agents for their t/rounds and transits. Just maybe Qantas requires a higher level of cleanliness and cabin presentation for its passengers, especially on very long sectors, than do other carriers? Slot availability may also play a part in what ground time is scheduled.

Icarus2001
21st Dec 2016, 02:11
You have to be joking. The buses only run every 20-30 mins, so if you miss one because your bag took a while to appear, you've a wait on your hands and suddenly a very tight transfer. Also, they are picky about who can get on (you have to have a printed, paper intinerary, none of this new-fangled phone business is acceptable), so whilst the buses are reasonably comfy, it is absolutely not a service designed for constant use. It is designed for the very occasional transfer punter; there is no way it could cope with the numbers. A same-terminal transfer is a no-brainer. In any case governments use taxpayer funds to invest in lots of things on a regular basis, this is no different.

Possibly. Surely it would be MUCH CHEAPER to upgrade the bus service, especially as we are talking what, TWO flights a day, than upgrade a domestic terminal to a quasi international terminal?

Edit to add: Bags would be checked through wouldn't they, if it operates how the PR department claims it will, Sydney or Melbourne or Adelaide passengers connecting to the London service in Perth, bags would be tagged at joining in the East and so pax would not need to wait in Perth for bags anyway.

Matvey
21st Dec 2016, 14:55
The QF A380 is turned around in 90 minutes in DXB.

There is a handling sequencing/timing chart for an EK 75 minute turn at DXB, but I don't know if it's applicable to the 380 (nor do I think it's realistic for any long-haul aircraft, but that's besides the point).

Dnata also has the "luxury" of being able to throw an entire army of low-paid workers at a turn, which is not something that can be done at a place like JFK or LAX.

And while it's nice that the ground staff at DXB can turn a 380 in 90 minutes, the QF10 is scheduled for 125 minutes on the ground. QF9 and QF1 are also blocked at 2h00; QF2 is 1h50.

IsDon
21st Dec 2016, 20:49
Dnata also has the "luxury" of being able to throw an entire army of low-paid workers at a turn, which is not something that can be done at a place like JFK or LAX.


True. At times there seems to be more cleaners gettting on the aircraft than pax getting off.

TURIN
21st Dec 2016, 21:47
Same happens at DOH.
I saw one bloke with a rag and bucket who's only job was to clean the aircraft wheels every turn round.

Ichiban
1st Jan 2017, 04:24
CAPA article

Qantas' first 787 routes, Perth-London nonstop and Melbourne-LA, address urgent strategic needs | CAPA - Centre for Aviation (http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/qantas-first-787-routes-perth-london-nonstop-and-melbourne-la-address-urgent-strategic-needs-318746?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

onehitwonder
26th Jan 2017, 11:59
Who's launching the -900?

73to91
27th Jan 2017, 02:28
to New York, Boston and Washington DC

Now the 'great one' is talking new types as well.

DIRECT flights from Sydney to New York could be possible as soon as 2022, according to Qantas CEO Alan Joyce.
In an interview withAustralian Financial Review, Mr Joyce revealed the airline is considering replacing its fleet of Boeing 747s with new-generation jets such as Airbus A350s or Boeing 777s, which can fly significantly further.


“[From Sydney or Melbourne] they can go straight to New York, Boston and Washington DC, and that is a complete contextual redesign of our network right there,” he told journalist Joe Aston.


According to Boeing vice president Mark Jenks, the manufacturer’s main focus is fuel efficiency, rather than speed.


It’s a significant drawcard to a company like Qantas that spends approximately $3 billion burning jet fuel each year.


“At the moment, Sydney-New York is probably OK,” Mr Joyce said.


Longer flights will, however, take a greater toll on passenger health.


Qantas is investing a significant amount of money at the University of Sydney to study the effects of the timing of meals, as well as cabin lighting and temperature, on ultra-long-haul passengers.


“There’s no medical evidence to suggest punctuating a really long journey with a stopover is preferable to a single hop,” Mr Joyce told theFinancial Review


“But we also know we can’t just ‘stretch’ the service plan from a 12-hour flight to fit 17 hours.”

It comes just one month after the airlinestruck a deal to commence non-stop flights from Perth (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/flights/green-light-for-nonstop-flights-to-london-from-2018/news-story/6c0f41a5734ffc950fb4d3c936a3043a)to London in early 2018, using brand new Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Boeing said Qantas is installing fewer seats on its Dreamliners (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/flights/qantas-in-the-market-for-new-ultralong-range-aircraft/news-story/63f9032f63d17378cf8e6c1781c7cd62)
than other airlines, which will significantly help with passenger comfort.


The aircraft destined to cover the new route will have 236 seats instead of the usual 300, which will also maximise range by decreasing weight.


The agreement with Perth Airport had a few hiccups, notably concerning a disagreement about which terminal would be upgraded as a hub for the service, but it was eventually resolved in Qantas’s favour.


The route will become the longest passenger flight in the world, and Mr Joyce described it as “game-changing”.


“When Qantas created the Kangaroo Route to London in 1947, it took four days and nine stops. Now it will take just 17 hours from Perth non-stop,” he said.


The current route takes 23 hours, with a short stopover in Singapore.
“Australians have never had a direct link to Europe before, so the opportunities this opens up are huge.”


Five of the 747s currently operating will be replaced with eight new Dreamliners between October this year and May 2019.

Qantas Sydney to New York: New aircraft offers new possibilities (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/qantas-considering-direct-flight-from-sydney-to-new-york/news-story/feb6d225cd1edd2648a5a5667551a0b4)

On eyre
27th Jan 2017, 02:49
Stopover in Singapore ? AFR should get out more.

tomcat264
8th Jul 2017, 15:59
Cause itd be the worlds worst transfer
Even worse than yssy if ya could believe that
How do you figure that ? the 787 is planned to operate out of T3 next to T4!! Both those terminals are joined together ;)

maggot
8th Jul 2017, 23:21
How do you figure that ? the 787 is planned to operate out of T3 next to T4!! Both those terminals are joined together ;)

...exactly

B772
11th Jul 2017, 11:23
Ben Sandilands has been critical of QF for the number of toilets on the B787-9 saying it will be a nightmare should 1 or more toilets go u/s. Virgin Atlantic has begun LHR-HKG-LHR with the B787-9 and with 198 economy seats there are only 4 toilets in the Y cabin. Totally inadequate for the Chinese bladder. A sign of the times I guess.

