Qantas Results and Project Sunrise

[patty50]

$1.4b profit this year.


Somehow the Frequent Flyer program makes more money than all of International.


The best news in there being another bonus. Will we have to have another 18 month pay freeze to get it?


https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-group-full-year-2017-financial-result/



The gauntlet has also been put down, Airbus and Boeing have 5 years to come up with a plane that'll be able to do London, Paris, New York and Rio. Qantas will then consider whether that aircraft suits their needs.


https://twitter.com/Qantas/status/900848131008413696

SYD LHR 9,188 nm
SYD JFK 8,647 nm
SYD GIG 7,312 nm


GIG would be doable with the 789 but the map looks a little empty without that fourth dot.

[TBM-Legend]

vs. that other 'not for profit' organisation VA!

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Charging full service airline prices for quasi LCC service can make you big dollars.

[downdata]

Charging full service airline prices for quasi LCC service can make you big dollars.

Only when you have no competition or your competition is completely inept

[Falling Leaf]

The gauntlet has also been put down, Airbus and Boeing have 5 years to come up with a plane that'll be able to do London, Paris, New York and Rio. Qantas will then consider whether that aircraft suits their needs.

Well, that will get them fired up spending billions on developing a new airliner so they can sell....12 airframes?

[framer]

The gauntlet has also been put down, Airbus and Boeing have 5 years to come up with a plane that'll be able to do London, Paris, New York and Rio. Qantas will then consider whether that aircraft suits their needs.
Both Boeing and Airbus will be holding high level crisis meetings as we type. They both know that QF would not be afraid to go to an all Embraer fleet should their demands not be met.

[framer]

Damn FL, you beat me.

[ExtraShot]

Well, actually, you might consider that the order might ORIGINATE with the requirement for a smallish order of ULR airframes to do East Coast Aus direct Europe / East Coast USA.

The company that achieves it would most likely be the winner of a larger order that INCLUDES a 350-400 seater to replace the 747/380 into the future. So a desire for 12 aircraft might turn into an order for 20 to 30.

[clear to land]

Wow-after an initial -maybe-dozen a WHOLE extra 10-20 airframes-I am sure that AB and Boeing will have their R&D teams burning through the overtime. The B77L can easily accomplish SYD-GIG BTW. Having spent 17:30hrs in the tube on a number of occasions that flight time-let alone longer-is pure masochism in Y-its not nice in F, J or the Crew Rest.

[Tommy Bahama]

Hopefully the QF vs VA results are causing a little indigestion amongst the villages at the Friday afternoon barbeque.

[Deano969]

Wow-after an initial -maybe-dozen a WHOLE extra 10-20 airframes-I am sure that AB and Boeing will have their R&D teams burning through the overtime. The B77L can easily accomplish SYD-GIG BTW. Having spent 17:30hrs in the tube on a number of occasions that flight time-let alone longer-is pure masochism in Y-its not nice in F, J or the Crew Rest.

It could potentially outsell the 380 with such a large initial order :D

[morno]

While I agree it is laughable, Boeing have done it in the past. 707-138B ring a bell?

Whether they'd do it now though, is questionable.

morno

[Transition Layer]

It's been done before, think B747-400ER. Only 6 were ever made for Qantas to allow more reliable LAX-MEL ops. Involved an Aux fuel tank and bigger landing gear with a subsequent increase in MTOW.

I reckon we'll see a similar mod made to the 777-8 or-9. Not a new type altogether.

[SixDemonBag]

It's been done before, think B747-400ER. Only 6 were ever made for Qantas to allow more reliable LAX-MEL ops. Involved an Aux fuel tank and bigger landing gear with a subsequent increase in MTOW.

I reckon we'll see a similar mod made to the 777-8 or-9. Not a new type altogether.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/8aVfAxqSf3Y1dywgBh6kCTlUK5oOCoculu33ZT_rWx38LUIjweGFVZ3q7z6y 3vXIGPnjn7TX=w443-h332-nc

[Ozgrade3]

Much laughing and carry on was done when Boeing launched the 747-SP for trans pacific ops. Every one said it would never work long term. I think they got that wrong.

