I reckon that the Irishman is eventually targeting Syd to Syd non-stop with no jet lag.
|
Originally Posted by FullWings
(Post 11223678)
I wonder what the ticket prices will be? One 20-hr flight uses considerably more fuel than two 10hr ones.
Furthermore, as I have described many times, cost and revenue are not directly connected. Revenue is driven by what passengers will pay you, not by how much it costs you to provide it. |
Originally Posted by KRviator
(Post 11223530)
Indeed...It's only 30 years since Qantas took their new 747-400 non-stop from London to Sydney. You would have thought if tomorrows announcement is about the A350 & LHR-SYD non-stop that Airbus wold at least be able to do Toulouse-Sydney non-stop to show off their new toy.
Guess they have their reasons. Maybe it's to placate der fuhrer so he doesn't think he's going to lose his precious QF9/QF10 services out of Perth? With todays winds, and the configuration it flew in, they could have flown LHR-AKL with OHA as an alternate. |
Originally Posted by FullWings
(Post 11223678)
One 20-hr flight uses considerably more fuel than two 10hr ones.
|
How many cabin crew will they use ? Will they need 3 sets of flight crew also ?.
|
I guess they will work out something with the regulator. The longest continuous duty I’ve done was just under 28hrs last year under an alleviation.
I would need to check the maths, but I would not be so sure about that. Yes, fuel consumption is highest at takeoff, and is a direct function of takeoff weight, but the equation is definitely not 1:1. Also the 20 hr sector needs to be compared to two 10.5 hr to allow for another approach/landing & takeoff. But the big savings is doing away with the interim airport landing and handling fees which is a considerable portion of total cost. On the revenue side I'm not so sure how it will work out. As a rule of thumb, an airline can charge a premium for a non-stop service (or rather competitors with a connection need to offer a discount), however on such a long route where the time saving is marginal, I don't know to what extent will this work. I for one would rather pay less and spend a night in a Bangkok hotel to break it into two shorter legs. The key is how much of the premium traffic will they manage to capture to fill F/C. I have taken QF first, and the experience was quite disappointing in comparison with what the competition has to offer. |
|
The A343 flight was done during the Le Bourget Airshow in 1993
|
Originally Posted by widgeon
(Post 11223738)
How many cabin crew will they use ? Will they need 3 sets of flight crew also ?.
There was a push by some of the Pilot representatives to at least include a second F/O, rather than second S/O, to allow the 'landing' crew to optimise their rest prior to descent but this has been deemed unnecessary……by those who will rarely if ever have to do it. |
Originally Posted by andrasz
(Post 11223720)
Also the 20 hr sector needs to be compared to two 10.5 hr to allow for another approach/landing & takeoff. But the big savings is doing away with the interim airport landing and handling fees which is a considerable portion of total cost.
|
No, it is going via Perth so that AJ can get the Network, Cobham, Alliance and VARA chaps to put in a price to fly the shiny jet.
|
|
Originally Posted by C441
(Post 11223877)
The expectation is that they'll still use a Captain, F/O and 2 S/Os as they currently do on Ultra Longhaul services such as Perth/Darwin-London and Dallas-Sydney.
There was a push by some of the Pilot representatives to at least include a second F/O, rather than second S/O, to allow the 'landing' crew to optimise their rest prior to descent but this has been deemed unnecessary……by those who will rarely if ever have to do it. |
Originally Posted by blubak
(Post 11223565)
Oh there you go,GT in the know again.
I guess he was on the phone to Alan this morning & advised him what seating was required. Im sure his face will pop up at the Airbus hosted cocktail party in Sydney tomorrow evening. "About 270" is not what it will carry, it is nowhere near 238 - which is what it will ACTUALLY be configured for - he can't even get the figure correct. It nearly makes me vomit every time I see this dolt's face on TV with the banner saying "Aviation Expert". Wouldn't know an aeroplane or an aviation fact if it slowly surfaced in his morning porridge. |
Surely JQ will end up 320/321xlr and send the 78’s to mainline?
|
Originally Posted by SixDemonBag
(Post 11223984)
Surely JQ will end up 320/321xlr and send the 78’s to mainline?
Doubtful that JQ will go into the 2030's and beyond with big twins. A321 will do a whole heap of Asia, Aussie Pilots, Asia CC. That last bit seems to always be the most important bit. |
12 A350 frames would be about 100ish Captains. Any speculation how senior these slots would likely go? ie don't hold out if your number isn't < 300
A321 commands could be enticing for senior WB FOs (or those not wanting to endure the dodgy seat back on the 73) or even those 65+ bidding back with an easier conversion compared to 73. |
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective
(Post 11223975)
Oh God, he is such a BS artist tool.
"About 270" is not what it will carry, it is nowhere near 238 - which is what it will ACTUALLY be configured for - he can't even get the figure correct. It nearly makes me vomit every time I see this dolt's face on TV with the banner saying "Aviation Expert". Wouldn't know an aeroplane or an aviation fact if it slowly surfaced in his morning porridge. |
Jetstar comms said today the 20 A321xlrs are destined for Jetstar from next year.
|
Ollie. They are 2 different orders for A321xlr's.
I've also heard that they are different engine types. JQ CFM and QF P&W |
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:15. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.