B772
29th Sep 2017, 05:52
Radio report on 6PR today that Air New Zealand are planning to operate their B787 AKL-PER-LHR. This will p..s off AJ.

Ps. Anyone remember when NZ operated SYD-LAX-SYD nonstop ?

Rated De
29th Sep 2017, 07:37
Qantas PR in trumpeting 'game changing', self flagellation rarely mention Air New Zealand.

Rob Fyfe had the ear of the staff and delivered things Qantas could only dream of, hence their failure to ever compare to Air New Zealand.

My hunch is that a myriad of practical reality will plague the Perth -Heathrow sector. From weather to payload, DVT and lack leg room and other to less obvious things: Like how close to 20 hours will the TOD be? Practically speaking, do Qantas position a standby crew elsewhere in Europe to cover alternate requirements as the crews hit mandatory 'game stopping' crew limits, for reasons of weather en route or at destination.

Rather like abandoning DXB, returning to Singapore is promoted as some sort of victory, conveniently ignoring the reality that five years ago, Qantas operated through Singapore twice daily to London. It also then had a Bangkok service and a Hong Kong Service. Replacing the A388 with a B789 drops the CASK and offer yield improvement potential, but to achieve that the service must be reliable!

The magic eight balls suspects that the service will quietly be reduced to a few times a week in the warmer months, where the sector can be actually flown to destination. Then all of the QF flying to London will be switched back to Singapore. A random walk of stupidity, having surrendered capacity and opportunity to their peers.

Air New Zealand on the route is great, if even just to wind up Qantas!

CurtainTwitcher
29th Sep 2017, 09:03
If that turns out to be the case, the next obvious move is pip QF to the post to claim first prize in the PR stakes... "incandescent with rage" comes to mind if they manage to pull it off.

SandyPalms
29th Sep 2017, 09:23
Excellent. I look forward to QF Perth-Auckland-JFK.

dragon man
29th Sep 2017, 10:33
They are looking to get a 22 hour TOD from CASA for this service.

Icarus2001
29th Sep 2017, 10:41
I cannot wait to hear the rave reviews from the SLF.

Rated De
29th Sep 2017, 10:56
They are looking to get a 22 hour TOD from CASA for this service.

That explains it! It certainly won't fit within 20 hours TOD a lot of the year.

Naturally, the union and other stakeholders will be heavily engaged in the application to CASA/sarc
Forgetting regulatory capture in an ideal world, the modelling would have included a comprehensive study before the PR machine spun into action!

Capt Fathom
29th Sep 2017, 12:19
I'm sure Alan Joyce will be travelling on the first service in Economy to promote what a game changer it is!:E

Rated De
29th Sep 2017, 20:14
Of course CASA would demand 'science' to support a 'commercial decision' to extend operational tours without augmented crews outside established legislative limits...

'Qantas is seeking volunteers from its frequent flyer membership to don some wearable technology during their travels as part of efforts to learn more about the impact of long-haul travel on the passenger experience.

The isn't much scientific sampling going on. A bunch of frequent flyers could under no circumstances be considered a 'randomised sample, drawn from the population. In the interests of scientific method do crews get this 'wearable technology' to assess their fatigue with such a proposed TOD? :mad:

Surely AIPA demanded a study of such 'scientific method' include their members? / sarc



You can rest assured having kicked the can down the road on CAO48.1, due 'commercial pressures' the Australian airlines will face to crew the new regulations CASA is vigilant and focused on looking the other way! :mad:

Capt_SNAFU
30th Sep 2017, 01:16
Just where are Air New Zealand going to get a slot into LHR from? They are rare as hens teeth.

B772
30th Sep 2017, 09:05
Capt SNAFU
NZ previously operated AKL-HKG-LHR. This slot may be available especially if someone is 'minding' the slot for them.

maggot
30th Sep 2017, 09:15
They could lease one of QFs :}

MelbourneFlyer
1st Oct 2017, 03:55
NZ doing PER-LHR was part of 6PR's inane 'rumour file' segment and has been debunked. Anyway didn't NZ sell its LHR slots to CX?

Deano969
1st Oct 2017, 04:34
I don't see why QF couldn't re-start an Asian hub to LHR and other European destinations
They have flights into Hong Kong from Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane all arriving within 1 hour as it is, although HK is slot restrained

Perhaps they could look at timing Singapore flights the same way
Sydney a380 and on to London
Melbourne a380 and on to London
Brisbane 747 / a380 stop and return
Adelaide 787 and on to Amsterdam
Perth a330 and on to Delhi
Canberra 787 and on to Paris
Gold Coast a330 stop and return

Rated De
1st Oct 2017, 06:59
Yes Dean,

They can!
It was called the 'Kangaroo route'

Sure the PR team can come up with another game changing trademark, in the interim those 'investments' in Asia are a drag against the balance sheet. Just like Quantitative Easing; unwinding that mess is fraught with problems!

Much easier to sell an aircraft with MSN (build numbers) in the 600's as 'game changing' and hope no one notices that the route is likely marginal, the seating density too tight and that Singapore a well established hub for oh about 50 years offers a far more comfortable routing to Europe.

C441
1st Oct 2017, 10:40
My hunch is that a myriad of practical reality will plague the Perth -Heathrow sector.
....or a (say) 1% fuel penalty when the aircraft actually get online and don't meet the book specs. That's another ton needed, or 10 less pax. Lighter crockery and cutlery will definitely help though!😏

NumptyAussie
17th Oct 2017, 07:23
Another puff piece by GT. I do hope that they sanitise the cabin after his visit, it reads as if he came over all emotional..

https://thewest.com.au/business/aviation/inside-qantas-high-tech-boeing-787-9-perth-to-london-plane-ng-b88630921z

OzzyOzBorn
25th Oct 2017, 15:56
Any anecdotal reports on booking trends for PER-LHR non-stop yet? A flight of this duration would be my idea of purgatory and I enjoy flying. I'd choose a stopper every time over this, let alone pay a premium for it. Am I in a tiny minority choosing to avoid the DVT special?