I believe it is inevitable that YSSY - LHR non stop will be the norm.

So the question is, how much of an efficiency improvement will they need to make Sydney to London direct on an 8x airframe.....and later a 9x airframe for the 777. Can the 777x generation of engines be incrementally improved enough to do that, or will it need a new generation of engine. The aim is not to have to reduce revenue payload to fit in underfloor tanks in the hold.

[ExtraShot]

Wow-after an initial -maybe-dozen a WHOLE extra 10-20 airframes-I am sure that AB and Boeing will have their R&D teams burning through the overtime.

Yeah, neither of them would be interested in relatively minor tweaks (an Aux tank and strengthened gear may be all that is necessary...) in Airframes already ALMOST capable of doing what is being requested, in order to potentially win a contract for 20-30 or more aircraft, that could be worth around $10 Billion plus at list prices... not to mention the ability to sell more of their products, have an ongoing relationship for the next couple of decades, add to their product offering for other carriers, etc, etc, etc.

Why on earth would they bother?


It's been done before, think B747-400ER. Only 6 were ever made for Qantas to allow more reliable LAX-MEL ops. Involved an Aux fuel tank and bigger landing gear with a subsequent increase in MTOW

Did some of that development not then go into the Freighter model, which didn't sell too badly I thought?

[Capn Bloggs]

Where the hell's GIG? Gigraltar??

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Mr Joyce said...: “We believe advances in technology....."
Three Fokker F100 aircraft joined the Qantas Domestic fleet in the first half of the year
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[tartare]

You'll need a Blended Wing Body with a coupla GE90+++ to do that sort of payload/range Alan.
Boeing could do it - if they got off their arse.
Tubes and wings are so 20th century.

[Icarus2001]

Come on big guy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro%E2%80%93Gale%C3%A3o_International_Airport

[TineeTim]

Piece of p*ss for the 777-8X. Advertised range of 8,700nm with 350-375 pax. Reduce that to 300 pax and range is pushing 9,200. Couple of aux tanks get you over 9,500nm. Boeing finds a few % of improvement in weight or aerodynamics, GE gets a few % out of the engine and there's 10,000nm to deal with wind/wx. The extra weight of fuel in aux tanks won't be much of an issue at all since the -8x shares most its structure with the (bigger/heavier) -9x. Not sure but I bet the airbus is pretty close too.

[tartare]

Head wind all the way though old son.
And you're burning gas to carry gas.
As the man in flight planning at NZ said to me... "Bloody Boeing will tell you the damn thing can fly to Pluto and back..."

[4Greens]

I seem to remember a non stop flight from the UK to OZ in a 707 many moons ago

[tartare]

A 747 I think.
Towed to the end of the runway too to make sure it had that little extra bit of fuel, and hardly anyone on board.
And that's with the wind...

[Bleve]

A 747 I think.
Towed to the end of the runway too to make sure it had that little extra bit of fuel, and hardly anyone on board.
And that's with the wind...

Yes. It was VH-OJA, QF's first B747-400. They also had a one off high density fuel load made to order just for that flight. They only had premium pax on board (about 50 from memory). All so that they can get bragging rights that they operated the first non- stop commercial flight from LHR to SYD.

[BuzzBox]

Not sure but I bet the airbus is pretty close too.

Airbus is already saying the A350-900ULR will have a range of 9,700nm.

A350-900ULR range figure not a revision: Airbus (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a350-900ulr-range-figure-not-a-revision-airbus-437060/)

Airbus A350-900ULR comes with a 9700 NM flight range (http://www.airlinerpulse.com/blog/2017/05/airbus-a350-900ulr-comes-with-a-9700-nm-range-of-action.html)

[CurtainTwitcher]

Some good history on the 1989 flight with lots of technical info: First Non-stop England-Australia Unrefuelled Flight - 1989 (http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Qantas%201st%20England-Aust%20non-stop%201989.htm)

Another good source with some interesting info about how they prepared the fuel: The Delivery Flight of Qantas Boeing 747-438 VH-OJA by John McHarg (April / May 2012) (http://www.aussieairliners.org/b-747/vh-oja/vhoja%20article/vhojastory.html).


