Perth to London

[Stampe]

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

[JPJP]

Originally Posted by chuboy

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

[Dee Vee]

Originally Posted by WHBM

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.

[Keg]

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.

[maggot]

Think of the kilograms to be saved with a SE taxi in

[TurningFinalRWY36]

Originally Posted by Keg

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.

what is the OEW? ~130T?

[Bend alot]

Any info on the passenger numbers in the 3 classes on these flights since the media one?

[ExtraShot]

Originally Posted by Bend alot

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.

[Stampe]

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,

[Bend alot]

Originally Posted by ExtraShot

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.

[parabellum]

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.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by parabellum

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.

[Icarus2001]

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.

[73to91]

Alans Tube of Torture

thanks JPJP

[betterfromabove]

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.

[73to91]

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

[Rated De]

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

[parabellum]

Given the size of the population of South Australia that are of German descent I would have thought an Adelaide to Frankfurt or Munich service would be a good commercial opportunity for the B787.

[blow.n.gasket]

73to91

Wouldn't the 747-8 have been a better option for QF to get to Europe non-stop?

Rated De

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

Problem solved , problems that havn’t even been addressed yet.
2nd segment limits out of SCL & JNB with twin engined aircraft.
Polar operations below 70* south with twin engined aircraft ?
Solution B747-8 with 747 ER tankage.
Would this fulfill “ Operation Sunrise “ range requirements ?
Could a 777-8 with Aux fuel tankage match ?
Can the 777 envisionaged fulfill second segment limits on the SCL & JNB legs ?

[ExtraShot]

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

Certainly not, but it Seems it’s been higher than 90% up front... looking popular with both ‘up front’ classes.