PPRuNe Forums - QF 7879 routes

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)

- - QF 7879 routes (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/589142-qf-7879-routes.html)

But wait, there's more.

Quote:

Qantas closes in on dream of ultra-long-haul direct flights

The world's two biggest aircraft makers are "up for the challenge" of designing planes capable of flying non-stop from Australia's east coast to far-flung destinations including New York and London, Qantas says.
Establishing direct routes to take passengers from Melbourne and Sydney to faraway cities, particularly in North America and Europe, without stopovers has become a major focus of the national carrierunder a new plan called "Project Sunrise".
Qantas officials on Sunday said aviation giants Boeing and Airbus were vying for the project and working on design modifications that would make 20-hour passenger flights commercially viable.
"The actual head of Airbus said, 'It's a bit like the space race to me, it's a bit like getting to the moon'," said Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce, on a visit to Boeing's assembly plant in Seattle on Sunday.
"We are getting very close ... to getting the technology that will allow us to operate routes that we [previously] could only have imagined."
This week, Qantas picks up the first of eight new Dreamliner 787-9 planes, which will be used for the first-ever non-stop, long-haul service between Australia and Europe.

The route will run between Perth and London's Heathrow airport without any stopovers.

"For the first time in history, Australia and Europe will be connected by a great service," Mr Joyce said.

"[Next] we want to do that on the east coast. We want Melbourne and we want Sydney and we want Brisbane. We also want to fly direct into New York, we'd love to be able to fly into Brazil ... and we'd love to be able to fly direct into Cape Town."
Mr Joyce on Sunday said Qantas was in discussions with the rival plane makers, with the US-based Boeing working on possible modifications to its soon-to-be-launched 777X airplane and France's Airbus altering the design of its A350 to make non-stop passenger flights of up to 20 hours viable.
"They are both up for the challenge," he said.
Although existing airplanes, such as the ultra-long-range A350, had the capability to fly directly from the eastern seaboard to places like London, Mr Joyce said they were not presently viable due to a number of factors including passenger and freight loads.
Qantas has signalled it wants to have the ultra-long-haul direct flights from Melbourne and Sydney running by 2022.
Boeing executives on Sunday said the project was an exciting challenge but would not be easy.
"We are working closely with Qantas," said Jim Freitas, Boeing's managing director of product marketing, "and our engineers are understanding the requirements ... what Qantas needs to do, how many passengers, then coming back to make sure we have the capability."
Mr Freitas said the task would be challenging, "but we are really looking forward to it."
Qantas' eight new Boeing Dreamliners, the first of which arrives in Australia on Friday, will be the first all-new aircraft type in the national carrier's flight since the A380 in 2008.
The Dreamliner is considered advantageous because it is made of lightweight carbon fibre, allowing it to fly longer and use far less fuel.
The new 17-hour Perth-to-London Qantas route, the first regular, non-stop service between Australia and Europe, begins in March next year.
Qantas International chief executive Gareth Evans called the new route a "game-changer" for Australians.
"Given the tyranny of distance and our geographical position at the bottom of the world, this new generation of technical capability really allows us to start to overcome the disadvantages of our geography," he said.
The author travelled to Seattle as a guest of Qantas.

Qantas closes in on dream of ultra-long-haul direct flights

Quote:

"For the first time in history, Australia and Europe will be connected by a great service,

For the 1st time? ok so we assume he means non-stop but then that knocks the 'great service' out surely. 18 hours in Y, AJ should sit in Y and see how good it is.

The author would say anything, no questions asked, for a freebie !!

Qantas announces BNE-LAX-JFK as first route for BNE-based 789s for second half of 2018, says a second 'new' direct US destination will follow and cites Chicago, Dallas and Seattle:
https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-to-f...geles-new-york

As someone who has sat in both Y and J on these aircraft on mutilple routes with mutilple airlines, I can tell you the “narrow body” widebody thing is noticeable. I know many, including myself, who would book looking to avoid these aircraft on ultra long flights if in ecconomy. I could just imagine Per - Lon. 😩

Presumably, the 787-9 leaves Perth with full tanks. Do the passenger numbers need to be capped for this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hollywood1 (Post 9927303)

Could the A380 do PER - LHR direct?

Easily. With a viable passenger load though? No. About 80-100 seats are blocked out for it to fly DFW- SYD and that's a 16 1/2 hour flight. An extra 1- 1/2 hour flight is going to be an extra 100-150 seats blocked out.

So the 380 would need 230+ ton of fuel for maybe 300 pax. The 787 will need 100T (I think) for 230 pax. Run double daily 787s and you've got many more pax for still less fuel load. They're not kidding when they call the 787 a 'game changer' in this context.