One afternoon, Peter Brookes took a call from Shell, confirming they had refined the fuel but in two batches, which wouldn’t mix unless agitated. 'What should we do?' said Shell. 'Agitate it!' replied Peter Brookes. The solution to this problem was solved when they tracked down a couple of railway fuel tankers, rinsed them out (it was probably a bit more complicated than that) part filled each of them with pre-determined quantities of the two batches of fuel and shunted them backwards and forwards in a local marshalling yard before decanting them into the waiting road tankers. In passing Shell also mentioned that the fuel they’d produced also showed a startlingly low freezing point - minus 70°C - and would that be OK? Shell said they could probably crank it down a bit lower if necessary.

[Plastic fantastic]

Yes, laughable statement when you consider that SQ were doing direct NY nearly 15 years ago.

[Bleve]

Great Circle Distances:
SIN-JFK 8288 nm,
SYD-JFK 8647 nm.

[Keg]

Yes but the respective wind profiles are significantly different. Suspect the nautical air miles JFK- SYD will be significant. 40 knot headwind for 20 hours adds 800 nautical air miles to the flight.

[Sunfish]

Given MEL-LHR distance is almost identical to SYD-LHR what's the chances that Melbourne would get a direct Service from QF as well as Sydeny?

Zero.

Stuff Qantas, the sydeny centric airline. I flew business class via Etihad/KLM/Malaysian to Europe from Melbourne last month and couldn't be happier. We got great deals on the price, the service and punctuality were excellent and there was the added satisfaction of QF not seeing a dollar of our money.

To put that another way, why the heck would anyone want to sit in an economy seat for 18+ hours without a break? Especially with Qantas levels of cabin (non) service? The airframe might do the distance, First and Business class might not mind, but economy?

[Beer Baron]

what's the chances that Melbourne would get a direct Service from QF as well as Sydeny?

Zero.

Stuff Qantas
So you have invented a purely fictional scenario, now you're feeling aggrieved about it and you're blaming Qantas. Get a grip man!

And given you love mentioning your many *business class* adventures on other airlines and how proud you are to never ever fly Qantas; how the hell would you know what their product was like??

You are oddly obsessed with an airline you hate.

[The Green Goblin]

I believe if I google:

'To put it another way'

Sunfish will appear as the main abuser.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

"Flights to Singapore from Melbourne are also being ramped up as part of the overhaul, with Qantas' daily service upgraded from a 235-seat A330 to a 484-seat A380 and its thrice weekly A330 service increased to a daily service." (SMH)

Yeah, stuff Qantas, the sydeny centric airline (sic).

[Heathrow Harry]

"Much laughing and carry on was done when Boeing launched the 747-SP for trans pacific ops. Every one said it would never work long term. I think they got that wrong."

"While in service, the 747SP set several aeronautical performance records, but sales did not meet the expected 200 units, and production ultimately totaled 45 aircraft"

I flew a couple trans-Pacific - SFO - HK IIRC - it was a grim experience even in First TBH (in those days First was roughly equivalent to Enhanced Economy these days...............)

I thnk the main benefit was for SAA who had to fly UK - South Africa round the bulge as they couldn't overfly any African country in those days

[Sunfish]

Beer Baron

Qantas; how the hell would you know what their product was like??

Spent over $12000 from memory Qantas Business class return to LAX circa 2005.

A spoiler actuator failed at pushback at MEL and no, there wasn't a spare. Offloaded, transit to sydeny reloaded. Shocking cabin service both ways. The cabin crew seemed absorbed in their own little world that didn't include pax. Late arrival at LAX, broken connections and a rotten way to start a business trip. No apologies, no service, nothing.