On eyre
26th Oct 2017, 01:51
Nah Ozzy you are on to it !! Reckon you could do a roaring trade in economy selling knockout pills.

boree3
26th Oct 2017, 02:43
Any anecdotal reports on booking trends for PER-LHR non-stop yet? A flight of this duration would be my idea of purgatory and I enjoy flying. I'd choose a stopper every time over this, let alone pay a premium for it. Am I in a tiny minority choosing to avoid the DVT special?

I’m with you here. 20 hours plus down the back? No thanks...For my health and sanity i’ll take a stopover somewhere both there and back. Plenty of choices depending on ones outlook.

I did DFW to BNE twice a few years back. Just under 16 hours to crawl off and home to my own bed. Can’t imagine arriving in London to start a holiday after a 20 hour flight...

73to91
27th Oct 2017, 08:29
Dreamliners need to prove their worth before Qantas orders more

Qantas chief Alan Joyce says the airline will need to see further improvement in its international business before it can justify ordering more Boeing Dreamliners.

The first of eight 787-9 Dreamliners it has on order landed in Australia earlier this month, but Mr Joyce on Friday said shareholders expected the "game-changing" aircraft to prove their worth.

His comments came Qantas chairman Leigh Clifford on Friday defended his chief executive's bumper $25 million pay packet in 2017, which was bolstered by shares Mr Joyce was issued three years ago and which vested after his successful execution of the airline's $2 billion turnaround plan.

"It was the quadrupling of the share price that determined the full amount – now I think that's an excellent outcome for the shareholders," Mr Clifford said.

The company's remuneration reported was voted up by an overwhelming majority, as was the election of Wesfarmers' outgoing CEO and AFL chairman Richard Goyder to the airline's board.

Qantas has purchase rights and options on 45 more Dreamliners, which will come up over the next three years.

The light-weight, long-haul aircraft will initially serve the Melbourne-Los Angeles, and new non-stop Perth-London routes, and allow Qantas to retire five of its ageing 747-400s.

International remains one of the toughest areas of Qantas' business, even as the group's financial fortunes have recovered in recent years.

International delivered a $327 million underlying profit last financial year - an improvement from a $497 million loss in 2014, but still less than the airlines' domestic operations, its low-cost carrier Jetstar and loyalty businesses.

Mr Joyce said while international competition would heat up in the second half of this financial year, he expected a "significant" improvement in the business in 2019.

"That then gives us the permission to invest more capital into those aircraft and grow the network," he told investors at the airline's annual general meeting in Melbourne on Friday.

"We have a commitment to making sure we do pace our capital expenditure, and for us, that capital expenditure has to fit in to the returns the business is making.

"All things being equal, if we continue this fantastic performance … we will be able to afford more 787s, more replacement of our domestic fleet and aircraft."

Mr Joyce said Qantas had been talking to Boeing about its mooted twin-aisle "middle of the market" aircraft as a replacement for Qantas' workhorse 737 domestic jets.

However, he said replacing its domestic fleet would not happen until the completion of Project Sunrise, its plan to fly non-stop from Australia's east coast to New York or London, which is not expected until 2022.

On Thursday, Qantas revealed its revenue had risen 5.1 per cent in the first quarter compared to the same period last year, but warned fuel costs and international competition would crimp earnings growth in the second half.

Despite this, UBS analyst Simon Mitchell said Qantas was on track to deliver its highest profit before tax of $1.55 billion, up from $1.4 billion last year and its record $1.53 billion in 2016.

Qantas' shares fell 5.5 per cent on Friday to close at $5.96 following its warnings of a softer second half. The stock has more than doubled in value over the past year.
wow, talk about an article all over the place.

Rated De
28th Oct 2017, 05:16
On Thursday, Qantas revealed its revenue had risen 5.1 per cent in the first quarter compared to the same period last year, but warned fuel costs and international competition would crimp earnings growth in the second half.
wow, talk about an article all over the place. Almost cognitive dissonance Mr Joyce.

There must be a few EA up for negotiation? (hence the rhetoric and doom talking..same wash, rinse and repeat) Expect EBA negotiation to open up 2HFY.....

The problem is he personally benefits from those amazingly cheap options he was granted for turning around a 'terminal business'..these mean more dollars for him talking it up...After all Qantas International has one new aircraft...Same contracts, same fleet but somehow transformed! :D

Icarus2001
28th Oct 2017, 10:26
So whilst they throw the words "game changer" around like confetti Japan Airlines looks to take a route that naturally sits well with QF.

Perth to Japan direct flights on the cards to boost WA tourism (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perth-to-japan-direct-flights-on-the-cards-to-boost-wa-tourism-20171026-gz909l.html)

Air NZ takes a playful stab at Qantas' Dreamliner extravaganza - KarryOn (http://karryon.com.au/industry-news/airline/air-new-zealand-welcomes-qantas-to-the-787-9-club-which-they-helped-launch/)

Ken Borough
28th Oct 2017, 11:53
PER-NRT was a very successful route for Qantas with B763s. Why they withdrew is anyone's guess as the retreat didn't make much sense at the time. :\

Keg
28th Oct 2017, 15:01
The WA government used to subsidise the route- I think in part to export to get crayfish to Japan? When they withdrew the subsidies, QF withdrew from the route. Or so the story goes anyway. I operated it a few times on the 767. Loads were never great when I operated it. Fair bit of cargo both ways if I recall though.

maggot
29th Oct 2017, 14:12
Always only about half. For the cc on duty too ;)

C441
29th Oct 2017, 15:55
Ah yes. The 'Beyond 2000' trips. For us it was usually, SYD - pax NRT 36hrs - PER 48hrs - NRT 72hrs - PER 24 hrs - NRT 36 hrs - pax SYD.

I first started doing them in the 762's but it was good to graduate to the 763 later.