I fly to Dallas and Los Angeles regularly on Qantas and Virgin and every flight has been in Y. This is not an an ideal way to spend ~14-17 hours. No way in hell would I sit in this thing to London in Y. The next obese man or woman who sits next to me is getting a deflating puncture to the abdomen. The width of humans in modern era (Americans followed by Australians), is truly a thing of nightmares on reduced seat width.

Wouldn't think so. Massively different depreciation schedules in each country. Very rare for SQ to have an aeroplane that is more than 10 years old. QF on e other hand tend to hold onto our aircraft for circa 20 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keg

Run double daily 787s and you've got many more pax for still less fuel load.

But, double the number of crews required, double the servicing (and the purchase/lease price on two frames instead of 1, esp with cheap A380s at the moment? Slots?). Surely it wouldn't hinge on only saved fuel? And what about pax comfort? Would the pax rather a A380 or 787?

Also remember the QF 380s are some of the first ones of the line. The heavy weight 380 at EK, at 575t MTOW burns 900kg per hour less than their first 569t MTOW ones. The newer one carried max ZFW to Houston in 16hrs. And departs with a full pax load to LAX below MTOW for a 15hr 30min flight. it operates a 380 AKL to DXB with 40 seats blocked. It would not be able to do that with one of its earlier aircraft.

Quote:

No way in hell would I sit in this thing to London in Y. The next obese man or woman who sits next to me is getting a deflating puncture to the abdomen. The width of humans in modern era (Americans followed by Australians), is truly a thing of nightmares on reduced seat width.

Another great example of technology been able to deliver something which isn't neccesarily a good idea...

ULH flight are technologically possible, but the human body hasn't been upgraded like the engines and aerodynamics. This flight will be a nightmare for both crew and passengers....unless you are in Biz class or above...

And lets face it, that's where all the airline executives who think this is a great idea will be.

I’m, frankly, over the whinging about how tight the squeeze is in economy. It’s economy people! This expectation of champagne and caviar on a beer and chips budget is so far off the planet it’s clear the ozone hole exists so you whining lot can come back to visit from time to time.

Flying has never been cheaper. If you compare the average weekly wage with a ticket price now it’s never been cheaper to get between two points by air. The reason for this is that airlines, all of them, are cramming more bums into the same space. Certainly you had more space in the past, no question about it. But you also paid a lot more for it. Could you buy a fare twenty years ago for the equivalent price today? Not a chance. Your choices were to pay what the comfortable seat was worth, or catch the bus/train. My parents generation could never afford to travel by air. They could never afford gap years in Europe.
Now you can still have a comfy seat, with better amenities, better food and entertainment. It’s called premium economy. Pay a bit more and travel more comfortably. It’s still cheaper than what you would have paid twenty years ago. Or pay what you did twenty years ago for a business seat. The choice is yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs (Post 9927535)

And what about pax comfort? Would the pax rather a A380 or 787?

The pax prefer the flight that costs them the least amount of money, anyone who tries to tell you otherwise has no business running an airline.

Well if people don't want to do it in economy direct there are plenty of stopovers with the competition. The Middle East or Asia if going to Europe, Hawaii or NZ or Fiji if going to the US. The market will sort itself out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falling Leaf (Post 9927660)

Is right to ask those questions and make those points. It's also important to point out that the very same points were made when the 747SP first started flying LAX-SYD routes across the Pacific. They were made again when the A380 launched DFW- SYD.

As Nev has indicated, the market will sort it out.

The a380 DFW-SYD was greeted with relief from all after the rattler jumbo service via bris

Actually just prior to the 744 ceasing DFW-BNE-SYD it had become more of a DFW-BNE-'anywhere but Sydney' service. (Hence the reason the Qld government were lobbying hard for the DFW-BNE leg to be retained and will be happy with any announcement of an additional Brissy-US destination for the 789.)
Often only a relative few passengers were transit pax for Sydney with most inbound pax terminating in Brissy or transitting to Cairns, Darwin, Perth and all points north and west. Passengers to Sydney were mainly joiners in Brissy who would then transit Sydney for Jo'burg, Jakarta, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IsDon (Post 9927716)

Correct. The Qantas 747-238B put into service in 1971 had 56 First Class and 300 Economy... with 9 abreast seating in economy class and a Captain Cook Lounge upstairs. Even allowing for some rows having less than 9 abreast (around galleys/Low lobe access) that's about 35 rows of economy in three zones. Lots more space but at the time it was introduced, fares were much more than now. Fuel was also a fraction of the cost - the fuel price even led the BAC/Aerospatiale to think it wouldn't be a problem for the Concorde.