You think I'm stupid enough to spend another ten grand just to see if anythings changed?

[maggot]

You should; they just reset that stuff now no worries

[Fatguyinalittlecoat]

So for 12 years you've spent your time on an anonymous forum ripping into QF. Why? If our aim is to steer people clear of the evil ship of Qantas, sorry mate, it ain't workin'. You need help dude. Honestly, see someone.

[Ken Borough]

Yes, Sunfish is more than just a tedious with his obsessive dislike of Qantas. As we all know how he feels, why doesn't he just STFU? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Sunfish]

Ken, QANTAS claims to be "Australia's national airline". It isn't. it's NSW airline. Ever since at least as early as 1972, Qantas has favoured Sydney as its preferred destination for inbound overseas arrivals. This has had a catastrophic effect on inbound overseas investment for Brisbane and Melbourne, let alone poor Adelaide.

Sydney got the lions share of foreign banking and IT overseas investment during the 1970's and 1980's as a result of Qantas being a willing tool of the Sydney "push". There were #@#! all direct flights from BNE and MEL to LHR and LAX. Everything had to transit through Sydney either inbound or outbound. The result was that Melbourne and Brisbane were perceived by potential overseas investors as being at least three hours further from London and New York than Sydney.

The direct result of this bias was skewed overseas investment in Sydney's favour. When I proposed breaking Sydneys stranglehold on the B747 TFC and line maintenance monopoly circa 1979, which we (Ansett) could have done with minimal further investment (as we were tooling up for the B767), I was instructed at a meeting with John Bibo, very firmly, to drop the subject as "abeles will have our guts for garters if we break that Qantas monopoly". Such is the role of direct flights in securing inbound international investment.

Nothing has changed my view that Qantas is a willing tool of the NSW government, no matter what political persuasion. It will do nothing that politically disadvantages its host. You can bet that if the non stop service eventuates it will again be marketed as Sydney is three hours closer to london and new york, blah, blah.

Qantas ain't a national airline. it's just a bunch of sydney crooks doing what they've been doing since the rum rebellion.

[Tankengine]

Or : overseas passengers simply prefer Sydney?
I hate the place, and I live there!

[downdata]

Sydney is a **** hole. Looking at the inter state net migration statistics in the last couple of years, it seems more people are waking up to this fact. Cant wait to get out of here myself once my land/apartments settles in mel.

[Ken Borough]

There were #@#! all direct flights from BNE and MEL to LHR and LAX. Everything had to transit through Sydney either inbound or outbound.

Well Sunfish, I've news for you! Go do some research of Qantas schedules during the 1970s and you will see that flights to/from London and Southern Europe all routed out and in via MEL with SYD being at the start and end of the route. You call that Sydney-centric? As for BNE, they enjoyed a BNE/SIN service that connected in SIN to/from LHR.

As you mentioned Ansett, at what airport were there International B747s based and did they ever go near Melbourne? Like Qantas, Ansett would have, or should have, followed the money.

[*Lancer*]

0% of Qantas B787s currently planned to be based in Sydney.

Not a strong argument Sunfish!

[PoppaJo]

I lived in Sydney in the late 90s and for a two year secondment few years back. I was so desperate to get out that place I begged my boss for a secondment of my already secondment to go to another base. Two things which really irked me this decade over the last was traffic gridlock and the immigration invasion (advice is don't go to Blacktown unless armed).

I just don't understand the pull factor of place. It's just dirty and miserable, it screams rip me off everywhere you go. Melbourne just wipes it off the map.

[morno]

Melbourne just wipes it off the map

Beauty, less Victorians to ruin it :}

[AerialPerspective]

Only when you have no competition or your competition is completely inept
How exactly is international standard business class with lie flat beds from SYD, BNE and MEL to PER an 'LCC' product???

[AerialPerspective]

Ken, QANTAS claims to be "Australia's national airline". It isn't. it's NSW airline. Ever since at least as early as 1972, Qantas has favoured Sydney as its preferred destination for inbound overseas arrivals. This has had a catastrophic effect on inbound overseas investment for Brisbane and Melbourne, let alone poor Adelaide.