For those with some 787-9 knowledge, what sort of underfloor cargo capacity does it have if you were to load it up with high-value perishable freight to supplement the pax on a thin sector like PER-NRT?

blow.n.gasket
29th Oct 2017, 22:35
787-9

Maximum no. of Containers

CONTAINER/PALLET
LOWER
DECK FWD 20 (LD-3)/ 6PAG (LD7)/ 6PMC
AFT 16 (LD-3)/ 5PAG (LD7)/ 5PMC
TOTAL 36 (LD-3)/ 11PAG (LD7)/ 11PMC
Weight Limitation

Compartment Maximum Volume of Loading Maximum Weight of Loading Floor Limitation
FWD 73.0m3
(2,578ft3) 32,005kg
(70,560Lbs) 977kg/m2
(200Lbs/ft2)
AFT 56.8m3
(2,008ft3) 25,655kg
(56,560Lbs) 977kg/m2
(200Lbs/ft2)
BULK 11.3m3
(402ft3) 2,735kg
(6,030Lbs) 732kg/m2
(150Lbs/ft2)
TOTAL 141.1m3
(4,988ft3)

VH DSJ
1st Nov 2017, 02:56
Would SO's be operating on the MEL-PER sector or only on the PER-LHR? Is there a minimum sector time before SO's are required for a long haul flight?

maggot
1st Nov 2017, 04:16
Maybe if there's a 30/7 problem

Ken Borough
1st Nov 2017, 04:20
No requirement for a SO MEL/PER/MEL. Maybe the Company is looking at a Perth base for Second Officers? Or a London base!

Keg
1st Nov 2017, 04:28
There is a PER base for S/Os. Not sure of the numbers but suspect up to 40 based on the numbers of Captains and F/Os required in PER.

They have S/Os operating on some of these domestic services so that they can do their 'check to line' flight. Many of them have been on training wage awaiting the first aeroplane so that they can actually check out.

Once normal line ops start I don't reckon you'll see S/Os on the MEL- PER- MEL sectors. Simply no need for them.

maggot
1st Nov 2017, 04:43
It'll be 4 crew with checkers checking checkers etc

C441
1st Nov 2017, 04:55
Is there a minimum sector time before SO's are required for a long haul flight?
Generally if the scheduled time exceeds 8 hours a S/O will be used with a few exceptions dependent on the local departure time. Examples of this are East coast to Singapore sectors which are often flown 2-pilot despite being scheduled a little over 8 hours, provided they depart at a civilised hour of the day.

S/O's are also used when the Captain and/or F/O are approaching 30 hours in 7 days - for example on the LHR-DXB leg of an Aust-DXB-LHR return trip, primarily during the 'Northern winter'.

TURIN
1st Nov 2017, 12:12
For those with some 787-9 knowledge, what sort of underfloor cargo capacity does it have if you were to load it up with high-value perishable freight to supplement the pax on a thin sector like PER-NRT?

In addition to the info posted above, there is an option to fit a dedicated Air Conditioning unit under the floor of the forward hold, so keeping perishables is not a problem. :ok:

AerialPerspective
1st Nov 2017, 14:39
Qantas PR in trumpeting 'game changing', self flagellation rarely mention Air New Zealand.

Rob Fyfe had the ear of the staff and delivered things Qantas could only dream of, hence their failure to ever compare to Air New Zealand.

My hunch is that a myriad of practical reality will plague the Perth -Heathrow sector. From weather to payload, DVT and lack leg room and other to less obvious things: Like how close to 20 hours will the TOD be? Practically speaking, do Qantas position a standby crew elsewhere in Europe to cover alternate requirements as the crews hit mandatory 'game stopping' crew limits, for reasons of weather en route or at destination.

Rather like abandoning DXB, returning to Singapore is promoted as some sort of victory, conveniently ignoring the reality that five years ago, Qantas operated through Singapore twice daily to London. It also then had a Bangkok service and a Hong Kong Service. Replacing the A388 with a B789 drops the CASK and offer yield improvement potential, but to achieve that the service must be reliable!

The magic eight balls suspects that the service will quietly be reduced to a few times a week in the warmer months, where the sector can be actually flown to destination. Then all of the QF flying to London will be switched back to Singapore. A random walk of stupidity, having surrendered capacity and opportunity to their peers.

Air New Zealand on the route is great, if even just to wind up Qantas!
Yeh, it does help though if you are gifted $800m dollars by the NZ Government in order to stop you going bankrupt due to incredibly incompetent financial and strategic decisions... bit easier with the cushion of State ownership.

Not to detract from what Fyfe achieved but seriously, if it weren't for that capital injection and share buy from the NZ taxpayer, their performance wouldn't be looking to good over the last few years.

Need to put things in perspective.

AerialPerspective
1st Nov 2017, 14:41
Radio report on 6PR today that Air New Zealand are planning to operate their B787 AKL-PER-LHR. This will p..s off AJ.

Ps. Anyone remember when NZ operated SYD-LAX-SYD nonstop ?
Remember it well, NZ14 and NZ15... it used to originate AKL on some days... AKL-SYD-LAX... Boeing 747-412s and 747-475s. It was planned to hand it over to Ansett as part of the merger but of course, that never happened.

rog747
1st Nov 2017, 15:04
Remember it well, NZ14 and NZ15... it used to originate AKL on some days... AKL-SYD-LAX... Boeing 747-412s and 747-475s. It was planned to hand it over to Ansett as part of the merger but of course, that never happened.

the 747-400 fleet was several new build -419's with RR power

plus a trio built (but NTU) for Varig Canadian and PAL 747-400's with CF-6's
and a couple of ANZ new build -419's with CF-6


the original RR 747-219 quintet went en masse to Virgin Atlantic

VH DSJ
1st Nov 2017, 17:47
Thanks all for the replies. It's all quite interesting, especially the use of SO's for the 30/7 rule. Cheers!

Rated De
1st Nov 2017, 21:49
Yeh, it does help though if you are gifted $800m dollars by the NZ Government in order to stop you going bankrupt due to incredibly incompetent financial and strategic decisions... bit easier with the cushion of State ownership.

Not to detract from what Fyfe achieved but seriously, if it weren't for that capital injection and share buy from the NZ taxpayer, their performance wouldn't be looking to good over the last few years.

Need to put things in perspective. Yes for sure, perspective is important.

Qantas received AUD$1.35 billion balance sheet clean up prior to its listing in 1995. It had very little debt. How does its debt to equity ratio look these days when you bring on balance sheet the leases excluded, what is debt relative to equity then?

It also 'purchased' the domestic operation for AUD$400 million prior to its listing.

By December 2013 Qantas needed according to Mr Joyce AUD$3 billion to survive, only to recant it six weeks later. Now miraculously Qantas is transformed...

