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

Perth to London

Old 31st Mar 2018, 09:39
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 552
There are very few carriers left offering acceptable economy standards on the 777 and 787. In this part of the world, Virgin/Singapore/Cathay has 3-3-3 in its 777, and Japan Airlines are 2-4-2 in their 787.

The upcoming 777x is wider than the current model which will probably mean a 11 across configuration.
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 13:17
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: europe
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by PoppaJo View Post

The upcoming 777x is wider than the current model which will probably mean a 11 across configuration.

No it's Not.

Unless you're talking about its wingspan.
Enos is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 18:09
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,232
Originally Posted by Enos View Post
No it's Not.

Unless you're talking about its wingspan.
We believe it is, and although the fuselage diameter stays the same, the internal dimension is being increased by about 8" by the use of thinner insulation material for cabin walls.

Given the regular statements that airlines have no concern for any feature that increases passenger seat comfort, the only reason for this can be to insert another seat. The 787 was not announced as changing from 8 across to 9 across until the point it entered service.

The 777 is already one of the noisiest aircraft around inside the cabin, and the thinner insulation can do nothing to improve that - in fact presumably the converse.
WHBM is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 18:17
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 573
Has anyone seen typical load sheet figures for this route I,d be very interested in seeing typical zero fuel weight ,fuel carried and actual fuel burns in both directions in average wind conditions.In 1996 my then employer operated a charter series from LGW to PER with just one fuel stop at AUH using 763 aircraft payload restricted with I think about 30 of 328 all economy seats unsold.I only operated it once 11.0 hours AUH to PER and 10.30 PER to AUH.I remember we had to carry remote holding fuel to PER as the nearby military field was not available to us as alternate.The route did not last long as the scheduled operators lowered their fares in unison whilst the route operated and yields were unviable.Those figures would be very interesting.Regards Stampe
Stampe is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 21:40
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dirty South
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by chuboy View Post
EK 777s have 10-abreast making them just as bad as the 787 Y-seat width. Except as I recall the pitch is less than that of Qantas to boot. EY is no better.

SQ is obviously the one to beat for economy comfort and it shows, their product is so good they have shot themselves in the foot because half their fleet is specced with a Premium Economy cabin that they struggle to fill, no one is willing to pay the asking price so what do you do? Discount the seats and give your economy pricing the appearance of being overpriced in comparison?

SQs 787 has 9-across in Y as well by the way. And it will be the aircraft flying punters from Perth in competition with QF.

I did read a rumour that AJ contemplated fitting 8-across in Y, but it was shelved because it would have made the 789 uncompetitive on the other routes it will fly.

Never forget the pax with champagne tastes and champagne budgets are drinking said champagne in the pointy end! Look after them first. 95% of the ones in Y will pick another airline next time unless you are the cheapest option again.
Seat Guru Shows SQ 787 Economy as a 19 inch seat width, and 32 inch pitch. In the pricing example above, they are $50.00 more expensive than Alans Tube of Torture. Virgin Australia has an 18 inch seat width.

One of the motivating factors to work hard, is to be able to afford a business class or Premium Economy (at worst) seat. Because, if I have to sit in an economy seat for 20 hours, I’m gonna fkin lose it Virgin Australia's trans pacific business class is excellent. United, not so much.

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Si.../fleetinfo.php
JPJP is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 21:43
  #206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by WHBM View Post
The 777 is already one of the noisiest aircraft around inside the cabin, and the thinner insulation can do nothing to improve that - in fact presumably the converse.
This has been my experience as well, the only one noisier is the B747.
Dee Vee is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2018, 22:27
  #207 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,177
Stampe, ZFWs for PER- LHR have been in the vicinity of 150- 153. Fuel uplift has been in vicinity of 97-100 T depending on the day, payload, etc. Planned to arrive with about 7.0T but I don’t have any access to actual fuel on arrival.
Keg is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 00:43
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 954
Think of the kilograms to be saved with a SE taxi in
maggot is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 02:18
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by Keg View Post
Stampe, ZFWs for PER- LHR have been in the vicinity of 150- 153. Fuel uplift has been in vicinity of 97-100 T depending on the day, payload, etc. Planned to arrive with about 7.0T but I donít have any access to actual fuel on arrival.
what is the OEW? ~130T?
TurningFinalRWY36 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 02:26
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 329
Any info on the passenger numbers in the 3 classes on these flights since the media one?
Bend alot is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 04:16
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Lagrangian point 2
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
Any info on the passenger numbers in the 3 classes on these flights since the media one?
Joyce mentioned forward bookings in the region of 90% load factor. Seems to be accurate so far.
ExtraShot is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 06:16
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 573
Keg thank you for those figures.I,ll work on a ramp fuel of 100t so assume a burn of roughly 93t.I,ve always been interested in ultra long haul flying and it’s planning.Spent most of my career on the 75/767 but decided to avoid the 78 in the last few years before retirement not liking the way it was introduced and the lifestyle it created.The type seems finally to have settled down in terms of reliability but is very heavy in terms of empty weight although it’s wing is amazingly efficient in the cruise very miserly fuel burns over long distances!Regards Stampe,
Stampe is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 06:32
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 329
Originally Posted by ExtraShot View Post
Joyce mentioned forward bookings in the region of 90% load factor. Seems to be accurate so far.

