PDA

View Full Version : QF 7879 routes


MelbourneFlyer
5th Jan 2017, 10:19
With only eight QF 789s in the first order, and both PER-LHR and MEL-LAX announced, there should be enough left over for another route or two to be announced? Definitely sufficient for one more daily if it's Asia with quick turnaround, but what else?

Bug Smasher Smasher
6th Jan 2017, 00:07
Who knows, but it won't be in Asia.

continueapproach737
6th Jan 2017, 00:34
LAX - MEL - PER - LHR and same return

fearcampaign
6th Jan 2017, 01:28
The Pilots union negotiators had to sign a confidentiality agreement before the EBA for the 787 was signed.
The EA document specified potential routes including many in Asia.

Fonz121
6th Jan 2017, 02:00
The EA document specified potential routes including many in Asia.
6th Jan 2017 11:34

How do you know that if this:

The Pilots union negotiators had to sign a confidentiality agreement

maggot
6th Jan 2017, 02:19
Syd pek once the 332 warms it up
Syd yvr
Bne lax jfk

This is covered in the other qf 787 thread

Skystar320
6th Jan 2017, 08:07
Perth - Kalgoorlie - Perth - London Heathrow - Perth.

I'm right

Capt Fathom
6th Jan 2017, 10:06
No matter what he routes will be.... they will be a game changer! :rolleyes:

illusion
6th Jan 2017, 10:10
Kalgoorlie? That's about possible as Trump winning the elect........................:eek:

sillograph
6th Jan 2017, 15:51
Perth - Maldives - Perth

B772
6th Jan 2017, 21:24
SYD-ORD-SYD

Chicago is the 3rd largest city in the US.

B767MAD
6th Jan 2017, 22:40
South Africa should get a look in ex PER as well.

C441
7th Jan 2017, 03:07
With only 236 seats and a greater proportion of Business seats than normal, it will go where there is a well established premium market or the prospect thereof.

Popgun
7th Jan 2017, 03:14
Hopefully something bold like ORD.

Wherever it is, lets hope the company just gets on with it.

Too much talk, talk, talk from the campus and not enough action!

PG

PAXboy
7th Jan 2017, 12:41
South Africa does already have PER-JNB with SAA. However, it's possible that QF are thinking of PER-CPT, as it's likely that aircraft will be based at PER.

Qanchor
7th Jan 2017, 23:48
...........as it's likely that aircraft will be based at PER.

Yes, and having an international terminal on the domestic side of Perth airport will assist the commuters when they set up the 787 base. That way a Perth based, (east coast domiciled) crew can pax to Perth and simply hang around the terminal (1,2,3 hours) before operating out to LHR/CPT or wherever.

Captain Dart
7th Jan 2017, 23:52
How would that fit in with duty limits? I'm not QF but my lot have recently cracked down on commuters perceived to be not adequately rested prior to a duty. The lawyers are getting restless.

CSTGuy
7th Jan 2017, 23:58
Perth based, (east coast domiciled)

Not going to happen. Watch this space......

Beer Baron
8th Jan 2017, 00:37
Not going to happen. Watch this space......

I've heard this rumour getting around lately that Qantas won't allow crew to commute to a potential PER 787 base. I can certainly see the logic in preventing people from paxing over before operating a ULR duty. However there is nothing in the EBA that allows them to block someone from taking a promotion based on where the plan on living and there is no way AIPA would agree to such a stipulation.

Roj approved
8th Jan 2017, 01:06
You may find the new FRMS will make it extremely difficult to commute then operate on the same day.

So they might be able to enforce some sort of control over the commuters.

blow.n.gasket
9th Jan 2017, 04:52
Does that mean they will also ban commuters who drive 3-4hrs in traffic prior to sign-on too?
Which would be less fatiguing , the having a snooze whilst paxing to work or the long self drive to work ?

maggot
9th Jan 2017, 05:10
Yes! All employees must reside within Cumberland parish!

neville_nobody
9th Jan 2017, 05:13
Does that mean they will also ban commuters who drive 3-4hrs in traffic prior to sign-on too? Which would be less fatiguing , the having a snooze whilst paxing to work or the long self drive to work ?

Exactly.

You could live in the Margaret River and drive to work yet someone else could live in Adelaide and that's not allowed. Could be interesting if they try to enforce it as I would assume the same would apply for all the USA flying.

Captain Dart
9th Jan 2017, 05:28
It's going that way elsewhere. My outfit has published 'guidelines' regarding being 'rested for duty' to get them off the hook should an incident occur and the lawyers start asking awkward questions about whether the crew members were adequately rested. These guidelines include not more than 1 1/2 hours travel time from the airport.

So now we have commuters having to put themselves up in crappy, noisy hotels within 90 mins of the airports, and some of us having to stand our various iterations of Reserve duty in these joints.

Maybe it's not quite such a big consideration for domestic flights.

morno
9th Jan 2017, 06:00
Does that mean they pay accordingly to live within 90mins?

Captain Dart
9th Jan 2017, 06:22
Depends which airport! I make these points only because some airlines and perhaps regulators are becoming increasingly aware of protecting themselves from legal action regarding crew rest.

As an aside, I heard of a flight attendant who had a car accident driving home from a redeye flight, and the insurer would not pay out: 'not fit to drive' they said.

caneworm
9th Jan 2017, 19:09
Perth based, east cost domiciled

Not going to happen. Watch this space......

Pretty sure the horse has bolted with this, been told it's already happening on other (current) types

B772
9th Jan 2017, 22:18
I am surprised we have not heard from Keg as he is PER based but resides in the SYD area.

maggot
9th Jan 2017, 22:39
Fwiw there is a policy on this in place (for now)

V-Jet
9th Jan 2017, 22:42
I am surprised we have not heard from Keg as he is PER based but resides in the SYD area.

Your question answers itself:)

Qanchor
10th Jan 2017, 00:57
Fwiw there is a policy on this in place (for now) .
So what's the policy? Ignore what's happening?

maggot
10th Jan 2017, 01:03
.
So what's the policy? Ignore what's happening?

Onus on the individual to be responsible

Which is what most people want, self responsibility, innit? (In general terms)

Qanchor
10th Jan 2017, 01:29
So would paxing on the last flight of the day to the other side of the country, then hanging around the terminal to operate boc to where they came from earlier fall into the category of "self responsibility"? In general terms?

ruprecht
10th Jan 2017, 01:32
Onus on the individual to be responsible

Which is what most people want, self responsibility, innit? (In general terms)

For alt-paxing, this is just the company attempting to avoid scrutiny in the event of a fatigue related incident, while saving money in accommodation and allowances.

"He ticked the box saying he wasn't fatigued, so he clearly wasn't fatigued."

OnceBitten
10th Jan 2017, 02:11
My guess will be that the rules introduced for commuting for ULR operations will be very similar to the acclimatisation rules airlines like EK et all use presently for that sort of operations.

maggot
10th Jan 2017, 02:20
For alt-paxing, this is just the company attempting to avoid scrutiny in the event of a fatigue related incident, while saving money in accommodation and allowances.

"He ticked the box saying he wasn't fatigued, so he clearly wasn't fatigued."

Yeah well I dunno
Just saying how it is currently but that was before perth base ULR was in mind, more for paxing down on day of departure before where one may not have gotten sleep otherwise. Not too many have a sleep before operating the qf1 in the evening do they

C441
10th Jan 2017, 02:41
For alt-paxing, this is just the company attempting to avoid scrutiny in the event of a fatigue related incident, while saving money in accommodation and allowances.

It's not actually. There has been a significant amount of discussion within the group that looks at fatigue related issues amongst line pilots and it is still recognised that there is a joint responsibility to ensure a pilot arrives at work as rested and as fit as possible. This discussion has included looking at how other airlines manage commuting, including driving to work.

Alternate Paxing is just one part of the discussion; the main focus is on pilots being really fit to operate, no matter how they arrive at sign-on, whether its a 4 hour or 12 hour domestic day or a MEL-LAX or PER-LHR.

Willie Nelson
10th Jan 2017, 03:40
Rog approved said:

You may find the new FRMS will make it extremely difficult to commute then operate on the same day.

Serious question: Since the CASA announcement about another twelve month delay and are QF still going ahead with the FRMS?

C441
10th Jan 2017, 04:18
Serious question: Since the CASA announcement about another twelve month delay and are QF still going ahead with the FRMS?

Yes. Despite the delay, it remains a requirement for Qantas and other operators to introduce an FRMS in the designated timeframe.

watermellon
10th Jan 2017, 07:18
Given one operator has the definition as flight deck duty starting with park brake release for pushback one has to wonder how the FRMS can be taken seriously.

Multiple airlines flying around the country with different definitions of flight deck duty ie one at park brake release another at sign on ...