It also has a whole one aircraft to add to its international fleet that sources suggest will only make it to EGLL 50% of the time!

Perspective is very important

73to91
15th Dec 2017, 01:56
I thought I'd read previously that the 2nd route was BNE/LAX/JFK, perhaps not.
Qantas has announced a new route and the name for its second Boeing 787 Dreamliner as its first 787, "Great Southern Land", takes off on its first regular commercial flight.


Qantas will begin non-stop Dreamliner flights from Melbourne to San Francisco from late 2018.


"A significant number of our Melbourne passengers flying to Los Angeles already connect on to San Francisco. We also see strong demand from San Francisco, both from a tourism perspective and because of the business links between Melbourne and Silicon Valley," said Qantas International CEO Alison Webster.


The second Dreamliner has been named "Waltzing Matilda".
Qantas now has two Boeing 787-9s with eight ordered in total. The airline will take delivery of its third and fourth Dreamliners early next year, which will enable it to start its non-stop flights from Perth to London in March (http://www.traveller.com.au/qantas-perth-to-london-nonstop-flights-on-sale-prices-from-2270-return-gvtf3u)
.

Qantas Melbourne to San Francisco non-stop flights announced for 787 Dreamliner (http://www.traveller.com.au/qantas-melbourne-to-san-francisco-nonstop-flights-announced-for-787-dreamliner-h05503)

Maggie Island
15th Dec 2017, 02:35
I thought I'd read previously that the 2nd route was BNE/LAX/JFK, perhaps not.
.

Qantas Melbourne to San Francisco non-stop flights announced for 787 Dreamliner (http://www.traveller.com.au/qantas-melbourne-to-san-francisco-nonstop-flights-announced-for-787-dreamliner-h05503)

The first four are going to be based in MEL for the aforementioned routes. The next four will be deployed to BNE for the LAX/JFK and other routes QF deem worthy!

dragon man
15th Dec 2017, 07:44
The first four are going to be based in MEL for the aforementioned routes. The next four will be deployed to BNE for the LAX/JFK and other routes QF deem worthy!

This week at an AIPA meeting Andrew David said they are hoping to keep all 747s until after next years holiday season. If you consider that the 4 787s in Melbourne are fully utilised then to do SFO some 787s will have to come from Brisbane logically. Therefore I think it’s fair to say that BNE/LAX/JFK will remain a 747 for the moment.

Capt Fathom
15th Dec 2017, 08:03
As an International Airline, they don't seem overly endowed with airframes for the network?

mrdeux
16th Dec 2017, 00:08
Once normal line ops start I don't reckon you'll see S/Os on the MEL- PER- MEL sectors. Simply no need for them.

All depends upon how the rest of the rosters are built. As a MEL-LAX or SFO flight would be around 30 hours it would could well mean that these flights (Perth) continually hit the 30/7 limit. You'd three days at home after a US trip before the hours limit would disappear, but these trips only have a min of 2 days MBT. The same issue will arise if the Melbourne 380 people are supposed to fly to Singapore 2 man crew. It can certainly be fixed if you put SOs on ad hoc, but that would quickly run the resources down. It's messy scheduling, but then I guess that's the norm anyway.

topend3
16th Dec 2017, 09:44
where's the first per-lhr flight leaving from? Can't be T3 surely it's still a bloody shell! The part they are constructing looks barely 50% finished with 3 months to run. Assuming they want to test it before day 1:O

maggot
16th Dec 2017, 20:55
where's the first per-lhr flight leaving from? Can't be T3 surely it's still a bloody shell! The part they are constructing looks barely 50% finished with 3 months to run. Assuming they want to test it before day 1:O
It'll be leaving from the holding point; after being towed to save gas

mrdeux
17th Dec 2017, 00:27
I'm looking forward to seeing the video of the glide approach...

The Banjo
17th Dec 2017, 01:27
The Maggot said, "It'll be leaving from the holding point; after being towed to save gas".

Yes, but which threshold? Wings are a bit long to tow it to Learmonth!

Keg
17th Dec 2017, 03:09
Apparently ZNA came in 1.5T underweight. That supposedly has worked very positively in QF’s favour.

Capt Fathom
17th Dec 2017, 03:27
Apparently ZNA came in 1.5T underweight
They've left out the crew?

dragon man
17th Dec 2017, 04:01
Apparently ZNA came in 1.5T underweight. That supposedly has worked very positively in QF’s favour.

No it’s all part of the cunning plan to not have linen,crockery or food!!!!

maggot
17th Dec 2017, 06:41
No it’s all part of the cunning plan to not have linen,crockery or food!!!!

And duty free!

Roo
17th Dec 2017, 06:58
This week at an AIPA meeting Andrew David said they are hoping to keep all 747s until after next years holiday season. If you consider that the 4 787s in Melbourne are fully utilised then to do SFO some 787s will have to come from Brisbane logically. Therefore I think it’s fair to say that BNE/LAX/JFK will remain a 747 for the moment.
Nope. MEL - SFO will not require any extra air frames, because the service alternates with and replaces the MEL - LAX flight several days of the week. Therefore no knock on effect to BNE.

Ken Borough
17th Dec 2017, 09:19
Apparently ZNA came in 1.5T underweight. That supposedly has worked very positively in QF’s favour.

If true, it will be a very positive thing. I don't know if PER/LHR will be a full tanks operation but if the OEW (OWE) is less than expected, it would normally mean either a greater fuel uplift, more payload or a combination of both. This would also apply to any sector at MTOW.

IsDon
17th Dec 2017, 14:27
If true, it will be a very positive thing. I don't know if PER/LHR will be a full tanks operation but if the OEW (OWE) is less than expected, it would normally mean either a greater fuel uplift, more payload or a combination of both. This would also apply to any sector at MTOW.

My understanding is that full tanks are possible with a full load of pax and bags. Only 235 pax remember.

A lower basic weight will mean that this finite fuel amount can be taken further, or the aircraft will arrive at a fixed destination with greater reserves intact.

There seem to be a lot of doubters here. I look forward to seeing you all eat your words.

maggot
17th Dec 2017, 19:55
My understanding is that full tanks are possible with a full load of pax and bags. Only 235 pax remember.

