QF9 25MAR18
Thread Starter
QF9 25MAR18
I see from FR24 that the route was over DXB then Iran/Turkey/Bulgaria/Romania/Austria and Germany.
If it wasn't for security and political concerns would a routing over Northern Africa make for a more sense?
I guess that the European routing makes more sense from an alternates/refile point of view?
If it wasn't for security and political concerns would a routing over Northern Africa make for a more sense?
I guess that the European routing makes more sense from an alternates/refile point of view?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Great Circle Mapper PER-LHR
Winds and weather need to be addressed as well but North Africa would be quite a detour.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note that the initial part of the flight was close to what the Qantas Catalinas flew on the Double Sunrise flights Perth to Ceylon. The B787 was a tad quicker though.
https://news.sky.com/story/first-dir...hours-11303554
Well done Qantas.
(Updated, just been on Sky news)
Well done Qantas.
(Updated, just been on Sky news)
Last edited by crewmeal; 25th Mar 2018 at 07:16. Reason: Updated
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Earth
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that ultra long haul is expensive to fly (fuel, crew etc) and Perth revenue is low due to not enough business pax.
Not a route tourist passengers will make profitable.
This not SIN-JFK.
It will be interesting to see how long it lasts.
Not a route tourist passengers will make profitable.
This not SIN-JFK.
It will be interesting to see how long it lasts.
The videos of the inaugural flight showed a number of empty seats, which is to be expected given that the B789 is almost certainly payload-limited on a stage of that length.
read load to sell was 210 - makes about 30 seats blocked off?
dont know yet if 210 were all sold or not
a journo on last night in Y said she liked the non-stop but she did have an empty seat next to her -
she said the seat comfort was not brill and should be better for ULH
plenty of food 3 hot meals and plenty of sleep
most folk enjoyed not have to get off the plane somewhere in the middle east in the middle of the night to refuel
journey time (this flight originated in MEL) was about the same for pax not joining at PER but the PER-LHR non stop was seemingly well liked
simon calder is on today's EB flight
dont know yet if 210 were all sold or not
a journo on last night in Y said she liked the non-stop but she did have an empty seat next to her -
she said the seat comfort was not brill and should be better for ULH
plenty of food 3 hot meals and plenty of sleep
most folk enjoyed not have to get off the plane somewhere in the middle east in the middle of the night to refuel
journey time (this flight originated in MEL) was about the same for pax not joining at PER but the PER-LHR non stop was seemingly well liked
simon calder is on today's EB flight
Last edited by rog747; 25th Mar 2018 at 15:37.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crunching some numbers (from wiki and elsewhere)
B787-9
MTOW 254.011 kg
MZFW 181,437 kg
MLW 181,437 kg
OEW 128,850 kg
Fuel capacity 101,456 kg
Qantas configuration 42J/28W/166Y = 236 pax = ~24 tonnes inc bags
Average burn assumed 4.5 tonnes/hour
17 hour flight = 76.5 tonnes + reportedly about 7.5 tonnes remaining = 84 tonnes in tank (might be 3% or so more with contingency fuel, let's say 87 tonnes).
So MTOW-Fuel load = 254 - 87= max allowable ZFW of 167 tonnes
OEW + full pax load = 128.9 + 24 tonnes = 152.9 tonnes
=> freight capacity = 14.1 tonnes (or less depending on actual OEW subject to QF fit out)
Doesn't sound like any pax limitation needed to me
B787-9
MTOW 254.011 kg
MZFW 181,437 kg
MLW 181,437 kg
OEW 128,850 kg
Fuel capacity 101,456 kg
Qantas configuration 42J/28W/166Y = 236 pax = ~24 tonnes inc bags
Average burn assumed 4.5 tonnes/hour
17 hour flight = 76.5 tonnes + reportedly about 7.5 tonnes remaining = 84 tonnes in tank (might be 3% or so more with contingency fuel, let's say 87 tonnes).
So MTOW-Fuel load = 254 - 87= max allowable ZFW of 167 tonnes
OEW + full pax load = 128.9 + 24 tonnes = 152.9 tonnes
=> freight capacity = 14.1 tonnes (or less depending on actual OEW subject to QF fit out)
Doesn't sound like any pax limitation needed to me
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 78
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for those knowledgeable about flight cost.
Flight crew was 4. Reporter on flight was told 1 captain, 1 first officer, and 2 second officers. Story on Flight Global states 2 captains, 1 first officer, 1 second officer. This is same flight crew number I have on Uk to Japan or USA to Asia flights so no diff.
Cabin crew was 12. Reporter on flight said there was no additional crewing for flight.
So crew cost would appear to me to be less than a one stop flight.
Fuel cost - yes, take off has a very large fuel load but there is no fuel used for the intermediate stop. Does it cost more for the original takeoff with beginning cruise at a higher burn rate than it does to make the intermediate stop (remember still carrying fuel reserve for that stop), refuel, and take off again to complete the flight with increased burn rate for climb to cruise altitude.
Remembering a trip I used to make on Delta, Atlanta to Jo'burg. Refueling stop in Dakar on a 767. First crew leaves in Dakar and has a layover. Second crew takes over to complete flight. Two crews required for return flight with return flight 2 days later crewed by the first flight crew. Now Delta makes this flight as a non-stop with a 777.