Sydney got the lions share of foreign banking and IT overseas investment during the 1970's and 1980's as a result of Qantas being a willing tool of the Sydney "push". There were #@#! all direct flights from BNE and MEL to LHR and LAX. Everything had to transit through Sydney either inbound or outbound. The result was that Melbourne and Brisbane were perceived by potential overseas investors as being at least three hours further from London and New York than Sydney.

The direct result of this bias was skewed overseas investment in Sydney's favour. When I proposed breaking Sydneys stranglehold on the B747 TFC and line maintenance monopoly circa 1979, which we (Ansett) could have done with minimal further investment (as we were tooling up for the B767), I was instructed at a meeting with John Bibo, very firmly, to drop the subject as "abeles will have our guts for garters if we break that Qantas monopoly". Such is the role of direct flights in securing inbound international investment.

Nothing has changed my view that Qantas is a willing tool of the NSW government, no matter what political persuasion. It will do nothing that politically disadvantages its host. You can bet that if the non stop service eventuates it will again be marketed as Sydney is three hours closer to london and new york, blah, blah.

Qantas ain't a national airline. it's just a bunch of sydney crooks doing what they've been doing since the rum rebellion.
Oh stop talking absolute rubbish... Qantas operated daily via SIN to europe all through the 80s and into the 90s... the only 'one stop' service to Europe in the late 70s/early 80s went SYD/MEL/PER/BOM/LHR... the premier 'one stop' service from the East Coast was QF9/10 using 747-338s and it went SYD/MEL/BOM/LHR... to top that off, as well as QF6 operating daily from FRA into SIN then on to MEL, THEN SYD, QF2 also operated direct into MEL a couple of days a week.

In the days of direct West Coast USA, no aircraft had the range to do the extra bit from MEL to LAX instead of SYD-LAX but QF17 operated if not daily, then 4-5 times a week ex MEL to NAN and HNL... QF25 to HNL and YVR... from BNE, as well as QF51 direct to SIN to join up with QF1.

You need to do some research before you say these things. Qantas' first ever round-the-world service for about the first 10 years originated and terminated at MEB. It was only the lack of MEB to handle the B707 that stopped it from originating MEL. Yes, a number of flights also operated ex MEL via SYD because most of them could not manage a full load on a 747 so one aircraft went on beyond SYD and some pax joined other flights.

MEL always had direct HKG flights, direct SIN flights and flights direct to ports in Indonesia.
'

[Heathrow Harry]

"Or : overseas passengers simply prefer Sydney?"

Well that's the place with the headline attractions (or rather images) - Harbour, Bridge, Opera House etc etc but most overseas people who know Australia generally prefer Melbourne I think

[morno]

Sunfish I even remember as a kid in the mid 90's, flying on QF10 LHR-SIN-MEL-SYD. Yes, I'm pretty sure the QF10 continued to SYD back then.

You continually spruik bull**** on here about your hate for Qantas. I don't give a toss whether you like them or not, but do we have to read about it all the time? And the **** you carry on about isn't even factual.

[Sunfish]

Ken:
Well Sunfish, I've news for you! Go do some research of Qantas schedules during the 1970s and you will see that flights to/from London and Southern Europe all routed out and in via MEL with SYD being at the start and end of the route. You call that Sydney-centric? As for BNE, they enjoyed a BNE/SIN service that connected in SIN to/from LHR.

As you mentioned Ansett, at what airport were there International B747s based and did they ever go near Melbourne? Like Qantas, Ansett would have, or should have, followed the money.

Ken, I've patiently explained the situation years ago on Pprune, but here is a shortened version again.

1. The MEL's (minimum equipment list) for B747 of that era allowed the carriage of most defects for a period of 24 hours. That means that the aircraft had to call somewhere capable of fixing things every 24 hours. Long haul to Australia as 20+ hrs meant that outside of Singapore, Cathay, air new Zealand, garuda and Malaysian, European and American carriers had to rely on QF to service their aircraft in Australia. It was called a TFC (terminating flight check).

