Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Qantas and the 787-900

Old 17th Jun 2016, 23:49
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 71
Posts: 1,703
Onya, mcgrath.
Except ... in my case at least, now that I've retired, I can no longer pressure the bean-counter into Business Class tickets on the company account.
So, if I need to go somewhere at short notice, cattle-class it is.
The real point about seat-width is that, while you yourself might be of relatively slim build, the persons either side of you may not be.

Because of this, you'll find that your corpulent fellow travellers invariably spill over into your allocated seating space.
It can thus be quite unpleasant - particularly when many overweight people can also tend to be malodourous.
The sympathetic looks on the faces of the cabin crew don't really help much.
Stanwell is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 00:47
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
How do Qantas manage to get the 787-900 to travel the non stop distance between Perth and London. I thought the normal range was much smaller? Did they forgo some cargo for larger fuel tanks?
downunder35 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 02:40
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 558
Originally Posted by downunder35 View Post
How do Qantas manage to get the 787-900 to travel the non stop distance between Perth and London. I thought the normal range was much smaller? Did they forgo some cargo for larger fuel tanks?
Only having 236 seats probably helps. It means they can often fill 'er up and still be below MTOW. It means they are somewhat reliant on a full Premium cabin to make a dollar but that doesn't seem to be a problem as its a popular service at the front end.
C441 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 10:33
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by C441 View Post
Only having 236 seats probably helps. It means they can often fill 'er up and still be below MTOW. It means they are somewhat reliant on a full Premium cabin to make a dollar but that doesn't seem to be a problem as its a popular service at the front end.
Are you sure about that?
Troo believer is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 11:48
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: bunkeronthe1st
Posts: 124
What is it you are alluding to troo? We are not mind readers.

Fatguyinalittlecoat is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 13:22
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by C441 View Post
Only having 236 seats probably helps. It means they can often fill 'er up and still be below MTOW. It means they are somewhat reliant on a full Premium cabin to make a dollar but that doesn't seem to be a problem as its a popular service at the front end.
236 seats maximum
Troo believer is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 16:45
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,698
Yes, the QF configuration is 236 seats with a large business class (42 seats/beds). I understand that United has about 280 seats in their B787-9's.
Going Boeing is online now  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 19:47
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 37
and Jetstar with 335 with their 787-8s
propnut is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 21:26
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 955
Originally Posted by Going Boeing View Post
Yes, the QF configuration is 236 seats with a large business class (42 seats/beds). I understand that United has about 280 seats in their B787-9's.
I do wonder if they'll keep that config for when it inevitability begins replacing the regional bus flying.
maggot is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2019, 01:17
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
When I look on the Qantas site, it shows the 787-900 at MTOW of 254,000kgs, max fuel at 123,656L with a range of 9,008nm and 236 pax. When you look on the Boeing site, it shows the 787-900 at the max TOW of 254,000kgs with a range of 7,635nm with seating of 290 for the "typical" aircraft.

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

And I agree for these long haul routes, the front end is the place to be. In Y when the seat in front gets reclined into 'your space', it gets a tad squeezy.
downunder35 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2019, 01:43
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tasmania and High Wollemi
Posts: 398
Grrr

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

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

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

Not a problem most of the time
catseye is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2019, 07:31
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by catseye View Post
Down under
Think about a few more variables...
- 23.6 tonne payload or less, long range cruise, drift climb, lots of places to recalculate variable reserve and enroute alternate min holding fuel on arrival, not in the morning fog risk etc etc. etc.

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

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

Not a problem most of the time
catseye, thanks for more reasoning. The devil is always in the detail. I am sure the Qantas / Boeing guys have a detailed knowledge of the payload range optimisation and the dispatch guys play a balancing game of cargo, pax, fuel and weather and at least one weather diversion.
downunder35 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2019, 10:36
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 3,342
Ok! B787-900?
That would be the B787-9?
Or is the B787-10 called a 787-1000?
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 2nd Apr 2019, 18:41
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom View Post
Ok! B787-900?
That would be the B787-9?
Or is the B787-10 called a 787-1000?

This is exactly the kind of guy I wouldn’t want to sit next to for the next 4 sectors. 🙄
skysook is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2019, 04:56
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom View Post
Ok! B787-900?
That would be the B787-9?
Or is the B787-10 called a 787-1000?
Yes, Capt Fathom, you are of course correct. So used to thinking of Boeing's use of 'hundreds in the various versions of a aicraft, eg. 747-400 and the 777-300, I mistakenly applied the same numbering system to the 787.
downunder35 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.