I assume crewing cost on the non-stop is significantly less. Fuel cost - what do the experts say?
And the flight is Melbourne to London with a stop in Perth so is not dependent only on Perth originating passengers.
Flight crew was 4. Reporter on flight was told 1 captain, 1 first officer, and 2 second officers. Story on Flight Global states 2 captains, 1 first officer, 1 second officer. This is same flight crew number I have on Uk to Japan or USA to Asia flights so no diff.
Cabin crew was 12. Reporter on flight said there was no additional crewing for flight.
So crew cost would appear to me to be less than a one stop flight.
Fuel cost - yes, take off has a very large fuel load but there is no fuel used for the intermediate stop. Does it cost more for the original takeoff with beginning cruise at a higher burn rate than it does to make the intermediate stop (remember still carrying fuel reserve for that stop), refuel, and take off again to complete the flight with increased burn rate for climb to cruise altitude.
Remembering a trip I used to make on Delta, Atlanta to Jo'burg. Refueling stop in Dakar on a 767. First crew leaves in Dakar and has a layover. Second crew takes over to complete flight. Two crews required for return flight with return flight 2 days later crewed by the first flight crew. Now Delta makes this flight as a non-stop with a 777.
I assume crewing cost on the non-stop is significantly less. Fuel cost - what do the experts say?
And the flight is Melbourne to London with a stop in Perth so is not dependent only on Perth originating passengers.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the flight is Melbourne to London with a stop in Perth so is not dependent only on Perth originating passengers.
Question for those knowledgeable about flight cost.
Flight crew was 4. Reporter on flight was told 1 captain, 1 first officer, and 2 second officers. Story on Flight Global states 2 captains, 1 first officer, 1 second officer. This is same flight crew number I have on Uk to Japan or USA to Asia flights so no diff.
Cabin crew was 12. Reporter on flight said there was no additional crewing for flight.
So crew cost would appear to me to be less than a one stop flight.
Fuel cost - yes, take off has a very large fuel load but there is no fuel used for the intermediate stop. Does it cost more for the original takeoff with beginning cruise at a higher burn rate than it does to make the intermediate stop (remember still carrying fuel reserve for that stop), refuel, and take off again to complete the flight with increased burn rate for climb to cruise altitude.
Remembering a trip I used to make on Delta, Atlanta to Jo'burg. Refueling stop in Dakar on a 767. First crew leaves in Dakar and has a layover. Second crew takes over to complete flight. Two crews required for return flight with return flight 2 days later crewed by the first flight crew. Now Delta makes this flight as a non-stop with a 777.
I assume crewing cost on the non-stop is significantly less. Fuel cost - what do the experts say?
And the flight is Melbourne to London with a stop in Perth so is not dependent only on Perth originating passengers.
Flight crew was 4. Reporter on flight was told 1 captain, 1 first officer, and 2 second officers. Story on Flight Global states 2 captains, 1 first officer, 1 second officer. This is same flight crew number I have on Uk to Japan or USA to Asia flights so no diff.
Cabin crew was 12. Reporter on flight said there was no additional crewing for flight.
So crew cost would appear to me to be less than a one stop flight.
Fuel cost - yes, take off has a very large fuel load but there is no fuel used for the intermediate stop. Does it cost more for the original takeoff with beginning cruise at a higher burn rate than it does to make the intermediate stop (remember still carrying fuel reserve for that stop), refuel, and take off again to complete the flight with increased burn rate for climb to cruise altitude.
Remembering a trip I used to make on Delta, Atlanta to Jo'burg. Refueling stop in Dakar on a 767. First crew leaves in Dakar and has a layover. Second crew takes over to complete flight. Two crews required for return flight with return flight 2 days later crewed by the first flight crew. Now Delta makes this flight as a non-stop with a 777.
I assume crewing cost on the non-stop is significantly less. Fuel cost - what do the experts say?
And the flight is Melbourne to London with a stop in Perth so is not dependent only on Perth originating passengers.
Unsurprisingly, the answer will vary with the overall stage length and the relative lengths of the stages before/after the tech stop.
I checked the block times of QF9/10 on FR24. Rather rough & ready and a very small sample size between LHR - PER - MEL (4, 6 in the other direction) so not very accurate at this stage but interestingly the flight is on average 17 minutes quicker W/B and 16 mins quicker E/B via Perth rather than DXB.
Would anyone in the know the split of passengers travelling from MEL and those joining at PER?
TopBunk's figures are really interesting, I didn't realise that the 789s average fuel consumption was as low.
I am having trouble finding OEW for new aircraft as manufacturers don't seem to publish them any longer - I don't know if this is commercially confidential, they are worried about weight increasing during development (true of just about any type I can think of) of whether it varies significantly by airline depending upon cabin configuration. Does anyone have any figures particularly for the 350 900/1000 but also all variants of the 787.
Would anyone in the know the split of passengers travelling from MEL and those joining at PER?
TopBunk's figures are really interesting, I didn't realise that the 789s average fuel consumption was as low.
I am having trouble finding OEW for new aircraft as manufacturers don't seem to publish them any longer - I don't know if this is commercially confidential, they are worried about weight increasing during development (true of just about any type I can think of) of whether it varies significantly by airline depending upon cabin configuration. Does anyone have any figures particularly for the 350 900/1000 but also all variants of the 787.