Derfred
10th Jan 2017, 10:01
There is a hell of a difference between arriving well rested before a 12 hour multi-sector domestic duty and a 14-18 hour LH single sector duty.

You must be well rested before the domestic duty or your performance will suffer.

On the other hand, a lot of pilots sign on to LH duties deliberately under-rested. It's the only way they will manage to get some sleep in the bunk.

Does FRMS consider this little practicality?

IsDon
10th Jan 2017, 10:11
This discussion is all moot unless there's a base in Perth.

So far, I haven't read anything about a Perth base except conjecture here.

The only confirmed base at this point is Melbourne. Flights from Perth to London could certainly be crewed from Melbourne. With such a small initial fleet it doesn't make sense to start up a second base in the short term. In fact the costs of having a base in Perth would significantly outweigh the savings in accommodation in Perth.

Until the fleet numbers increase and the flying starts showing some statistics I find a Perth base to be unlikely.

Capt Fathom
10th Jan 2017, 10:22
On the other hand, a lot of pilots sign on to LH duties deliberately under-rested. It's the only way they will manage to get some sleep in the bunk.


So as long as they can get a sleep in the bunk, that's the main focus? What about the Flight Planning, Preflight, Take-off and Climb?

And if all the crew members subscribe to this analogy...?

*Lancer*
10th Jan 2017, 10:29
There is a base in PER already.

Notwithstanding, a B787 PER posting would probably be the first step.

Derfred
10th Jan 2017, 13:30
Fathom, I think you're missing my point.

I didn't say crew are signing on fatigued. I said "under-rested". By which I mean they ensure they have not had had 8 hours continuous sleep prior to sign on. Purposefully.

Under a normal circadian rhythm, one sleeps 8 hours per day, and wakes for the remaining 16 hours.

If you sleep for 8 hours, and then try to take a two hour nap 4-8 hours later, you are unlikely to gain any sleep.

If one was to sleep 8 hours prior to signon for an 18 hour flight, the circadian rhythm will dictate that it's bed-time in the last few hours of the flight. That's the last thing you want if you have been unable to sleep inflight. Add jet-lag to the equation and it gets worse.

Hence, turn up either after a short sleep (2-4 hours), or after a considerable wake period, and you stand a chance of actually sleeping in the bunk and being alert for the duration of the flight, and, most importantly, the arrival.

This is not news. ULH pilots have been doing this for years. You are obviously not one.

My question in the context of the thread was whether FRMS takes into account that the majority of ULH pilots have learned by experience that this is the best way to operate. I doubt it.

And so, I put to the community that commuting to an ULH flight may not necessarily be the threat that it is being made out to be. A couple of hours of shuteye on an A330 might actually be ideal from an FRMS perspective for the forthcoming 18-20 hour duty.

MrWooby
10th Jan 2017, 21:20
A couple of hours sleep in an A330 prior to the flight would be great, and this would be achievable in business class, however, given our fantastic staff travel system, your most likely to be in cattle class and unable to sleep.

Regarding turning up for a long haul flight not rested, I found the best way to do the late evening Asia to Euroupe departures was to not sleep prior to flight. So you have been awake about 15 hours prior to the flight. The other crew would have generally slept prior to flight. I felt quite alert for take-off and climb, but then had no problems sleeping for about 6 hours, i'd return to the flight deck over Afghanistan, where the other pilot would then have no problems sleeping for the next 6 hours and returing totally refreshed for landing.

KZ Kiwi
11th Jan 2017, 04:02
The other crew would have generally slept prior to flight.

And if everyone ran the same policy regarding not getting any rest before the flight......????

MrWooby
11th Jan 2017, 04:20
Ah, that's the fun of long haul flying ! In this case I am talking about the 2nd leg of AUS-EUR trip, so you have already had the AUS-ASIA flight together, and can liaise re the next nights flying.

But really, whats worse, all crew turning up fully rested for the evening 13 hour flight. First crew member goes off for rest and can't sleep, he comes back tired, next guy goes off, probably gets a small amount of sleep but ends up that the first guy calls him back because he is now too tired. The end result is descent into destination with all crew fatigued.

Many times, when the other crew member went off for the first break, the said they they probably couldn't sleep for the first half, I'd say "come back whenever you want", generally I would end up calling them back at half way. This worked out to be about 5-6 hours rest in pretty close to your normal sleep times in AUS, they would be fully rested for the rest of the flight.

Basically its long haul flying, out of your time zone, etc etc, we are all fatigued by this sort of flying. Mandating set rest times doesn't work, its up to each person to do what's best for himself and to work with the other crew members to ensure a safe flight.

IsDon
11th Jan 2017, 04:22
I believe EK run a system of operating crew and relief crew. If you're rostered as relief crew you're expected to turn up to work ready to sleep. You then hit the bunk at top of climb.

Great idea, but only if you have Captains and F/Os. Of course with QF using S/Os this would be problematic.

Buckshot
11th Jan 2017, 07:44
In this case I am talking about the 2nd leg of AUS-EUR trip

No good these days as the second leg of QF1 is only two man!

I believe EK run a system of operating crew and relief crew. If you're rostered as relief crew you're expected to turn up to work ready to sleep. You then hit the bunk at top of climb.

Correct although the augmenting crew has responsibility to oversee and participate in pre-flight planning and calculation of the TO figures. Ask the crew of EK407 on the 345 in ML

Qanchor
11th Jan 2017, 08:03
This discussion is all moot unless there's a base in Perth.
This is true with respect to the 787.
But here's the thing, on other (current) types, the practice of paxing from east coast to PH and then operating (sometimes boc) to wherever continues unabated.

AerialPerspective
14th Jan 2017, 17:48
South Africa does already have PER-JNB with SAA. However, it's possible that QF are thinking of PER-CPT, as it's likely that aircraft will be based at PER.
Not so sure that's the case... I heard that the aircraft will likely operate LAX-MEL-PER-LHR then LHR-PER-MEL-LAX. (or is it MEL-SFO the new route, can't remember). This will allow MEL pax to join and transit PER before their one-stop to LHR as an alternative to DXB on QF9. It also offers the opportunity for LAX-PER with one stop on the same aircraft. The flights are supposedly departing PER at 1930L so it will be a late afternoon departure from MEL presumably (before QF9).

AerialPerspective
14th Jan 2017, 17:50
SYD-ORD-SYD

Chicago is the 3rd largest city in the US.
... and QF has operated there before... it is also the world-wide hub for AA is it not (or is it UA???).

AerialPerspective
14th Jan 2017, 17:52
Does that mean they will also ban commuters who drive 3-4hrs in traffic prior to sign-on too?
Which would be less fatiguing , the having a snooze whilst paxing to work or the long self drive to work ?
Isn't that why they provide Limos??? FRMS and Duty Time Limitations are based on Sign On/Sign Off time.

maggot
14th Jan 2017, 19:49
Isn't that why they provide Limos??? FRMS and Duty Time Limitations are based on Sign On/Sign Off time.

If by limo you mean a stanky bus with the driver definitely not under a fRMS, then yeah. A limo

blow.n.gasket
15th Jan 2017, 02:22
Aerial how far is the home transport boundary again?
Not all pilots reside within, hence the quoted travel times mentioned verses paxing times of a similar duration.
Was just trying to compare apples with apples.

Ken Borough
15th Jan 2017, 10:07
[QUOTE]A couple of hours sleep in an A330 prior to the flight would be great, and this would be achievable in business class, however, given our fantastic staff travel system, your most likely to be in cattle class and unable to sleep.[/QUOTE

Tell us, Mr Wooby, that you are joking. Do you really think that the Staff Travel scheme should be enhanced for the benefit of commuting crew? And do you think that crew who chose to live at other than their place of work (base) should travel in J class at the expense of full fare paying passengers?

Get real and STFU. :ok:

angryrat
15th Jan 2017, 21:02
[QUOTE]A couple of hours sleep in an A330 prior to the flight would be great, and this would be achievable in business class, however, given our fantastic staff travel system, your most likely to be in cattle class and unable to sleep.[/QUOTE

Tell us, Mr Wooby, that you are joking. Do you really think that the Staff Travel scheme should be enhanced for the benefit of commuting crew? And do you think that crew who chose to live at other than their place of work (base) should travel in J class at the expense of full fare paying passengers?

Get real and STFU. :ok:

I don't think that is what MrWooby is saying at all and this is a whole other thread. To sum it up quickly, new categories of travel were created by office staff to skip them above pilots in the staff travel que. So you have a brand new office staff secretary with higher on load/upgrade than a 40 year Captain on LSL. So it's about staff travel and it's got nothing to do with your silly claim of us wanting to travel in J class at the expense of full fare passengers.