A lower basic weight will mean that this finite fuel amount can be taken further, or the aircraft will arrive at a fixed destination with greater reserves intact.

There seem to be a lot of doubters here. I look forward to seeing you all eat your words.
That game changing koolaid must taste good

IsDon
17th Dec 2017, 21:22
That game changing koolaid must taste good

If only you knew who I was pal you’d realise what a ridiculous comment that was.

Global Aviator
17th Dec 2017, 22:55
With a comment like that your obviously an original SKYGOD.......
:D :O :ok:

IsDon
18th Dec 2017, 00:21
It’s typical of this forum that everyone is so keen on a venture like PER-LHR failing before it even leaves the ground. I don’t know whether it’s tall poppy syndrome, or wannabes with an axe to grind. Whatever it is I don’t understand how you possibly could benefit from it’s failure. Especially those employed by QANTAS. How can this venture failing help you? Are you one of those sad pathetic creatures that get more satisfaction from an “I told you so” moment than to realise the benefits to your own career when this actually works. Talk about cut off your nose to spite your face.

Can someone please explain to me why it is in anyone’s best interest for the PER-LHR route to fail? If it fails it will undoubtedly mean less 787s which flows on to less recruiting and less progression/promotion within the group.

When I put up my hand to say I hope it is a success I’m howled down as a “kookaid drinker” or a “skygod”. Either of which could not be further from the truth.

I’m one of QANTAS’ harshest critics. I’ve been very vocal both in here and Qrewroom on many of QANTAS’ stupid decisions, past and present. The Jetconnect fiasco is but one.

In PER-LHR though I’m convinced it has the potential to be very valuable to QANTAS, the industry and the country. A lot of very talented people have been working in this for a very long time. I’m convinced it will be viable. For all our sakes I hope it is.

Chad Gates
18th Dec 2017, 00:32
Is Don
My own personal feeling is that some East Coast based pilots in QF are hoping that if this fails, the aircraft will be transferred back east, bringing with that more opportunities in their base of choice. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a West Coast based pilot with the same defeatist thoughts. Only an opinion.

topend3
18th Dec 2017, 00:46
yes hope it succeeds. But the cynic in me says that if QF had an aircraft that would do SYD/MEL direct to LHR then PER wouldn't have been an option. Hope they keep it going after they get 777X and they can do direct LHR from East Coast.

IsDon
18th Dec 2017, 01:08
Is Don
My own personal feeling is that some East Coast based pilots in QF are hoping that if this fails, the aircraft will be transferred back east, bringing with that more opportunities in their base of choice. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a West Coast based pilot with the same defeatist thoughts. Only an opinion.

Yes Chad. That’s possible. Fact is though that if PER-LHR fails it will probably not result in more airframes for the East coast, but the same number, and no Perth base and a net decrease in aircraft and opportunities.

I’m East coast based but have decided to commute to PER. I would love all 53 aircraft crewed from the East coast but it ain’t gonna happen.

CurtainTwitcher
18th Dec 2017, 02:34
Can someone please explain to me why it is in anyone’s best interest for the PER-LHR route to fail?
I don't think anyone wants to see it fail. I suspect, what is is going on is more nuanced, an anxiety about the potential TOO fail, and what if it does go wrong. A lot has been staked on this working.

There is precedent, Jetstar Pacific, Jetstar Asia(s) "400 aircraft by 2020", Air Asia X joint venture (forgetting to tell Tony Fernandes), RedQ, Jetstar HKG, Jetstar Japan. None of those ships have really come in. There have been so many announcements & ventures that are going to be the "next greatest thing" anydaynow.

I for one wish it to succeed, but it appears to be a highly complex plan that involves just more than one challenging sector. Everything has to go just right every day to get this right, from LAX to LHR. When it comes to aviation, that increases my anxiety level about the sustainability of the plan and ultimately commercial success.

Sources indicate a recent lightning strike for one of the new 787's, grounding it for 3 days with 50 exit points found. What is plan B here?

He is a legendary storyteller, management by narrative & announcement. Operational success requires more than just good PR skills. The execution has left a trail of wreckage behind, understandably, this history makes people nervous.

Global Aviator
18th Dec 2017, 02:51
I certainly don’t want to see it fail, would love to see Aussie airlines in former glory.

The skygod comment directly related to the don’t you know who I am comment, well the way I read it smelt of arrogance.....

The ole how do you know a pilot at a party? Don’t worry he will tell you!

And yes thread drift I know skygods are in the minority I just happen to know a few of them.

Great for QF any expansion and will be great to see internal movement!

itsnotthatbloodyhard
18th Dec 2017, 03:21
The skygod comment directly related to the don’t you know who I am comment, well the way I read it smelt of arrogance.....



Sorry, you got that one badly wrong. Let’s just say that ol’ Don won’t be getting too many Christmas cards from QF management and HR types.

IsDon
18th Dec 2017, 03:52
The skygod comment directly related to the don’t you know who I am comment, well the way I read it smelt of arrogance.....


No worries, and I see how it could read that way. No damage done, no egos bruised.

maggot
18th Dec 2017, 05:58
I don't think anyone wants to see it fail. I suspect, what is is going on is more nuanced, an anxiety about the potential TOO fail, and what if it does go wrong. A lot has been staked on this working.

There is precedent, Jetstar Pacific, Jetstar Asia(s) "400 aircraft by 2020", Air Asia X joint venture (forgetting to tell Tony Fernandes), RedQ, Jetstar HKG, Jetstar Japan. None of those ships have really come in. There have been so many announcements & ventures that are going to be the "next greatest thing" anydaynow.

I for one wish it to succeed, but it appears to be a highly complex plan that involves just more than one challenging sector. Everything has to go just right every day to get this right, from LAX to LHR. When it comes to aviation, that increases my anxiety level about the sustainability of the plan and ultimately commercial success.

Sources indicate a recent lightning strike for one of the new 787's, grounding it for 3 days with 50 exit points found. What is plan B here?

He is a legendary storyteller, management by narrative & announcement. Operational success requires more than just good PR skills. The execution has left a trail of wreckage behind, understandably, this history makes people nervous.

THIS.