If it is an even 90% across the 3 classes that's good, but you would not like it to be 20 short in the front seats.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 08:05
  #214 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,042
Long been a Boeing feature, to regard windows as optional for certain rows just mid-cabin, apparently to route service ducts behind. Other manufacturers seem able to do without such an approach.

Boeing build the aeroplanes but the customers decide on their required seat config, toilet and galley placing etc. Whether you get a window or not is down to the airline.
parabellum is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 09:44
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,232
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
Boeing build the aeroplanes but the customers decide on their required seat config, toilet and galley placing etc. Whether you get a window or not is down to the airline.
That's a bit of a cop-out. It's quite apparent, comparing external views of Boeing and Airbus fuselages, that Boeing are quite happy to have blank cabin walls at points where one might typically expect seating, an aspect which Airbus manage to avoid.

And regarding toilet-galley placing, although flexible that is driven by airframe provision for plumbing connections, tank location, etc.
WHBM is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 09:53
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,721
Other manufacturers seem able to do without such an approach
Nice try at Boeing bashing. I was on an Airbus 330 last week, row 14 had no windows either side, in line with pax seats, just in front of a bulkhead and door. It happens.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 10:28
  #217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 61
Posts: 330
Alans Tube of Torture
thanks JPJP
73to91 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 10:42
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 338
No-window window-seats

I'm still amazed that you can buy / select a "Window" seat that ends up not having one.....

12 hours on a full flight PER-AUH was bad enough. 17 hours PER-LHR, amongst all the other claustrophobia-inducing factors in the QF 787 Y sounds like true hell.

Classic example of those doing the marketing never having to experience what certain customers have to.....

PS. It's the horrible extension of the nannying dimmed windows the aircraft has.
betterfromabove is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 11:11
  #219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 61
Posts: 330
Meanwhile, the 787-10 has completed it's first delivery to SQ.

A question or two for you guys who fly these aircraft:
Wouldn't the 747-8 have been a better option for QF to get to Europe non-stop?

It's made of carbon composites, advanced aluminium alloys, has a range of 14,816km and can seat over 400. Or is it still a thirsty machine?

Looking at the Boeing specs:
787-8 - Range 7,355 nmi (13,620 km) Seats 242 Seatguru has JQ with 21 J & 314 Y
787-9 - Range 7,635 nmi (14,140 km) Seats 292 Seatguru has QF 10 today with 42J 28W & 166Y
787-10 Range 6,430 nmi (11,910 km) Seats 330
747-8 - Range 8,000 nm (14,816 km) Seats 410
73to91 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2018, 11:43
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,394
It's made of carbon composites, advanced aluminium alloys, has a range of 14,816km and can seat over 400. Or is it still a thirsty machine?
It is the fuel cost.

The fuel included CASK is the real killer.
Fuel is around 30% of the Operating Cost. Even if you lose a few seats effectively halving the fuel burn over a similar stage length that makes the modern big twin purchase decision 'child's play'

Unless you are Qantas where you bet that fuel stay low. Given that the fall in fuel prices was $597 million of Qantas' amazing 'transformation' profit in FY15, a rise in fuel prices could undo 'the amazing turnaround'. So they fumble around with a total 8 787-9 and hope the media keep taking junkets with them and fail to notice there were over 600 flying (Even JQ have 11 788) before Qantas had one!

Qantas need a new fleet
Rated De is offline  

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.