But you knew all this, so you might want to take your own rude advice :ok:

Boe787
15th Jan 2017, 21:51
As I understand it, a new category of 41Y onload was introduced a while back for senior management.
This applied for all their trips.

So that meant that the only time a non senior management staff member travelling, had a higher onload, was on a LSL trip with a Category of 40.

The 41Y onload I believe was withdrawn, along with several other changes, with the introduction of the new I Fly staff travel system?

Beer Baron
15th Jan 2017, 23:25
It's about the upgrade priority F11. So a kid in a graduate position in their first year of service beats a 40 year Captain to the last business seat. Check any international service and there is an unusually high number of staff (plus their family, friends, girlfriends, boyfriend) flying around with an F11 upgrade

MrWooby
15th Jan 2017, 23:58
Amazing how you can make a simple statement and then have a totally different interpretation placed upon it. Ken, I was simple saying that commuting would be very hard if stuck in economy class for 4-5 hours, prior to your long haul flight.

I also think that a few commuters are risking it a bit by not leaving many options for travel if you don't get on your flight, or your flight goes u/s. When I commuted on the east coast I would allow at least 3 flight options to get me to sydney, but was still paranoid about missing my flight. This is much harder to do on Perth flights as less options and you would end up having to arrive many hours ahead of your departure.

I think commuting to Perth would be ok but probably a requirement to have a nights sleep in the departure time zone prior to departure would be advisable.

But as for displacing paying passengers, you have to wonder how many have actually paid the full fare business class instead of upgrading using points or cash. There has to be a very fine line between people who would have paid full fare but now don't and use the upgrade facility, hence less revenue, versus the money made by upgrading. A false economy if you ask me.

Ken Borough
16th Jan 2017, 01:01
Mr Wooby can wonder all he likes but it's not for him (or me)to question who pays to travel in the premium cabins. As for those whu use points, doesn't he realise that Qantas is actually paid for them. Not only that, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence around that QF Frequent Flyer is a very profutable part of the business,

Slagging Staff Travel on a public forum doesn't do good for anyone. Those who are ineligible are as green as grass with envy, hence my comment STFU. Best to accept the good parts and tolerate that which you don't like especially as we are not born to the benefits it offers.

maggot
16th Jan 2017, 01:25
Cost/profit shifting to make it look good for the mooted sell off a few years back.

Boe787
16th Jan 2017, 02:18
We are talking about a Melbourne Perth flight here, so the upgrade category for all current staff is J18, after which length of service is the determining factor.

So for a Domestic flight, the Captain with 40 years service, provided all listed staff are onloaded, will always get a business seat in front of the exec who has only been in the company for a year!

missy
16th Jan 2017, 02:31
Just out of interest how many pilots would Qantas have with 40 years of service? Curious to compare the pilot numbers with Australian ATCs with 40 years of service (which I could probably count on 1 hand).

Tankengine
16th Jan 2017, 10:23
Just out of interest how many pilots would Qantas have with 40 years of service? Curious to compare the pilot numbers with Australian ATCs with 40 years of service (which I could probably count on 1 hand).

A few, we just had one retire with 50 years!

C441
16th Jan 2017, 22:37
……..so the upgrade category for all current staff is J18,

Staff yes, executive staff no.

So for a Domestic flight, the Captain with 40 years service, provided all listed staff are onloaded, will always get a business seat in front of the exec who has only been in the company for a year!

Unfortunately no. As a commuter with 30+ years of service I can assure you I regularly get bumped by 'executive' staff with service that can almost be counted in months. They often have duty travel categories regardless of their reason for travel.

Staff travel is a handy option, but like many things Qantas these days, the only recognised measure of your contribution to the company is KPI's and if you don't 'earn' them your contribution is largely invisible.

Thankfully most staff remain incredibly loyal to the brand and don't need KPI's to encourage their performance.

Boe787
17th Jan 2017, 00:05
C441, I was only alluding to the situation relating to Crew Commuting using staff travel, not duty vs leisure travel,

No doubt a manager on Duty travel will have higher onload/upgrade priority.

I dont know what you can do about the situation you describe, if they are abusing the Duty Travel system?

But for Staff Leisure Travel domestically, J18 applies for all current staff, and your 30 years will see you in Business, before an exec who has been with the company 5 minutes, and is on Leisure travel.

It will also see you into Domestic business ahead of a lot of other fellow staff, even more so Internationally, with a Higher Upgrade Priority than a lot of other staff have.

AerialPerspective
17th Jan 2017, 02:26
If by limo you mean a stanky bus with the driver definitely not under a fRMS, then yeah. A limo
Fair enough, I thought it was limos or at least cabs for Tech Crew (as they are the only ones with actual legal restrictions, CC are based on Award/EBA). I stand corrected.

C441
17th Jan 2017, 05:59
C441, I was only alluding to the situation relating to Crew Commuting using staff travel, not duty vs leisure travel,

So was I. Since the beginning of the school holidays there's hardly been a flight were I haven't been potentially 'out-upgraded' by an 'exec' and his/her partner & kids. It would be unusual for so many execs to be taking their wife and kids to their meeting in Queensland! If only tech crew could be so confident of getting a seat that they could take their children away with them in the holidays.

Anyway, we have departed significantly from the 787 projected route thread so I'll leave it there…….

Ken Borough
17th Jan 2017, 07:44
Just keep up the bleating and whingeing and you'll lose the benefit for all of us! It really is time to go smell the roses (or coffee).....

JPJP
18th Jan 2017, 21:27
It's about the upgrade priority F11. So a kid in a graduate position in their first year of service beats a 40 year Captain to the last business seat. Check any international service and there is an unusually high number of staff (plus their family, friends, girlfriends, boyfriend) flying around with an F11 upgrade

I can certainly understand why they picked the letter "F" as the prefix for their upgrade priority. I suppose "C" was already taken.

angryrat
19th Jan 2017, 03:59
Just keep up the bleating and whingeing and you'll lose the benefit for all of us!

Very typical of management, trying to bully those into shutting up with a ludicrous statement/threat. Can only imagine the engagement and fuel bill going in opposing directions if this was even rumoured let alone implemented.

Of course, it wouldn't benefit you to stifle the argument, would it 🙄

Ken Borough
19th Jan 2017, 04:28
Rat,

I'm not management nor am I trying to bully anyone. If only you realised just how much this benefit is hated, detested - call it what you will - by those who don't receive it, you wouldn't complain. And you wouldn't receive a skerrick of sympathy.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
19th Jan 2017, 06:32
If only you realised just how much this benefit is hated, detested - call it what you will - by those who don't receive it, you wouldn't complain. And you wouldn't receive a skerrick of sympathy.

I can't see how it matters what people who don't get staff travel think of it. They can love it, detest it, be nonplussed by it - makes no difference to me. Nor would I be looking for their sympathy. As far as I can tell, the people who are most upset about staff travel are the ones who leave angry online comments on Daily Telegraph articles about QF, and who seem to think that staff travel confers unlimited confirmed First Class seats for $5 a sector, at the expense of regular paying passengers. Their opinion isn't something that greatly troubles me.

knobbycobby
19th Jan 2017, 22:56
It was a big mistake putting blind faith in sacrificing terms and Conditions to get staff travel improvements or token "reviews" that were not guaranteed in writing.
Totally unrealistic to expect it of AIPA. They never promised it, however it was advertised or wrongly perceived to deliver more than was realistic.
Ive heard so many people wrongly complain that AIPA had promised something for voting yes. What idiots.

Doing an extra PER/LHR trip per roster without night credits and getting zero overtime for doing a 19 hour plus duty is a massive sacrifice without getting anything major for the trade off. Hourly rate aside it's less take home pay than 767 or A330 under the previous award flying what the 787 will do. That's Ultra Long Haul night flying. Rotating seniority isa fantastic outcome. For the PER base sadly it won't help as you could fly PER to LHR or PER to LHR.

The irony is the pay reduction was more $$$$ than what a full fare first class ticket cost to Europe, that would of earned points, earned status credits and been confirmed. Or two confirmed business tickets.

Would of been better to get a SH bonus scheme for trading off night credits and overtime than a staff travel review. With the record Qantas profits over the last financial year the bonus would have paid for the ticket.

For the next EA it would be far wiser to hold onto terms and conditions rather than trading big items for a hope you might get a better upgrade once a year you may travel.

The system has changed to benefit Frequent flyers permantely.
Any staff are the last priority now.Deal with it. Look at the upgrade requests and they often number 40+ For business and First. With double points awarded now for bookings in 2017, the public will bank more points. It won't matter what your upgrade order is.
Perhaps the Pilot that works very hard in the office might occasionally get F or J with an F11 based on greater years of service than the 24 year old from Jetstar IT, but even then it would be rare that there is even a free seat.