Don't worry don no one could mistake you, your 787 cheerleading is actually refreshing. I was just having a chuckle... Glad your getting a window seat back, in the best airbus Boeing's ever made :D

Rated De
18th Dec 2017, 06:18
Ironically it was 1 April. Singapore replaced by a dubious partnership with Emirates.



End of a well established European gateway.
Qantas lost over 350,000 passengers in the first year of operations.
EK made three times as many passengers.
No upside in Operating Revenue- did they actually make anything?

Whilst they grew JQ, convinced of lower labour cost being the only thing that matters, the whole industry moved on without them


TWO B787
Return to Singapore, an advance to the rear if ever there was one.








There is precedent, Jetstar Pacific, Jetstar Asia(s) "400 aircraft by 2020", Air Asia X joint venture (forgetting to tell Tony Fernandes), RedQ, Jetstar HKG, Jetstar Japan. None of those ships have really come in. There have been so many announcements & ventures that are going to be the "next greatest thing" anydaynow. IFF the aircraft rolled off the production line 1.5 tonnes lighter, that is not good management, that is luck.


Just as Mr Joyce claims credit for the 'turnaround' any cursory analysis of the profit and loss shows:



By writing off $2.56 billion in the value of the fleet last year, Qantas' bottom line this year looks much better, with a more modest depreciation charge of $1.1 billion. This accounting stroke of a pen has improved Qantas' fiscal performance by $326 million.
And, thanks to Saudi Arabia's King Salman, fuel prices have plunged – improving, with its fuel efficiency drive, Qantas' ledger sheet by $597 million.
With all other expenses largely unchanged, it seems this year's stunning "accelerated transformation" is little more than dumb luck and an accounting exercise.
My sources tell me that the aircraft will likely suffer weather events upon arrival, of sufficient frequency that if not limited by reason of carriage of fuel, will necessitate a rather expeditious diversion to an alternate port as the crew hit hard limits.

Of course regulatory capture and a spent labour representative body may well do the bidding to CASA to extend it beyond a hard 20 hour TOD.




I for one wish it to succeed, but it appears to be a highly complex plan that involves just more than one challenging sector. Everything has to go just right every day to get this rightThere is substantial execution risk, a year of consistent operation in all seasons, ought see whether those questioning this route and aircraft are right or wrong.

Keg
18th Dec 2017, 06:30
Of course there will be days when the PER-LHR flight won’t make it due LHR wx requirements. Such was the case when the 744 first starting operating SIN- LHR. Of course the long tour of duty is what makes any diversion more complicated than what SIN- LHR ever was. I’m sure this is no surprise to the boffins beavering away on QCC2 to make a go of this route and as late as Friday last week I was discussing this very issue with some of the 787 team. Such issues have long been a feature of various Qantas routes over the years. I’m sure they’ll remain issues into the future with various other routes as well.

Lezzeno
18th Dec 2017, 07:41
Can someone please explain to me why it is in anyone’s best interest for the PER-LHR route to fail? If it fails it will undoubtedly mean less 787s which flows on to less recruiting and less progression/promotion within the group.

So if PER-LHR fails it will mean less 787's and QF will keep flogging old 747's burning 10 tonnes an hour until the world's oil supply runs out? Right, good plan!

maggot
18th Dec 2017, 07:54
It won't fail, by decree if necessary...

tdracer
18th Dec 2017, 18:04
IFF the aircraft rolled off the production line 1.5 tonnes lighter, that is not good management, that is luck.
Not really - while there is certainly some variability in the airframe weights between line numbers, it's no where near 1.5 tons on a 787. Rather, the 787 has benefited from aggressive weight reduction programs, such that all current production 787s are similarly 'underweight'.
Current production 747-8F are over 5 tons light than the early production, there has been a similar % improvement on the 787 (especially compared to the first ~20 aircraft which were badly overweight).

maggot
18th Dec 2017, 21:08
So lots of practice in building the first 600 or so
Same went for the dugong

crewmeal
19th Dec 2017, 05:25
So what are the diversion options at LHR knowing that every aircraft these days has to go into a hold pattern before arrival? STN? LGW? BHX?

maggot
19th Dec 2017, 05:35
So what are the diversion options at LHR knowing that every aircraft these days has to go into a hold pattern before arrival? STN? LGW? BHX?

At the risk of stating the obvious, it depends on the weather. LGW is close enough that there'll pretty much always be gas for it. But it can share the FG issues that LHR will occasionally have by being so close.
Timing is important, it's planned to arrive at 5am iirc, which is mostly traffic holding free. A free pass.
MAN or AMS was carried often when needed when I used to fly up there, or a DPA on the latter or FRA/maybe CDG.
The London basin has many more environment controls these days vastly reducing the airborne pollution that the industrial revolution made seem normal making the old pea souper less of a thing than back in the day.

crewmeal
19th Dec 2017, 06:11
Then of course you run the risk of crews going out of hours and screwing up the operation completely.

Lezzeno
19th Dec 2017, 06:36
Timing is important, it's planned to arrive at 5am

Of course it will never run late so no problems

maggot
19th Dec 2017, 07:42
Of course it will never run late so no problems

Heh. Yeah, they would be smart to pour a lot into it to be more on-time than not. But, shit does happen.

Cremeegg
19th Dec 2017, 15:23
So what are the diversion options at LHR knowing that every aircraft these days has to go into a hold pattern before arrival? STN? LGW? BHX?

As others have said timing is everything. Over the last two hours 1400-1600GMT only 20 out of 70 arrivals have been in any form of holding pattern, none of those involved more than a quick 360 degree spin around the holding point - nothing even elongated to the usual racetrack.

My last few diversions from LHR due to fog when returning from down under have been into Manchester, Paris and Frankfurt.

tdracer
19th Dec 2017, 19:11
So lots of practice in building the first 600 or so
Same went for the dugong
Sorry for the thread drift - but this pattern is quite consistent for new airliners.
Initial aircraft are over initial spec weight - sometimes badly. Air framer launches a big weight loss program - with various incentives to encourage the engineers/designers to shave weight. Program is successful and later aircraft are significantly lighter - often below the spec weight.
Later on, the weight will start going up again as they discover various bits that fail because they made them a bit too light, along with a push to reduce recurring costs by using cheaper processes and/or materials which invariable weigh a bit more.
I've been on four major aircraft programs and they all followed that trend...

