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

Qantas non-stop PER to LHR?

Old 12th Dec 2016, 03:40
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 120
So I wonder what the first two 789 will do for the 3 or 4 months it's in service before starting PER-LHR?
My guess is the later MEL-LAX-MEL currently operated by the 747.

As a side note, I had heard that DFW-MEL is a stretch even with only 236 pax. Although a similar distance to PER-LHR, the mean (head)wind component at best is significantly greater than forecast for PER-LHR.

Given the number of initial aircraft, I suspect that the PER-LHR may not be daily initially, thus the 380 will continue to do MEL-DXB-LHR for a while - unfortunately (the DXB bit that is….)
C441 is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 04:30
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,118
Originally Posted by Logohu View Post
The way QF and the media are spinning this "game changer" today is way over the top, you'd think QF were launching a space shuttle !!
It's a bog-standard 787 Alan (and a pretty cramped one in Y-class), and it's arriving years after your competitors already have hundreds of them in service.
I've seen this a few times on various threads.

Really, what would you expect them to say? Not try and get publicity/mileage out of it?

And mainland oz to old blighty /is/ pretty groundbreaking.

Of course we should've had em earlier, 777s... yada yada
maggot is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 04:31
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,118
Originally Posted by C441 View Post
So I wonder what the first two 789 will do for the 3 or 4 months it's in service before starting PER-LHR?
My guess is the later MEL-LAX-MEL currently operated by the 747.
Yes

But hasn't that already been announced?
maggot is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 05:57
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 120
Yes

But hasn't that already been announced?
Officially? It probably has, but although heavily rumoured, I don't recall it being confirmed. I only recall them saying it will initially be deployed on existing routes.
C441 is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 06:37
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Do we have Qantas angels here too?
Thank you Stanwell, this is my point, with this mob of managers, you would be very myopic and shortsighted, perhaps desperate to take anything they said at face value.

A derivative of the investment parlance today is 'buy the rumour, sell the established fact'.

Firstly, Qantas have done nothing yet. The first aircraft a year off, the route around sixteen months. I would not be so certain the 'economics' on the route are unchanged in a year and a half. Yield can easily keep declining, fuel or other input costs can rise, outside the control of management making the route quickly a non-performer.

If the 'maybe' and 'could' becomes fact and the route is sustainable, then by all means come back and tell me my crystal ball was wrong. At least wait 18 months, given you all in the employ of Qantas have had AOC splits abandoned, after a reported $135 million expense, a Red Q well advanced, yet abandoned, 400 odd JQ aircraft by 2020 (that requires a CAGR of 33%, something that no airline sustains for long, particularly when they aren't the lead entrant), a 'terminal decline' and transformation, all under the current board and management. Yes, should it all work out and Qantas actually do fly the route, that is great! Mainline lost 80 odd aircraft whilst Joyce poured them into JQ, getting a potential new route for those at Qantas I guess is something, but a lot can change between 2016 and 2018.


Of course, poor old Colin Barnett desperate for positive news after wanting to secede from Australia at the height of the mining boom, to a wasteland of a state budget. Anything including plugging the gap between the Perth Airport and the airline, putting the taxpayer on the hook for $14 million to grab a headline!
Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 06:44
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,951
Folks,
I must get out my inflatable globe and a piece of string, Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane -Perth-London is a long way off the great circle route to London.

I think I will be continuing my current practice (when I am paying a commercial fare --- which is now almost always) of via Singapore, Hong Kong or GuangZhou.

Tootle pip!!

PS: That's a rhetorical question, I know damned well where the GC from the east coast is, and it ain't that way.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 08:53
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
Folks,
I must get out my inflatable globe and a piece of string, Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane -Perth-London is a long way off the great circle route to London.
Qantas need their heads read. Darwin makes a lot more sense, is shorter, and is "mostly" on the path from MEL, SYD and BNE

DRW -> LHR = 13873klms
PER -> LHR = 14499klms

p.j.m is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 08:58
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Leadsled raises an interesting perspective.

The Asian route ex Australia to London was around 6 and a bit hours to WSSS.
Then circa 12 to EGLL.

Pushing the jetstream to YPPH, circa 5 hours and then 17 to EGLL, will passengers prefer the well trodden Asian route, or flock to fly trans continental to YPPH. Then a whole 17 hours to London?


Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 09:34
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 856
Qantas need their heads read. Darwin makes a lot more sense, is shorter, and is "mostly" on the path from MEL, SYD and BNE
Don't mean to cause offence but they are also trying to market the route as a destination. Darwin is far from a destination. Try living there let alone holidaying there, complete hole.

Poor domestic feed, ordinary destination, why bother when you can do Perth anyway and access premium domestic services not to mention x20 the population of Darwin.
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 09:36
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 2,374
SQs A340 had a large number of possible routes on the SIN - JFK route, depending on the winds. I heard that 1 ton of fuel loaded in Singapore was worth 250kg at the end of the route due to the burn off just carrying it. Obviously the B787 will be much more efficient but I can't help feeling that prestige and publicity are playing a part in the decision.

Time will tell, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the route changed to via Singapore instead of nonstop which would allow Singapore to become a mini hub for those who don't want to go through Dubai.

Once they can crack London - Sydney non stop without packing economy class passengers in like sardines, the money will be pouring in.
Metro man is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 10:18
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 73
Posts: 1,701
Well...
If they are trying to market Perth as a destination, why the need to provide, at great expense to the taxpayer, an international facility within the domestic terminal for the convenient and rapid transhipment of Qantas pax?

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

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

The part played by Geoffrey Thomas and West Australian Newspapers in this funny business should not be ignored, either.
Strong conservative leanings and consistent support for the LNP coalition on their part might also tell you something.
I smell a rat.
Stanwell is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 10:34
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,119
So PoppaJo, I guess we won't be C ing U in the N T?
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 10:34
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 397
Some of you eastern seaboarders just don't get it. With an EK 380 going out of Perth and an EK 777 going out of Adelaide every night QF will steal a 787 load to LHR easily.
Forget the MEL - PER bit - just a domestic leg maybe attracting a few through traffickers from MEL. Admittedly out of ADL one has to go domestic to PER but that is better than backtracking to the east coast if you want to go QF.

Last edited by On eyre; 12th Dec 2016 at 10:49. Reason: Correction
On eyre is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 19:55
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: TOF
Posts: 37
I heard that 1 ton of fuel loaded in Singapore was worth 250kg at the end of the route due to the burn off just carrying it. Obviously the B787 will be much more efficient but I can't help...
Yes, 700kg of fuel loaded in Perth will be worth 175kg at the end of the route on the 8. So, much more efficient.
Machrihanish is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 22:14
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 134
Agree with Poppa Jo, QF has minimal operations to Darwin compared to Perth, so they already have a heap of flights going to Perth, which could feed the PER LHR service.
I recall reading that Qantas did a survey sometime back, of top tier regular International passengers, when the 777LR was first available re a non stop Sydney London Sydney, and if they would pay the premium.
The most interest was in a non stop London Sydney, they were happy to transit Perth on the way over.

Would the 787 have the range for London Sydney non stop?
Boe787 is online now  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 23:38
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here & there
Posts: 776
Something else our Sydney-centric viewers can't seem to fathom is the significant passenger market that exists between Perth and London. According to some studies, the total number of people in Perth who were either born in the UK or have close family connections is as large as that in Sydney or Melbourne. At the moment, that market cannot fly to London from Perth with Qantas without backtracking to the east coast. Sure, they can take an Emirates code-share flight, but how many bother booking through Qantas when they can book directly with Emirates, or take one of the many other options that are available with other airlines via Asia or the Middle East? Do you not think that Qantas should do something to try and tap that market?
BuzzBox is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 23:49
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 1,268
After years of people saying that QF was too Sydney centric, now people are complaining they aren't Sydney centric enough!
dr dre is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 00:14
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 326
MEL / LAX just announced as first 787 route, to commence Dec 2017.

Media Releases - MELBOURNE?LOS ANGELES ANNOUNCED AS FIRST DREAMLINER ROUTE - Qantas News Room
flitegirl is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 01:57
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 120
787 MEL-LAX…..
Officially? It probably has, but although heavily rumoured, I don't recall it being confirmed. I only recall them saying it will initially be deployed on existing routes.
Now its official!
C441 is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 02:13
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 326
What is the likely fate of the spare 747? Retirement or deployed elsewhere?
flitegirl is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.