You can buy a confirmed economy ticket for $1000 on sale to the USA on Qantas and earn double points. Sign up to a new credit card and you can earn 100,000 points. Better to do that and use/earn points to get an upgrade. Puts you ahead of the 20 year old from Jetstar IT or HR anyway.

Unless you get a confirmed seat agreed to in an EA which will never happen, your better off focusing on increasing take home pay, rest days with family, better hotels etc etc.

Average Joe
21st Jan 2017, 01:19
Hear, hear.
It was a big mistake putting blind faith in sacrificing terms and Conditions to get staff travel improvements or token "reviews" that were not guaranteed in writing.
Totally unrealistic to expect it of AIPA. They never promised it, however it was advertised or wrongly perceived to deliver more than was realistic.
Ive heard so many people wrongly complain that AIPA had promised something for voting yes. What idiots.

Doing an extra PER/LHR trip per roster without night credits and getting zero overtime for doing a 19 hour plus duty is a massive sacrifice without getting anything major for the trade off. Hourly rate aside it's less take home pay than 767 or A330 under the previous award flying what the 787 will do. That's Ultra Long Haul night flying. Rotating seniority isa fantastic outcome. For the PER base sadly it won't help as you could fly PER to LHR or PER to LHR.

The irony is the pay reduction was more $$$$ than what a full fare first class ticket cost to Europe, that would of earned points, earned status credits and been confirmed. Or two confirmed business tickets.

Would of been better to get a SH bonus scheme for trading off night credits and overtime than a staff travel review. With the record Qantas profits over the last financial year the bonus would have paid for the ticket.

For the next EA it would be far wiser to hold onto terms and conditions rather than trading big items for a hope you might get a better upgrade once a year you may travel.

The system has changed to benefit Frequent flyers permantely.
Any staff are the last priority now.Deal with it. Look at the upgrade requests and they often number 40+ For business and First. With double points awarded now for bookings in 2017, the public will bank more points. It won't matter what your upgrade order is.
Perhaps the Pilot that works very hard in the office might occasionally get F or J with an F11 based on greater years of service than the 24 year old from Jetstar IT, but even then it would be rare that there is even a free seat.

You can buy a confirmed economy ticket for $1000 on sale to the USA on Qantas and earn double points. Sign up to a new credit card and you can earn 100,000 points. Better to do that and use/earn points to get an upgrade. Puts you ahead of the 20 year old from Jetstar IT or HR anyway.

Unless you get a confirmed seat agreed to in an EA which will never happen, your better off focusing on increasing take home pay, rest days with family, better hotels etc etc.

IsDon
21st Jan 2017, 02:50
Hourly rate aside it's less take home pay than 767 or A330 under the previous award flying what the 787 will do. That's Ultra Long Haul night flying. Rotating seniority isa fantastic outcome. For the PER base sadly it won't help as you could fly PER to LHR or PER to LHR.


Now that is just plain nonsense.

The take home pay on the 787 is significantly more that the 767 and slightly more than the A330.

Additionally, your pay doesn't drop $3K/fourtnight because you happen to be on leave. Get called out on a sim support or do a standby and you get significantly more, at the higher hourly rate, than you would on the 767 or 330.

Still in a defined benefit for super. If so it is definitely the fleet to be on. Your FAS is significantly inflated thanks to the higher hourly rate.

Don't agree? Then ask all of the A330 pilots that have bid for the 787. I assume they're all deluded and you're correct.

If your going to make statements such as you have, then at least be across the facts.

C441
21st Jan 2017, 05:14
Hourly rate aside it's less take home pay than 767 or A330 under the previous award flying what the 787 will do.

IsDon: I think the point he's trying to make is that under the previous 767 award doing the hours and sectors that the 787 is going to do, the take home pay would be greater. Mind you, the divisor would also be at least 25% higher to accommodate the extra hours the 787 award can squeeze into 56 days. :rolleyes:

IsDon
21st Jan 2017, 10:15
IsDon: I think the point he's trying to make is that under the previous 767 award doing the hours and sectors that the 787 is going to do, the take home pay would be greater. Mind you, the divisor would also be at least 25% higher to accommodate the extra hours the 787 award can squeeze into 56 days. :rolleyes:

Yes mate, I know what he's getting at.

This argument has been done to death many times during the roadshows and has been shown, time and again, that it is an irrelevant argument.

The 767 could not do the length of sector planned for the 787. So it doesn't matter what arrangements were in place for the 767 as the 787 is doing entirely different flying.

What is important is takehome pay and the days at work needed to achieve it. On balanced argument the 787 is ahead of the 767 by a mile and the 330 by a small amount.

What I will grant you is that if the 330 were doing the same ultra long haul legs that the 787 is initially doing then yes, you would be getting paid more courtesy of the overtime. Fact is the 330 couldn't do this flying even if it wanted to as it doesn't have the legs. A similar moot argument as the 767.

If, however, you take a longer term think about where we'll be in five years or so, you would realise that it makes sense for the company to start replacing the 330 with the 787. It makes no sense operating two fleet types when the 787 can do all of the 330 flying, as well as the ultra long haul that will make up the initial routes, and do it more efficiently. The 787 has a lower operating cost per hour than the 330 with other gains in the economy of scale of operating one fleet instead of two, crewing, engineering, spares inventory etc. The companies own data showed a 25% efficiency gain over the A330. I don't believe that for a second, but 5% certainly. I reckon if it was even 1% more efficient then the 330 will be the next dying fleet. This is where anyone flying the 787 will be streets ahead. Once it starts operating on routes into Asia, and even domestically eventually, on routes that don't attract overtime on the 330 now, those flying it will be significantly better off.

knobbycobby
21st Jan 2017, 19:11
I see what you trying to do IsDon.

Yes the 787 ultra long haul pilot will earn more than an A330/767 pilot flying DOMESTIC.

But if the 787 was doing 17 hour plus ULTRA LONG HAUL flights at A330/767 hourly rates and getting overtime then he or she is NOT.
PER/LHR and MEL/LAX is not domestic or Asia flying. Can the A330/767 fly for 18 hours? Hate to break it to you but it's different flying.
Without night credits working 30% more on long haul routes too. Glad the super is more to reflect the harder work. Excellent.
Interesting that none of the routes in the explanatory EA document were accurate. Where is all the Asia flying?

It's done and dusted now so nothing changes.
My point was that a review of staff travel changes were perceived to offer more than reality. Bit like your comparison of long haul 787 take home salary and A330/767 pay for flying domestically. If I'm wrong put the numbers up for a FO doing PER/LHRs and prove it.

The topic of this thread is 787 routes. I look forward to seeing more of the Asia flying that was advertised in the EA finally announced.

fearcampaign
21st Jan 2017, 20:14
Agree with Cobby,

787 isn't flying to Asia and won't be a very long time. It's an aircraft for long thin routes primarily. Always was.

theheadmaster
21st Jan 2017, 20:41
Doing an extra PER/LHR trip per roster without night credits and getting zero overtime for doing a 19 hour plus duty is a massive sacrifice without getting anything major for the trade off

The trade off is a future flying for Qantas.

As stated above, comparing A330 and B767 hourly rates against the 787 is not a valid comparison. These aircraft are not capable of flying the same sectors. A more valid commment is that if you insisted on maintaining the same pay rate as 767 or A330 and applying the same overtime and night credits the aircraft would not be flown by mainline pilots under the long haul EBA.

IsDon
21st Jan 2017, 22:06
The trade off is a future flying for Qantas.

As stated above, comparing A330 and B767 hourly rates against the 787 is not a valid comparison. These aircraft are not capable of flying the same sectors. A more valid commment is that if you insisted on maintaining the same pay rate as 767 or A330 and applying the same overtime and night credits the aircraft would not be flown by mainline pilots under the long haul EBA.

Exactly.

The present LH EA for existing types is efficient, from the company's perspective, for shorter tours of duty below the overtime threshold.

Before the -400 ushered in long tours of duty that regularly attracted overtime there were few tours of duty that it applied to. I wasn't around when the thresholds for overtime were originally nutted out but the reasons they were put in is pretty obvious. There needed to be an incentive for crews to extend beyond there normal duty hours to cater for unforeseen events such as diversions. You only have to look at the newly minted 787 agreement for evidence of this. A little known fact is that the 787 attracts overtime if the planned duty hours are exceeded. The company insisted on this. They still want a carrot for crew to extend for unforeseen events.

We have certainly benefitted from more capable aircraft with longer ranges. The regular overtime makes up a very large part of our pay, no doubt about it. So much so leave is tarnished somewhat when you realise your pay will drop $3K/fortnight while you're on leave. The company, quite reasonably, wanted to be able to open up new long haul routes without being hamstrung by paying pilots double dollars. They needed a flatter and more predictable cost structure.