73to91
21st Dec 2017, 04:03
A tale of 2 airlines.

One states "“Our customers have told us they want greater options and increased flexibility – and we’ve listened,”
Qantas has AJ

One 'continues to grow its network by launching pioneering nonstop routes '
Qantas introduces a nonstop route to an existing port.

Cathay Pacific will connect Hong Kong with the capital of the United States of America for the first time in late 2018, as it continues to grow its network by launching pioneering nonstop routes.

The airline will commence a four-times-weekly service to Washington DC in September next year, which will complement its existing routes to the East Coast, including Boston and New York’s two main international airports – John F Kennedy and Newark Liberty.

The service to Dulles International Airport, which will become the longest on the Cathay Pacific network in terms of distance at 7,085 nautical miles (8,153 miles, 13,122 kilometres), will be operated by the all-new Airbus A350-1000 aircraft.

Cathay Pacific Chief Executive Officer Rupert Hogg said that the new service has been introduced to cater to the growing demand for travel to the Capital Region of the USA, while at the same time providing US-based passengers with more convenient access to key destinations in Asia and beyond through the airline’s home in Hong Kong.

“Our customers have told us they want greater options and increased flexibility – and we’ve listened,” said Mr Hogg. “Much like Hong Kong, Washington DC is a vibrant and dynamic destination and we are thrilled to soon be providing the only direct flights between these two great cities.

“Establishing new direct air links to destinations that aren’t already served from Hong Kong enhances our city’s status as Asia’s largest international hub and allows us to secure new and important sources of revenue,” he added. Read more:

Cathay Pacific to launch Washington DC service with the Airbus A350-1000 ·ETB Travel News Australia (http://australia.etbtravelnews.global/338424/cathay-pacific-to-launch-washington-dc-service-with-the-airbus-a350-1000/)

73to91
21st Dec 2017, 04:07
And

United Airlines will launch a new signature long-haul route from its hub at Houston Bush Intercontinental Airport.


The carrier says it plans to launch service to Sydney on Jan. 18, flying the 8,596-mile flight on Boeing 787-9 "Dreamliners." The route would become the second-longest flown by any U.S. airline and would be the only one connecting Houston to Australia. Flight time in the direction of Sydney is scheduled for 17 hours, 30 minutes, while the return to Houston is scheduled for 15 hours, 45 minutes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/09/07/united-airlines-fly-non-stop-houston-australia/641076001/

Keg
21st Dec 2017, 05:15
One 'continues to grow its network by launching pioneering nonstop routes '
Qantas introduces a nonstop route to an existing port.

Read more:

Cathay Pacific to launch Washington DC service with the Airbus A350-1000 ·ETB Travel News Australia (http://australia.etbtravelnews.global/338424/cathay-pacific-to-launch-washington-dc-service-with-the-airbus-a350-1000/)

I’m no AJ apologist but your post doesn’t make sense. Sure, CX launched a new route- QF are launching MEL- SFO with a couple of other (allegedly) new routes ex BNE yet to be announced. Heck, even PER- LHR is a new route.

You appear to cite UAL as an example of what QF isn’t doing but it seems to be exactly what QF have done. Launched a route between two ports they already service but which have never been connected.

What am I missing?

angryrat
21st Dec 2017, 06:43
Go read fragrant harbour and tell me that you would like to leave Qantas and go work for Cathay? We all have our advantages and disadvantages but comparing the two and thinking Cathay is the place to be is a bit misguided.

Beer Baron
21st Dec 2017, 20:31
NEWSFLASH:
Qantas isn’t as big and expansionary as big airlines based in China (57 times larger population) or the USA (13 times larger).

What a shock.

topend3
23rd Dec 2017, 06:46
Despite QF wanting us to believe they have been revolutionary, UA have been doing SIN to SFO I think it is, also with the 789 with sector times circa 17 hours.

Icarus2001
23rd Dec 2017, 07:21
Important to realise that if Oz - Europe non stop for QF is a big hit then the rest of the worlds carriers will run the flights the other way. AJ may call it a game changer but if it is then there will be others to follow. European airlines will be watching closely to see if they can copy the route. If that occurs why travel QF if someone does it cheaper or better?

SandyPalms
23rd Dec 2017, 07:23
So why is there overwhelming pessimism that this service won’t work? It’s already being done. Revolutionary or not, it is revolutionary for Qantas. And I personally believe it will work. Good luck to em, I say.

Derfred
23rd Dec 2017, 07:47
Important to realise that if Oz - Europe non stop for QF is a big hit then the rest of the worlds carriers will run the flights the other way. AJ may call it a game changer but if it is then there will be others to follow. European airlines will be watching closely to see if they can copy the route. If that occurs why travel QF if someone does it cheaper or better?

Probably because the cheaper and better airlines are based in Asia and the Middle East.

A British or European airline wanting to compete on the routes would very likely not be cheaper and better.

dragon man
23rd Dec 2017, 13:39
Important to realise that if Oz - Europe non stop for QF is a big hit then the rest of the worlds carriers will run the flights the other way. AJ may call it a game changer but if it is then there will be others to follow. European airlines will be watching closely to see if they can copy the route. If that occurs why travel QF if someone does it cheaper or better?

They can’t do it as they only have 5th and 6th freedom rights. Only British or Australian carriers can do direct services.

maggot
23rd Dec 2017, 21:03
They can’t do it as they only have 5th and 6th freedom rights. Only British or Australian carriers can do direct services.

I'm sure we can sign em up

Do we need another sports event sponsored - only if the board members are connected of course

Just give it all away eh

Rated De
24th Dec 2017, 05:34
Just give it all away eh

The Australian exceptionalism is a mirage. Australia has a lot of rocks, uncontaminated cropping and dairy regions and a delusion in the modern age not supported by much other than myth. Driven by an inept political class, the broader community too lazy to protest that an elected politician would in times of old be at least investigated for treason.

Viewed from afar, outside home market myopia Australia lost a lot to get where it is, what it gained isn't worth having.

As Qantas of old was a proud airline, with proud leaders of a solid resoluteness, the new Qantas resembles it in name only. Am sure if bilaterals were able to be profited on by a trade minister, Andrew Robb would have flogged them all off before he left the house!