|
They asked for 260 below 10,000 tonight for departure ex PER. Serious with the efficiency, by the looks. Does it climb at 260 for long?
|
Qantas have done their homework on this route. More than that, there’s a genuine desire to make it work among the crews that fly it. There’s a real buzz around the 787 operation I’ve never seen before. A pride, if you like, of proving what a determined company and crew with a capable aircraft can achieve if given the chance. Slightly off topic but can anyone point to any operation from which Qantas has had to withdraw because it 'wouldn't work' for operational reasons? Over the decades Qantas' operational planning has been second to none, frequently proving the critics wrong. |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 10133293)
They asked for 260 below 10,000 tonight for departure ex PER. Serious with the efficiency, by the looks. Does it climb at 260 for long?
Once at 10,000 they would accelerate to around 300KIAS at a guess. |
0450 BA032 0505 QF009 0505 BA016 0505 IB4750 0525 BA034 0525 IB4625 0525 BA074 0530 BA023 0530 US207 0530 AA6446 0530 BA056 0530 IB4727 These are the first listed and stopping |
Heathrow arrivals
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 10133172)
This mornings arrivals (today SUNDAY 29 April)...
Simplistically, Heathrow has about 13 arrivals each morning between 0430 and 0600 Local. It's "about" because the limit is for overall night flights, per season, but that's how it works out each day. BA have about 50%. Qantas have had one for years, they are all grandfather rights. Anything else has to hold untl 0600, but QF has one of the slots. But for pre-0600 allowed arrivals, holding would not happen unless there is some issue developed on the ground. Of Heathrow's two runways, only one is used pre-0600 on a rota basis (both are used from 0600 to 0700 for arrivals), but if there is a hangup on one things are immediately switched to the other. Where an issue might arise would be unfavourable winds or routing, plus maybe a late departure from Perth, leading to them not arriving in the Terminal Area until just after 0600, when all the holds are quite often full and there is secondary holding further out as well. Of course, you then still always have to allow for an incident to a prior aircraft which ties up the ARFF services and closes the airport. |
Originally Posted by Ken Borough
(Post 10133312)
Where now are the naysayers?
Slightly off topic but can anyone point to any operation from which Qantas has had to withdraw because it 'wouldn't work' for operational reasons? Over the decades Qantas' operational planning has been second to none, frequently proving the critics wrong. |
Off thread, but Jesus this site has become hard to use now. Jumps all over the place. Threads load with different "themes". Replies appear in the thread while still appearing in n the quick reply box, pages load, then disappear, then appear again only half loaded. Obviously coded by someone who doesn't actually use a forum.
Edit:while trying to edit this post, I have had it appear simultaneously in 3 different windows, had to use the back button twice as I have been redirected to advertisers sites without actually clicking on anything, had it freeze while interminably "loading more posts", close the page and relog in again, and finally have had to resort to using the mobile version to get any sense out of it. Thanks for the upgrade! |
^^^^^^^^:(
|
V-Jet and Traffic_is_er_was, exactly how much do you pay for this “service” ? |
As has been pointed out on other threads regarding the changes, the owners only contribute the hosting, with revenue solely from the advertising. Many users are now resorting to ad blockers to try and restore some usability to the site, which negatively impacts on the advertisers. The users of the forums contribute all of the content, which is what draws the visits for the advertising to be effective. Alienate the users, and what do the owners have left. Irrespective of how much the site costs, if you can't use it, it's worthless.
|
I didnt realise the first flight was a 767. Did it need much system changes ?
|
Travellers Letters
Punters starting to find that a 787 for 16 hours in economy isn't the greatest.... I recently travelled long-haul economy, two sectors in an Airbus A330 and two in the much vaunted Boeing 787 Dreamliner. What a contrast. The A330, with eight across seating felt as spacious as economy class can be, with decent leg room and seat width. The B787 (with nine seats across) was a more of a nightmare than a dream. Space was so tight that making even the slightest move encroached on the personal space of one's neighbour. The cabins of the two aircraft are almost the same width. So is the B787's lower cost per seat mile really due to the innovative use of new technology, or more crudely to simply squeezing more hapless passengers into the same space? Read more: Traveller letters: Which is better, Airbus A330 or Boeing 787? Follow us: @TravellerAU on Twitter TravellerAU on Facebook |
Qantas 789 Y/C Pitch 32, Width 17.2 Qantas 333 Y/C Pitch 31, Width 17 Fake news? :} |
Originally Posted by *Lancer*
(Post 10175606)
Qantas 789 Y/C Pitch 32, Width 17.2 Qantas 333 Y/C Pitch 31, Width 17 Fake news? :} |
A330 Cabin width 204 inch
B787 cabin width 218 inch. Toot toot!! |
My neighbour recently flew on the 9/10. He has no affiliation one way or the other with any airline, but he is a full fare business/first passenger. His review...never again. It was on time, and worked operationally, but he hated it. A sample of one, I know...