From the company's perspective, the ultra long routes meant this method of overtime was never going to work. If no other option were put forward I feel certain that it would not have been Qantas pilots flying the 787, it would have been Cobham/Jetconnect/(insert startup here) under vastly inferior terms than we will be flying the aircraft under. This opinion was arrived at after several personal discussions with those on both sides of the negotiating table. All are honourable people I have known personally and flown with for many years. I have zero doubt that the only options were to fly the aircraft on terms that were eventually agreed to, or not at all. The option to fly it under our present terms was never an option.

So as to the routes the aircraft will fly, which is the title of this thread, I agree that initially it will be doing the ultra long thin stuff. The A330s will have to be replaced in a few years and the logical replacement for them will be the 787. No brainer. The 330 will become the 767, doing less and less international and more domestic until it's finally pensioned off. The 380 will also possibly pick up some of this flying as the routes mature. But there will also be a need for the 787 on these routes.

knobbycobby
21st Jan 2017, 23:28
IsDon,

Just wondering why the A330 and then the A380 was negotiated into the Long Haul award?
Why didn't they use Cobam,Jetconnect etc etc and get a "flatter structure" or a "paycut".
Having flown with company negotiators I specifically asked them if such a threat was real/plausible.
The reply was a definite NO.

theheadmaster
22nd Jan 2017, 00:26
IsDon,

Just wondering why the A330 and then the A380 was negotiated into the Long Haul award?
Why didn't they use Cobam,Jetconnect etc etc and get a "flatter structure" or a "paycut".
Having flown with company negotiators I specifically asked them if such a threat was real/plausible.
The reply was a definite NO.

Then perhaps you should talk to the negotiators for EBA9. Circumstances were different for this negotiation.

IsDon
22nd Jan 2017, 00:38
IsDon,

Just wondering why the A330 and then the A380 was negotiated into the Long Haul award?
Why didn't they use Cobam,Jetconnect etc etc and get a "flatter structure" or a "paycut".
Having flown with company negotiators I specifically asked them if such a threat was real/plausible.
The reply was a definite NO.

Good question.

The 330 was a bit of an aberration. The rate for this aircraft was based on the rate for the classic 747-300. Can't remember but it was something like classic plus 5%. Certainly above the classic. I remember thinking at the time, good on the negotiators getting that one agreed to. Fact is though the 330 was never going to do much overtime flying so it was always going to be a flat cost base, like the 767. That was why there was no intention to have it crewed outside the agreement I suspect.

The 380 pay rate came about, if you recall, straight after the vote down of the EBA8 debacle. This failed EBA is still quoted by some as the best EBA ever. Well the vast majority thought it was crap and for good reason. Anyway, I digress.

In the vacuum left after this no vote the company and AIPA agreed to a quick and dirty rollover of EBA7 with a rate for the 380 set at 747-400 + X%. We'd spent countless months wasting energy on EBA8, on both sides. I don't think there was any energy left to start with a clean sheet of paper and start that process all over again. Oldmeadow and co's modus operandi was always delay, delay, and when you can't think of what to do delay some more. Knowing that an effective pay freeze was in place for this whole delay, the back pay for which was another point of negotiation.

At the time, the rank and file were just over it, and I suspect the company were too. I suspect that's why it was added to the existing agreement as it was the path of least resistance.

Remember also, that the 380 was only doing what flying the 744 was doing at the time. Given that planned flying it's a reasonable position to say that the 380 carries X% more revenue, we want X% more to fly it. With the same overtime that was paid to the 400 crews between LAX and Oz that's probably reasonable in the light of the circumstances that existed at the time. Dallas hadn't been thought of. If Dallas were on the radar, I expect the 380 would not have been included as it was.

maggot
22nd Jan 2017, 01:26
Mel lax mel OT is about the same as a dfw pattern

So no

IsDon
22nd Jan 2017, 01:58
Mel lax mel OT is about the same as a dfw pattern

So no

Only because of a specific clause that applies only to the MEL-LAX route. Not because of the actual length of the duty.

MelbourneFlyer
24th Jan 2017, 06:23
Looks like another 787 route announcement is coming this week as Qantas has flown several journalists to Seattle including GT and the 'aviation editor' of News.

Transition Layer
24th Jan 2017, 13:08
I'd imagine if they're going all the way to Seattle it would be to announce more aircraft orders rather than new routes?

topend3
25th Jan 2017, 00:25
Please don't call GT a journalist, it's an insult to the profession...

IsDon
25th Jan 2017, 01:50
Please don't call GT a journalist, it's an insult to the profession...

I think it's called sarcasm.

By the way, I didn't think there was anything that insulted journalists. Whatever professionalism once existed with this occupation certainly doesn't exist any more. "Journalists" are merely a conduit from the corporate and government spin doctors to the great unwashed. Regurgitating press releases with a simple cut and paste. The driving imperative being the first to break the story, regardless of the actual content and the veracity thereof.

B772
25th Jan 2017, 10:39
I am told the visit is for a progress update on the first B787 for QF. Also new premium economy seat release. First a/c due in SYD in 36 weeks.

cynphil
25th Jan 2017, 22:40
Qantas do not have to announce more firm 787 orders until March/April 2018!! If they don't, they will lose a few orders...must be made firm by this date!! I am sure they will leave it to the last minute(commercial reasons) but will definitely announce more firm orders!! Can't do much with just 8 aircraft!! Despite all the smoke and mirrors!!! Either way , Qantas is still the incredible shrinking airline in a growing international market!!

rjtjrt
25th Jan 2017, 23:08
Qantas do not have to announce more firm 787 orders until March/April 2018!! If they don't, they will lose a few orders...must be made firm by this date!! I am sure they will leave it to the last minute(commercial reasons) but will definitely announce more firm orders!! Can't do much with just 8 aircraft!! Despite all the smoke and mirrors!!! Either way , Qantas is still the incredible shrinking airline in a growing international market!!
If QANTAS are doing that, only ordering at last moment when deadline to act comes up, it just demonstrates QANTAS' problem - they have a reactive management, rather than a proactive one.

logansi
26th Jan 2017, 01:20
they are announcing something apparently but its under a press embargo - no idea when that expires.

wishiwasupthere
26th Jan 2017, 02:35
777X?...........

Transition Layer
26th Jan 2017, 02:38
Here's an article today from the News Ltd Aviation writer:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/flights/qantas-in-the-market-for-new-ultralong-range-aircraft/news-story/63f9032f63d17378cf8e6c1781c7cd62

MelbourneFlyer
26th Jan 2017, 03:20
Hahaha, Robyn Ironside, the same 'journalist' who a few years ago, just days before Qantas reported an expected billion-dollar loss, wrote a ludicrous front-page story saying that Qantas would announce it was handing over most of its international routes to Jetstar and withdrawing to becoming a mainly domestic airline. Totally bogus, unsourced, and of course turned out to be utter bullsh*t.

GoldCoastTobacconist
29th Aug 2017, 00:44
Expected announcement from BNE today :ok:

Keg
29th Aug 2017, 02:42
I hope it's more than replacing a 350ish seat aeroplane on BNE-LAX-JFK with a 236 seat aeroplane on the same route. (Though that will be awesome for QF's bottom line given the significantly decreased costs of operating the 789 on that route!).

Let's hope there's some additional Asian stuff as well. We'll know in less than a couple of hours.

LostProperty
29th Aug 2017, 04:56
Just might be:

No Cookies | The Courier Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel/australia/queensland/qantas-dreamliners-to-fly-direct-from-brisbane-airport-to-multiple-us-cities/news-story/a2b3f2b8d26b874fe68f8ecacba365aa)

neville_nobody
29th Aug 2017, 05:35
How many of those 120 staff will be commuting from outside of Queensland?

Keg
29th Aug 2017, 06:08
We have many BNE staff commuting to PER for the 787. We have many SYD crew commuting to MEL for the 787. What's the bet this will have lots of MEL and SYD crew commuting to BNE for the 787?

dragon man
29th Aug 2017, 06:30
I hope it's more than replacing a 350ish seat aeroplane on BNE-LAX-JFK with a 236 seat aeroplane on the same route. (Though that will be awesome for QF's bottom line given the significantly decreased costs of operating the 789 on that route!).

Let's hope there's some additional Asian stuff as well. We'll know in less than a couple of hours.

It will be Chicago.

neville_nobody
29th Aug 2017, 06:57
We have many BNE staff commuting to PER for the 787. We have many SYD crew commuting to MEL for the 787. What's the bet this will have lots of MEL and SYD crew commuting to BNE for the 787?