2. In practice this meant, as you correctly stated, that every B747 had to transit Sydney inbound or outbound. This was living hell at the end of a 20+ hour flight from Heathrow or New York (they had already taken the red eye to LAX). Deplane,,wait for the aircraft to be cleaned, serviced and reprovisioned - usually three hours in transit, then back on for a one hour Melbourne flight. This created a perception in international travellers minds that Sydney is three hours closer to New York and London than the rest of Australia. This lead to new foreign IT and Banking investment to flow disproportionately to Sydeny.

Please also note that the heavily regulated Australian market did not allow foreign carriers to capitalise on this situation.

3.The European and American carriers did not like this situation either. They were being robbed blind by Qantas for servicing. I had letters of support from Lufthansa and others who were eager to differentiate their product from Qantas by offering more direct flights to/from Melbourne without a Sydney transit.

4. Ansett was in a position to break the Qantas monopoly on TFC's. We were spending upwards of $80 million on new facilities and capabilities to handle wide body aircraft as we were the first Internatonal customer for the B767.

That meant a new test cell for big engines, new avionics facilities (glass cockpit) virtually the whole engineering establishment had to be upgraded to take big stuff - including the training licencing and endorsements for hundreds of LAMES. All this stuff was of the same calibre as the B 747.

5. My back of the envelope budgetting indicated we could break the QF B747 TFC monopoly for about an additional $17 million in additional B747 specific licencing, etc. To me this made sense because it leveraged off of our considerable investment in B767 capabilities and helped defray the costs of our entire wide body exercise. It was also good from the point of view of providing a win/win with foreign airlines and the State of Victoria.

When I first raised this at one of the Director of Engineering’s regular meetings, I was fobbed off as if I had farted in Church. A few weeks later I tried again with a more developed proposal to get permission to start spending money to flesh this out in detail. ie: talk to Boeing and GE for starters.

The Director of Engineering said nothing. He looked at my boss Ron Bush. Bushy leaned over to me and said "if we try and break the Qantas monopoly on Sydney TFC's, Abeles will have our guts for garters. Drop it". The penny dropped.

[Warragul]

[QUOTE=morno;9879816]Sunfish I even remember as a kid in the mid 90's, flying on QF10 LHR-SIN-MEL-SYD. Yes, I'm pretty sure the QF10 continued to SYD back then.


Late 80's , early 90's - LH,AZ,JU,OA,KL and MH arrived MEL first, trundled up to SYD, back to MEL then back to Europe

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Sunfish, I'm not sure whether or not all that justifies many years and seemingly thousands of posts full of spittle-flecked anti-QF diatribes, but a bloke's gotta have a hobby, I suppose. Carry on.

[Ken Borough]

Deplane,,wait for the aircraft to be cleaned, serviced and reprovisioned - usually three hours in transit, then back on for a one hour Melbourne flight

Sunfish is writing unmitigated nonsense! I don't know if he's trying to be deceptive by re-writing history or if old age is catching up with him. :ugh:

QF2 operated from LHR via various routings to SIN, thence SYD and terminated in MEL. Scheduled arrival time in Sydney was 0620 local while its scheduled departure time for MEL was 0800 local. By my calculation, this is a transit of
1 hr 40 mins which is substantially less than the three hours Sunfish suggests. Not only that, if the flight was late arriving into SYD, the QF standard required a transit of something like 70 minutes or whatever required to meet the 0800 departure time.

I will say no more other than to suggest Sunfish (1) re-reads the post of Aerial Perspective, and (2) have a Bex, a cup of tea and a good lie down! :}

[Ken Borough]

the premier 'one stop' service from the East Coast was QF9/10 using 747-338s and it went SYD/MEL/BOM/LHR..

AP,

My memory says that these were operated by RR powered -238s. And weren't they an operational headache ex MEL with the 'cooking fire' forecasts for BOM?