|
Originally Posted by mrdeux
(Post 10176324)
My neighbour recently flew on the 9/10. He has no affiliation one way or the other with any airline, but he is a full fare business/first passenger. His review...never again. It was on time, and worked operationally, but he hated it. A sample of one, I know...
|
I disagree Maggie. I reckon that's exactly the market QF is chasing these days. It's a yield driven airline now, not RPKs. Smaller aeroplanes, longer legs means you'd better be making up for the reduced numbers in yield. QF15/16 out of Brisbane to LA and on to NY is a case in point. Currently full aeroplanes in both directions, about to lose 130 odd seats on that service come September, there would want to be a yield premium in it.
|
LAX - JFK is dropping capacity, but BNE - LAX is being supplemented by the QF55/56, a 744 3xweekly until December and a 787 4x weekly after that. https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/me...eptember-2018/ |
A shame to lose the 747 - my favourite seats are 3A and 3B, with that lovely roomy feel that the pointy end has. Able to see out the windows on the other side, only 12 pax in the section. The ride NY-LA- BN is quite enjoyable in there.
The 330 business section is comfortable but feels a bit jammed in. |
Originally Posted by OneDotLow
(Post 10176340)
LAX - JFK is dropping capacity, but BNE - LAX is being supplemented by the QF55/56, a 744 3xweekly until December and a 787 4x weekly after that. https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/me...eptember-2018/ |
That is all well and good, but we were pretty full in both directions between LAX and JFK last week. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif Whether that makes it more viable economically is for the wizard yield managers to determine. |
Originally Posted by C441
(Post 10176421)
I was told recently that many of the travellers between LAX and JFK and return are code-shares. It is these pax that Qantas plan to offload when the 787 starts the service. Whether that makes it more viable economically is for the wizard yield managers to determine. |
I reckon there will be a lot of grief from this. Neither Lax or JFK managers want the 787 to replace the jumbo, they want more seats not less. The additional service in the afternoon is not the answer as pax can’t get connections to all points east in the USA. If you look at Melbourne loads instead of 90% plus load factors on the 380 the 787 service has dropped the 380 to about 70/75% load factor and similar for the 787. So now both services are not profitable IMO.
|
I reckon that's exactly the market QF is chasing these days This. Have a look at how many business seats are fitted in the 787's. When they reduced capacity to make more room, they didn't take it out of the pointy end. |
The 744s are config’d for 58J + 36W (apart from OEB of course), 789s have 42J + 28W - a significant drop in high yield seating. I imagine the strategy is to start a new US service (BNE - ORD perhaps) to supplement the lost seats to JFK. |
If you disregard premium economy as being high yield, the 744s have 56 business and 306 economy seats. The 789s have 42 business and 194 economy seats. Capacity is down for sure, but the high yield percentage per airframe is up. Even if you lump premium economy in with business, high yield seats per frame is still up. Add in significantly more economic operation, and QF can afford to drop capacity, especially if it means every one of those high yield seats will be occupied.
|
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was
(Post 10177484)
If you disregard premium economy as being high yield, the 744s have 56 business and 306 economy seats. The 789s have 42 business and 194 economy seats. Capacity is down for sure, but the high yield percentage per airframe is up. Even if you lump premium economy in with business, high yield seats per frame is still up. Add in significantly more economic operation, and QF can afford to drop capacity, especially if it means every one of those high yield seats will be occupied.
|
Originally Posted by TURIN
(Post 10175628)
A330 Cabin width 204 inch
B787 cabin width 218 inch. Toot toot!! |
Originally Posted by NumptyAussie
(Post 10179596)
maths is not your strong point then?