Just don't tell the Premier that. She thinks she just got 120 high paying jobs in Queensland..........:hmm:

Hopefully there wasn't any taxpayer funds involved

SandyPalms
29th Aug 2017, 07:12
He mustn't have told here that is comes with a corresponding reduction in Brisbane based 747 crew.

maggot
29th Aug 2017, 08:00
Just don't tell the Premier that. She thinks she just got 120 high paying jobs in Queensland..........:hmm:

Hopefully there wasn't any taxpayer funds involved

Swings and roundabouts as there are many commuting to bris also
A few heading north now there's a chance of a few types in bris nowadays, with Syd/Mel prices etc

Going Boeing
29th Aug 2017, 09:30
Just don't tell the Premier that. She thinks she just got 120 high paying jobs in Queensland..........

The Premier was obviously not told (or didn't want to hear) about the number of B747 crew who would have to return to operating out of Sydney or, that the number of seats on the BNE-LAX-BNE route would be decreased from 365 to 236 per day.

But, the airline is profitable and GROWING thanks to the amazing and talented CEO.

Maxmotor
29th Aug 2017, 14:10
Just don't tell the Premier that. She thinks she just got 120 high paying jobs in Queensland..........:hmm:

Hopefully there wasn't any taxpayer funds involved

Nothing new for politicians to jump on the bandwagon for free publicity.

rog747
29th Aug 2017, 16:31
has the 787 been mooted to operate the Antarctica day trip charters that are run each year from SYD MEL BNE ADL PER and now HOB

http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/

these charter flights have been operating since 1994 on the QF 747-438ER but when they go what might take over?

the 787 has lovely big windows, clean air, wonderfully fuel efficient, but being 2 engines only will the ETOPS give QF the insurance needed for such a mission ?

any news or thoughts?

PS i do not know what ETOPS QF has on the 789 out of the box

Silverado
29th Aug 2017, 20:27
PS i do not know what ETOPS QF has on the 789 out of the box

180 out of the box. Should be 330 before PER-LHR starts

Silverado
29th Aug 2017, 20:36
It will be Chicago.

It will be a new route, but a city already served.

BNE-LAX-JFK
&
BNE-DFW

Another qantas pilot
30th Aug 2017, 02:59
Although this is my first post have been watching for quite some time.

Good news regarding 4 787 based out of Brisbane.

BNE/LAX/NYC reverse would take 2 aircraft. So could possibly be another BNE service to the US. they don't tell us anything in qantas so I don't know what that route will be likewise they don't tell us if they are planning on getting anymore than 8 jets. But still as of today no one has released what those routes will be not sure why it's a secret but it is. I for one would be ok if they came out and told the routes but had the disclaimer of saying subject to reg approval.

Training slots out today show 20 CPT/23 FO vacancies that will fill aircraft 5 and 6. DE SO will fill so slots. With all 8 jets to be here in around 15 months one would assume vacancies for aircraft 7/8 will be in the next training year.

MEL/PER AND BNE bases. SIM 2 almost ready for SYD jet base not sure when it will arrive but soon hopefully.

Exciting times for those that can get their hands on the machines for the rest of us we all just watch and hope.

Another qantas pilot
30th Aug 2017, 03:05
We have 180 mins for the 330. Air NZ HAVE 333 for there 789. I don't know what we will end up having for our 787 depends on where it goes I guess. If they plan on sending it down south then it will obviously need more than 180 mins and then one would assume something like 333 like AIR NZ have. And this would also mean we will order more than 8 jets. Again no one tells us anything so it's all here say.

C441
30th Aug 2017, 04:38
has the 787 been mooted to operate the Antarctica day trip charters that are run each year from SYD MEL BNE ADL PER and now HOB

The 747 will be doing it until there aren't any more 747's.
The aircraft is ideal for the manner in which the charters are currently operated. The A380 was used for one season, but was nowhere near as suitable as the 747.

topend3
30th Aug 2017, 05:17
The 747 will be doing it until there aren't any more 747's.

No shit!!!!

C441
30th Aug 2017, 05:57
Did you actually read the question above that?:rolleyes:

As the 747 is expected to be around until at least the end of 2020, then "no", the 787 has not been mooted as a possible replacement aircraft on the Antarctic charters.

Happy now?

dragon man
30th Aug 2017, 07:19
Did you actually read the question above that?:rolleyes:

As the 747 is expected to be around until at least the end of 2020, then "no", the 787 has not been mooted as a possible replacement aircraft on the Antarctic charters.

Happy now?

747ERs until 2025 is the plan.

knobbycobby
30th Aug 2017, 11:01
So 8 787s replace 5 departing 747s.
747 BNE posting to go early 2018 as per email today. So BNE-LAX-JFK for sure for the 787 and perhaps DFW.
So presuming a lot of the 747 crews will go to the 787 to stay in BNE unless they are senior enough to stay in Sydney when the fleet shrinks from 11 now down to 6 with a commute.
Messy as always.

Keg
30th Aug 2017, 12:23
I'd be very surprised if any current 744 Captain bids for the 787. If they bid they go to year 1 pay. If they're RIN'd they go to year 4.

mypov
31st Aug 2017, 04:27
If named in a RIN, I think 747 pilots could displace A380 pilots who are junior to them subject to a few conditions. EA9 18.1.12

mrdeux
31st Aug 2017, 11:17
If named in a RIN, I think 747 pilots could displace A380 pilots who are junior to them subject to a few conditions. EA9 18.1.12

Certainly some could. But the ones who'd be RINed are the most junior of them, and assuming about 30 are pushed out, only about 10-12 would be able to push on to the 380... At that point the next most senior aircraft is the 787, so I wonder if some of those newly trained on it could then be bumped off..

Keg
31st Aug 2017, 11:33
Currently 79 eligible bidders on the 744. Surplus of 19ish for 6 jets? A quick comparison of seniority numbers would seem to show about 10ish could displace to the 380 before the seniority numbers converge? Of course there are other levers to pull as well- any excess leave, planned retirements, lower divisor, etc.

crosscutter
2nd Sep 2017, 06:39
RIN on the 747? S/T/U might be around for quite a while yet and still dropping into JFK. 789 daily Brisbane Chicago... remaining capacity to Lax (Maint checks)...but guess what? No where near enough airframes. The circus keeps writing new chapters and it wouldn't surprise to see a 747 parked in LHR in the future. Going down to 6 747s they reckon? Well not for a while yet. Who do they think they are kidding?

dragon man
2nd Sep 2017, 10:37
RIN on the 747? S/T/U might be around for quite a while yet and still dropping into JFK. 789 daily Brisbane Chicago... remaining capacity to Lax (Maint checks)...but guess what? No where near enough airframes. The circus keeps writing new chapters and it wouldn't surprise to see a 747 parked in LHR in the future. Going down to 6 747s they reckon? Well not for a while yet. Who do they think they are kidding?

Confirmed. To be announced on delivery of the first 787. 2 days a week the 787 to do BNE/LAX. S/T/U to stay but no word on how long. With the refurb on the 380s to be done in 2019/20 then I would say at least until,they are completed.

VH DSJ
2nd Sep 2017, 19:40
Are the delivery dates for the 787-9 mentioned in this blog still accurate (18 October 2017 for VH-ZNA)? I'm considering taking the trip up to KPAE to watch it launch. No doubt there will be many at Sydney watching its arrival on the 20 October.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/community/view/42/6149/first-qantas-boeing-787-9-delivery-date

bolthead
22nd Sep 2017, 16:15
Went for a ride in Norwegian's dash 9 Bangkok - Oslo, so can provide a toilet report. Much better than Jetstar's dash 8, which is pathetic. If the same people, using the same logic, have specced out Q's new ones, there are going to be a lot of unhappy campers. Had the pleasure of spending 10 hours in the seat from hell (42C) Honolulu - Sydney last year. 17 hours will be special.

Seems some sanity has returned to the toilet door design department at Boeing. Those on the dash 8's took the meaning of plastic fantastic to whole new levels. Most of those on the dash 9 seemed to have gone back to the old style of concertina inwards. Except one which, from a distance, seems to open full width into the aisle. That should work well.

Scooting back home from Athens and according to Seatguru it has the same layout as Jetstar. ( this is where I would insert the crying emoticon - if I knew how to do it )

Going Boeing
22nd Sep 2017, 23:20
Most of those on the dash 9 seemed to have gone back to the old style of concertina inwards. Except one which, from a distance, seems to open full width into the aisle. That should work well.