[777Nine]

I lived in Sydney in the late 90s and for a two year secondment few years back. I was so desperate to get out that place I begged my boss for a secondment of my already secondment to go to another base. Two things which really irked me this decade over the last was traffic gridlock and the immigration invasion (advice is don't go to Blacktown unless armed).

I just don't understand the pull factor of place. It's just dirty and miserable, it screams rip me off everywhere you go. Melbourne just wipes it off the map.

This is the city with the airport that has no train station at the airport and a road widening scheme that is taking three years to complete. Sydney isn't that bad, but it is a little expensive. No different than comparing any other main financial centre of any other country i.e New York/London.

[AerialPerspective]

AP,

My memory says that these were operated by RR powered -238s. And weren't they an operational headache ex MEL with the 'cooking fire' forecasts for BOM?
They sure were... I remember the fuel capacity of 164,500kg on the 743 and remember looking at loadsheets on just about every flight with 164,500kg - also a pain with oversales at the beginning as they were very popular and always full.

My memory is that it took until the 743 to have the range to do the flight... the 743s were RR powered (VH-EBT, U, V, W, X and Y) but I do remember the 742s operating via BOM from PER.

You may be right however, but I thought they started when the 743s arrived. Remember well the cooking fires at BOM. Also remember one QF10 having a birdstrike or engine out on take-off before V1 at BOM and bursting a large number of tyres coming to a stop... heard about it on a QF23 to PER from the Crew a week later. Come to think if it that might have been a 742.

[PW1830]

B747-200 were operating to London via Perth,Bombay from at least 1976.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Seem to remember QF doing a MAN-LHR leg as well on the way to SYD/MEL. Anyone remember where the stop-offs were?

[Boe787]

In 1982 I flew on QF5 which routed MEL PER BOM ATH FCO FRA,
and a few years later in 1985 flew QF10 MAN AMS ATH BKK MEL, both 747/200s

[Ken Borough]

B747-200 were operating to London via Perth,Bombay from at least 1976.

Correct. These services were QF7 outbound and QF8 inbound. all originated/terminated in Sydney and operated via Melbourne.

Seem to remember QF doing a MAN-LHR leg as well on the way to SYD/MEL. Anyone remember where the stop-offs were?

Also correct. I'm not sure of the Manchester frequency but by that time I'm fairly sure that the routing would have been Melbourne/Sydney/Singapore/Bahrain/London/Manchester and vice versa.

[AerialPerspective]

Where the hell's GIG? Gigraltar??
GIG is Rio Airport. Has been for as long as I remember...

[AerialPerspective]

Correct. These services were QF7 outbound and QF8 inbound. all originated/terminated in Sydney and operated via Melbourne.



Also correct. I'm not sure of the Manchester frequency but by that time I'm fairly sure that the routing would have been Melbourne/Sydney/Singapore/Bahrain/London/Manchester and vice versa.
I remember the QF7/8 as used to catch it to visit relatives in PER. QF8 for return. QF8 sometimes was pushing curfew in SYD if late through PER and MEL. MEL transited it in 19 minutes once (I've seen the congratulatory letter from the then CEO).

I seem to think MAN was done direct from another non-European port... Yes, QF9 went to MAN and QF10 originated there and went via LHR in the 90s eventually becoming a BA 733 MAN-LHR operating from the international terminal to T3.

I seem to remember the flight number for MAN was QF17 and QF18 in the late 70s/early 80s before it became a NAN/West Coast USA flight... I think it went something like MEL/SYD/SIN/BAH/possibly FRA/MAN or direct in to MAN on certain days... will have to look through some old timetables if I still have them.

[Chris2303]

gig is rio airport. Has been for as long as i remember...

dacgig
a:apt b:bus c:city g:grd h:heli o:off-pt r:rail s:assoc town
city :
Rio c rio de janeiro /brrj:rio de janerio
airport-heliport :
Gig a galeao a.c jobim intl /brrj - 1k