|
As the Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft could carry 236 passengers, its monthly capacity was 14,160 seats — meaning that month, capacity reached only 75.5 per cent of the potential maximum. With a Load factor of 75.5% at the height of a northern summer, as the north descends into the cooler months, this is not a good metric. As we postulated at the commencement of the service, it may well be ok in the warmer northern months but marginal where fuel, payload and crew tour of duty limits impact on the operation in a European winter. With the lower CASK and more yield premium due the configuration, the margins will be okay. The problem for Qantas, other than operational restrictions, during a northern winter is that where as once Qantas ran four flights to Europe with AVERAGE yearly load factors on 80% (in the last two years of service 2012, 2013) a new service in a northern PEAK can't hold 80%. Qantas operate far less seats than they did in FY13, not having over sold services on a daily basis ought concern, fort fumble. IFF the operational restrictions north bound are prevalent in the northern winter Q4 this year, then it is highly probable another quiet 'schedule change' reflecting 'customer feedback' sees this service sent via Singapore. A six year random walk for little Napoleon, only to return to Europe via Singapore, like most other airlines. Like a defeated third Reich commanding non existent battalions to defend Berlin, what next? |
Oh dear Rated De, for someone who claims to analyse company performance you missed a pretty key point in the story you linked to. However, the figures only captured passengers flying between Perth and London, and did not take into account passengers using the route to fly between London and Melbourne, or connecting in Sydney and other locations. I actually think the fact they are filling three quarters of the flights solely with passengers to/from Perth shows it must be performing quite well. That leaves only 60ish seats that they need to sell to ADL, CBR, MEL, ASP, PHE, BNE, KGI, BME, DRW, SYD to fill the flight. As has been discussed at length on this forum, this won’t be most people’s preferred route from the east coast to LHR, but with Perth pax already filling most of the plane they need only sell a small number of seats to LHR out of Australia's secondary cities to make the service a commercial success. |
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10227024)
https://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...9d4240a8e184e1
With a Load factor of 75.5% at the height of a northern summer, as the north descends into the cooler months, this is not a good metric. As we postulated at the commencement of the service, it may well be ok in the warmer northern months but marginal where fuel, payload and crew tour of duty limits impact on the operation in a European winter. With the lower CASK and more yield premium due the configuration, the margins will be okay. The problem for Qantas, other than operational restrictions, during a northern winter is that where as once Qantas ran four flights to Europe with AVERAGE yearly load factors on 80% (in the last two years of service 2012, 2013) a new service in a northern PEAK can't hold 80%. Qantas operate far less seats than they did in FY13, not having over sold services on a daily basis ought concern, fort fumble. IFF the operational restrictions north bound are prevalent in the northern winter Q4 this year, then it is highly probable another quiet 'schedule change' reflecting 'customer feedback' sees this service sent via Singapore. A six year random walk for little Napoleon, only to return to Europe via Singapore, like most other airlines. Like a defeated third Reich commanding non existent battalions to defend Berlin, what next? Have a look at the 12-13k Flexi J fares that are typically bought by corporates on the PER-LHR route. Multiply that by the 42 seats and you start to get an idea of how strong this route is. |
How many FF’s are ‘forced’ to use their points to LHR via PER from SYD/MELBNE when they want via Asia. Anecdotally, that’s a decent number of pax. |
If it’s 75% load factor for solely PER/LHR/PER then I reckon QF would be extremely happy! Plenty of people connecting from other ports onto the QF9/10. Domestic schedules have been rejigged where necessary to allow it. Bring on CDG and/or FRA! |
I did mention here prior to this route beginning, that for various reasons I thought it might primarily be supported out of Perth, with traffic from other Cities merely providing a bit of extra revenue. Regardless of where the pax originate, Anyone with access to Staff Travel can see that getting a seat on it is a tough ask, it does look very successful so far.
Sure, it’s still early, and the below figures are from the very early weeks of the service, but they are the official figures. By all means check my arithmetic, but it’s certainly positive; https://bitre.gov.au/publications/on...ivity_1805.pdf MEL-PER-LHR: Seats: 14632 pax : 13397 Thats a load factor in the 90s, a point at which on many other routes Airlines will experience ‘Spill’ to other Airlines(something to be avoided if possible), and then typically look at putting on additional services. For the international portion of the QF 9, 25% of the Pax seem to be originating from Melbourne, While much of the rest of the Load (as confirmed by the above-posted article), is originating from Perth. Certainly, we are yet to see a Northern Winter and it’s possible effects on this route, both for loads and possible diversions or what-not, but at the moment you’d have to have bit of positivity about it. Surely even some initial doubters are coming around. Like many, I’m not happy about the overall reduction in capacity to Europe over the last few years. However, with more of these aircraft on the way, we could see some more direct routes into Europe thanks to this one ending up a success, growing the footprint once again. For a long time, there hasn’t been much to like about QF management, but credit where it’s due, this looks like being something positive. |
I think you are all missing the point.
Customer service, https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...14156a15ee.jpg |
Once again De Rated has proven that he is full of it. Not only does he post unsubstantiated rubbish all over this site, for reasons unknown, he has now proven he can’t read, or at least can’t comprehend. Using big words doesn’t change the content of your posts fella, we can all see through it. He has at least one qrewroom poster fooled. One would be led to believe they are one in the same? Give it a rest RD. I understand this is a runmour network, but your BS may frighten the more vulnerable amongst us. And that’s just simply being an AH. Appologies if this this fool is a female. Not wanting to be uniclusive. |
Fatguyinacoat,
If you call someone out you have to have to give a reason. You cant just rant that someone is full of it. This just makes you look like a troll |
Here's exactly how many people take Qantas' 17-hour non-stop flight to London
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:06. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.