The toilet with the full width door will be the designated one for use by handicapped people. The concertina doors don't work well with wheel chairs.

topend3
23rd Sep 2017, 00:07
Yep canít wait to read the nightmarish reviews from economy punters on PER-LHR...but hey donít worry theyíve got a scientist on board to specially design the food and lighting or some shit to make the trip more pleasurable....the only way Iíd be doing that flight would up the front either J or PE...

bolthead
23rd Sep 2017, 03:52
The rate of climb to toc seemed very leisurely. It was chockers so maybe max weight. Perhaps Norwegian use a very conservative climb power setting.
Maybe Qantas ones have a lot more ponies and mtow to get to London?
OK I know, less seats, but PER - LHR is going to need a shipload of fuel.

patty50
14th Oct 2017, 04:36
While not a huge fan of 787s, I flew ANA's 789 a couple of weeks ago. You'd be astonished how comfortable a 34" intelligently designed seat can be even if a bit narrow. Would be survivable for 17 hours.

Hardly a comparison with Jetstar (30").

RIN on the 747? S/T/U might be around for quite a while yet and still dropping into JFK.

Please God let OEB head to the desert soon.

dragon man
14th Oct 2017, 08:16
While not a huge fan of 787s, I flew ANA's 789 a couple of weeks ago. You'd be astonished how comfortable a 34" intelligently designed seat can be even if a bit narrow. Would be survivable for 17 hours.

Hardly a comparison with Jetstar (30").



Please God let OEB head to the desert soon.

Why? OEB had a C check in August so why hurry and get rid of it might as well use up the two years.

Going Boeing
14th Oct 2017, 09:44
Why? OEB had a C check in August so why hurry and get rid of it might as well use up the two years.

That was August 2016 so I expect OEB will depart August 2018 - just as the second batch of four B787's arrive to fly out of the Brisbane base.

The only way that OEB could remain in service after then would be if it was given its fourth "D" check - a very expensive option so I don't think that will happen. OJS/T/U are coming up to their third "D" check and, in the case of "S", they gave it a "C+" check which bought another two years. The rumour mill indicates that the six ER's will get their third "D" check and remain in service until 2025 (after the A380's are retired) and also, OJU may get a "D" check to keep an extra aircraft available as well as keeping the simulator(s) acceptable with their RR engine configuration.

I don't expect there to be a RIN for the B747 crews as the aircraft will be around for a long time yet and attrition will take care of the small reduction in hulls.

dragon man
14th Oct 2017, 10:25
That was August 2016 so I expect OEB will depart August 2018 - just as the second batch of four B787's arrive to fly out of the Brisbane base.

The only way that OEB could remain in service after then would be if it was given its fourth "D" check - a very expensive option so I don't think that will happen. OJS/T/U are coming up to their third "D" check and, in the case of "S", they gave it a "C+" check which bought another two years. The rumour mill indicates that the six ER's will get their third "D" check and remain in service until 2025 (after the A380's are retired) and also, OJU may get a "D" check to keep an extra aircraft available as well as keeping the simulator(s) acceptable with their RR engine configuration.

I don't expect there to be a RIN for the B747 crews as the aircraft will be around for a long time yet and attrition will take care of the small reduction in hulls.

The word on the street on Friday is that S and T will get D checks. The current 5 747 commands has now become 4 as one person has opted to remain on the 330. The 5 slots will not even cover retirements over the next 12 months let alone stop the 185 hour divisors, constant assignment of sim supports and standbys or breaking of pattern lines.

Going Boeing
14th Oct 2017, 11:49
The 5 slots will not even cover retirements over the next 12 months let alone stop the 185 hour divisors, constant assignment of sim supports and standbys or breaking of pattern lines.

I agree. There will be a few "early" retirements when the BNE B747 posting finishes next year - this will make the crewing issues even tighter. I hope HR learn from their mistakes and stop "burning" pilot applicants.

IsDon
14th Oct 2017, 22:43
I agree. There will be a few "early" retirements when the BNE B747 posting finishes next year - this will make the crewing issues even tighter. I hope HR learn from their mistakes and stop "burning" pilot applicants.

HR, learn, from their mistakes?

Funniest thing Iíve read all week.

engine out
15th Oct 2017, 06:15
Some recent recruits on 747 and some on A380

engine out
15th Oct 2017, 06:33
Some recent recruits on 747 and some on A380

esreverlluf
15th Oct 2017, 10:11
Day 1 lotto is alive and well!:ugh:

AerialPerspective
15th Oct 2017, 11:30
I think it's called sarcasm.

By the way, I didn't think there was anything that insulted journalists. Whatever professionalism once existed with this occupation certainly doesn't exist any more. "Journalists" are merely a conduit from the corporate and government spin doctors to the great unwashed. Regurgitating press releases with a simple cut and paste. The driving imperative being the first to break the story, regardless of the actual content and the veracity thereof.
Very true IsDon... I've almost stopped looking at newspapers... cannot read an article beyond the first one or two paragraphs without finding factual errors that even 10 seconds and a google search would find are not correct... I seriously think, especially things like 'Traveller' in the Age and SMH just troll wikipedia when they are short of ideas for an article. Just pathetic. The few real journalists in the country are derided as being left or right or loopy if they still actually investigate and research before putting pen to paper so to speak.

Rashid Bacon
15th Oct 2017, 23:03
QF exec overheard to say that the 787-9 PER-LHR route is very very tight and they are anticipating that enough of these flights will need a fuel stop that it makes the whole thing a little doubtful.

There is also negative market reaction regarding MEL passengers and this route, having to fly via PER and then sit in a "narrow" wide body for 18+ hours.

The original QF afternoon A380 MEL-SIN-LHR was perfect.

Is this really progress ? :confused:

dragon man
16th Oct 2017, 00:17
QF exec overheard to say that the 787-9 PER-LHR route is very very tight and they are anticipating that enough of these flights will need a fuel stop that it makes the whole thing a little doubtful.

There is also negative market reaction regarding MEL passengers and this route, having to fly via PER and then sit in a "narrow" wide body for 18+ hours.

The original QF afternoon A380 MEL-SIN-LHR was perfect.

Is this really progress ? :confused:

No itís not. If the passengers take the 380 from Melb to Singapore to join the QF1 to London I believe they have a 6 hour transit, so thatís not an option either. Is sitting in economy for 17 1/2 hours in a seat with 1 inch greater pitch than a 737 for $2,200 return a better option? I donít think so. Lastly, I believe since January they have been running flight plans Perth London for this service and only 45% are making it!!

73to91
16th Oct 2017, 04:45
But wait, there's more.


Qantas closes in on dream of ultra-long-haul direct flights

The world's two biggest aircraft makers are "up for the challenge" of designing planes capable of flying non-stop from Australia's east coast to far-flung destinations including New York and London, Qantas says.
Establishing direct routes to take passengers from Melbourne and Sydney to faraway cities, particularly in North America and Europe, without stopovers has become a major focus of the national carrier (http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-firms-up-plans-for-sydneylondon-nonstop-by-2022-20170824-gy3sa2.html)under a new plan called "Project Sunrise".
Qantas officials on Sunday said aviation giants Boeing and Airbus were vying for the project and working on design modifications that would make 20-hour passenger flights commercially viable.
"The actual head of Airbus said, 'It's a bit like the space race to me, it's a bit like getting to the moon'," said Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce, on a visit to Boeing's assembly plant in Seattle on Sunday.
"We are getting very close ... to getting the technology that will allow us to operate routes that we [previously] could only have imagined."
This week, Qantas picks up the first of eight new Dreamliner 787-9 planes, which will be used for the first-ever non-stop, long-haul service between Australia and Europe.
The route will run between Perth and London's Heathrow airport without any stopovers.
"For the first time in history, Australia and Europe will be connected by a great service," Mr Joyce said.
"[Next] we want to do that on the east coast. We want Melbourne and we want Sydney and we want Brisbane. We also want to fly direct into New York, we'd love to be able to fly into Brazil ... and we'd love to be able to fly direct into Cape Town."
Mr Joyce on Sunday said Qantas was in discussions with the rival plane makers, with the US-based Boeing working on possible modifications to its soon-to-be-launched 777X airplane and France's Airbus altering the design of its A350 to make non-stop passenger flights of up to 20 hours viable.
"They are both up for the challenge," he said.
Although existing airplanes, such as the ultra-long-range A350, had the capability to fly directly from the eastern seaboard to places like London, Mr Joyce said they were not presently viable due to a number of factors including passenger and freight loads.
Qantas has signalled it wants to have the ultra-long-haul direct flights from Melbourne and Sydney running by 2022.
Boeing executives on Sunday said the project was an exciting challenge but would not be easy.
"We are working closely with Qantas," said Jim Freitas, Boeing's managing director of product marketing, "and our engineers are understanding the requirements ... what Qantas needs to do, how many passengers, then coming back to make sure we have the capability."
Mr Freitas said the task would be challenging, "but we are really looking forward to it."
Qantas' eight new Boeing Dreamliners, the first of which arrives in Australia on Friday, will be the first all-new aircraft type in the national carrier's flight since the A380 in 2008.
The Dreamliner is considered advantageous because it is made of lightweight carbon fibre, allowing it to fly longer and use far less fuel.
The new 17-hour Perth-to-London Qantas route, the first regular, non-stop service between Australia and Europe, begins in March next year.
Qantas International chief executive Gareth Evans called the new route a "game-changer" for Australians.
"Given the tyranny of distance and our geographical position at the bottom of the world, this new generation of technical capability really allows us to start to overcome the disadvantages of our geography," he said.
The author travelled to Seattle as a guest of Qantas.

Qantas closes in on dream of ultra-long-haul direct flights (http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-closes-in-on-dream-of-ultralonghaul-direct-flights-20171016-gz1lb6.html)

"For the first time in history, Australia and Europe will be connected by a great service, For the 1st time? ok so we assume he means non-stop but then that knocks the 'great service' out surely. 18 hours in Y, AJ should sit in Y and see how good it is.


The author would say anything, no questions asked, for a freebie !!

MelbourneFlyer
16th Oct 2017, 04:50
Qantas announces BNE-LAX-JFK as first route for BNE-based 789s for second half of 2018, says a second 'new' direct US destination will follow and cites Chicago, Dallas and Seattle:
https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-to-fly-boeing-787-on-brisbane-los-angeles-new-york

SilverSleuth
16th Oct 2017, 20:16
As someone who has sat in both Y and J on these aircraft on mutilple routes with mutilple airlines, I can tell you the ďnarrow bodyĒ widebody thing is noticeable. I know many, including myself, who would book looking to avoid these aircraft on ultra long flights if in ecconomy. I could just imagine Per - Lon. 😩

Arctaurus
16th Oct 2017, 21:18
Presumably, the 787-9 leaves Perth with full tanks. Do the passenger numbers need to be capped for this?

Keg
16th Oct 2017, 23:19
Could the A380 do PER - LHR direct?

Easily. With a viable passenger load though? No. About 80-100 seats are blocked out for it to fly DFW- SYD and that's a 16 1/2 hour flight. An extra 1- 1/2 hour flight is going to be an extra 100-150 seats blocked out.

So the 380 would need 230+ ton of fuel for maybe 300 pax. The 787 will need 100T (I think) for 230 pax. Run double daily 787s and you've got many more pax for still less fuel load. They're not kidding when they call the 787 a 'game changer' in this context.

Moneymoneymoneymoney
17th Oct 2017, 02:36
I fly to Dallas and Los Angeles regularly on Qantas and Virgin and every flight has been in Y. This is not an an ideal way to spend ~14-17 hours. No way in hell would I sit in this thing to London in Y. The next obese man or woman who sits next to me is getting a deflating puncture to the abdomen. The width of humans in modern era (Americans followed by Australians), is truly a thing of nightmares on reduced seat width.

Keg
17th Oct 2017, 05:57
Wouldn't think so. Massively different depreciation schedules in each country. Very rare for SQ to have an aeroplane that is more than 10 years old. QF on e other hand tend to hold onto our aircraft for circa 20 years.

Capn Bloggs
17th Oct 2017, 06:04
Run double daily 787s and you've got many more pax for still less fuel load.
But, double the number of crews required, double the servicing (and the purchase/lease price on two frames instead of 1, esp with cheap A380s at the moment? Slots?). Surely it wouldn't hinge on only saved fuel? And what about pax comfort? Would the pax rather a A380 or 787?

donpizmeov
17th Oct 2017, 07:08
Also remember the QF 380s are some of the first ones of the line. The heavy weight 380 at EK, at 575t MTOW burns 900kg per hour less than their first 569t MTOW ones. The newer one carried max ZFW to Houston in 16hrs. And departs with a full pax load to LAX below MTOW for a 15hr 30min flight. it operates a 380 AKL to DXB with 40 seats blocked. It would not be able to do that with one of its earlier aircraft.

Falling Leaf
17th Oct 2017, 08:46
No way in hell would I sit in this thing to London in Y. The next obese man or woman who sits next to me is getting a deflating puncture to the abdomen. The width of humans in modern era (Americans followed by Australians), is truly a thing of nightmares on reduced seat width.

Another great example of technology been able to deliver something which isn't neccesarily a good idea...

ULH flight are technologically possible, but the human body hasn't been upgraded like the engines and aerodynamics. This flight will be a nightmare for both crew and passengers....unless you are in Biz class or above...

And lets face it, that's where all the airline executives who think this is a great idea will be.

IsDon
17th Oct 2017, 09:31
Iím, frankly, over the whinging about how tight the squeeze is in economy. Itís economy people! This expectation of champagne and caviar on a beer and chips budget is so far off the planet itís clear the ozone hole exists so you whining lot can come back to visit from time to time.

Flying has never been cheaper. If you compare the average weekly wage with a ticket price now itís never been cheaper to get between two points by air. The reason for this is that airlines, all of them, are cramming more bums into the same space. Certainly you had more space in the past, no question about it. But you also paid a lot more for it. Could you buy a fare twenty years ago for the equivalent price today? Not a chance. Your choices were to pay what the comfortable seat was worth, or catch the bus/train. My parents generation could never afford to travel by air. They could never afford gap years in Europe.
Now you can still have a comfy seat, with better amenities, better food and entertainment. Itís called premium economy. Pay a bit more and travel more comfortably. Itís still cheaper than what you would have paid twenty years ago. Or pay what you did twenty years ago for a business seat. The choice is yours.

chuboy
17th Oct 2017, 12:37
And what about pax comfort? Would the pax rather a A380 or 787?

The pax prefer the flight that costs them the least amount of money, anyone who tries to tell you otherwise has no business running an airline.

neville_nobody
17th Oct 2017, 12:54
Well if people don't want to do it in economy direct there are plenty of stopovers with the competition. The Middle East or Asia if going to Europe, Hawaii or NZ or Fiji if going to the US. The market will sort itself out.

Keg
17th Oct 2017, 13:10
Another great example of technology been able to deliver something which isn't neccesarily a good idea...

ULH flight are technologically possible, but the human body hasn't been upgraded like the engines and aerodynamics. This flight will be a nightmare for both crew and passengers....unless you are in Biz class or above...

And lets face it, that's where all the airline executives who think this is a great idea will be.

Is right to ask those questions and make those points. It's also important to point out that the very same points were made when the 747SP first started flying LAX-SYD routes across the Pacific. They were made again when the A380 launched DFW- SYD.

As Nev has indicated, the market will sort it out.

maggot
17th Oct 2017, 22:33
The a380 DFW-SYD was greeted with relief from all after the rattler jumbo service via bris

C441
17th Oct 2017, 23:39
Actually just prior to the 744 ceasing DFW-BNE-SYD it had become more of a DFW-BNE-'anywhere but Sydney' service. (Hence the reason the Qld government were lobbying hard for the DFW-BNE leg to be retained and will be happy with any announcement of an additional Brissy-US destination for the 789.)
Often only a relative few passengers were transit pax for Sydney with most inbound pax terminating in Brissy or transitting to Cairns, Darwin, Perth and all points north and west. Passengers to Sydney were mainly joiners in Brissy who would then transit Sydney for Jo'burg, Jakarta, etc.

AerialPerspective
18th Oct 2017, 17:36
Iím, frankly, over the whinging about how tight the squeeze is in economy. Itís economy people! This expectation of champagne and caviar on a beer and chips budget is so far off the planet itís clear the ozone hole exists so you whining lot can come back to visit from time to time.

Flying has never been cheaper. If you compare the average weekly wage with a ticket price now itís never been cheaper to get between two points by air. The reason for this is that airlines, all of them, are cramming more bums into the same space. Certainly you had more space in the past, no question about it. But you also paid a lot more for it. Could you buy a fare twenty years ago for the equivalent price today? Not a chance. Your choices were to pay what the comfortable seat was worth, or catch the bus/train. My parents generation could never afford to travel by air. They could never afford gap years in Europe.
Now you can still have a comfy seat, with better amenities, better food and entertainment. Itís called premium economy. Pay a bit more and travel more comfortably. Itís still cheaper than what you would have paid twenty years ago. Or pay what you did twenty years ago for a business seat. The choice is yours.
Correct. The Qantas 747-238B put into service in 1971 had 56 First Class and 300 Economy... with 9 abreast seating in economy class and a Captain Cook Lounge upstairs. Even allowing for some rows having less than 9 abreast (around galleys/Low lobe access) that's about 35 rows of economy in three zones. Lots more space but at the time it was introduced, fares were much more than now. Fuel was also a fraction of the cost - the fuel price even led the BAC/Aerospatiale to think it wouldn't be a problem for the Concorde.