Narrow seats on QF B789

[nlagalle]

We have agreement!. Though it will likely operate the existing routes first.

Thats already been announced. The first 787 route will be an existing one. Which one we don't know yet.

Asia is a point to point with an Australian hub. That is the only way QF can compete with the Asian Carriers. Even CX is now saying premium passengers are harder to come by and their one jewel in the crown, the HKG hub, is turning into a bit of an Achilles Heel. A SIN stop is still preferred but unfortunately will never happen now. But one can dream

Will be interesting to see if it does come to pass, whether flying west on this 9000 mile route will cause the B789 to be payload restricted. If so then some spare Y seats may arise.
Flying east is a lot more range friendly due to prevailing winds but the issue then is diversion airports on the west coast. Im sure they will work that one out. KTA and BME are 500 miles less than PER but 780 miles from PER. Maybe GET (Geraldton).

Well that bit won’t be known until the aircraft if finalised for seats etc. I am sure though the planners have already working on it given the cabin layouts were released on Thursday.

 

[waflyer]

Will be interesting to see if it does come to pass, whether flying west on this 9000 mile route will cause the B789 to be payload restricted. If so then some spare Y seats may arise.
Flying east is a lot more range friendly due to prevailing winds but the issue then is diversion airports on the west coast. Im sure they will work that one out. KTA and BME are 500 miles less than PER but 780 miles from PER. Maybe GET (Geraldton).

GET can't take a B787 at the moment, only 737 or 320. There are plans to progressively upgrade the runway and taxiways to eventually take up to an A380 for precisely the purpose as a diversion airport to Perth, but I would think that would be some time away. I think LEA and KGI would be the possible diversions within WA.

 

[DavidFlynn]

PER-LHR is not going to happen.

Clearly execs at Qantas and Perth Airport and state & federal govt are all wasting their time hammering out the details when they should simply have consulted your prescience. PER-LHR has a very very good chance of happening.

Who wants to sit in economy for 17-20 hours?

The same people who sit in economy for 16+ hours on SYD-DFW (PER-LHR more likely 17ish hours anyway, I'm informed).

No thanks.

Happily you'll still have the option to
a) sit in Y+
b) sit in J
c) fly via DXB with Qantas or Emirates
d) fly with another airline on another route

Isn't choice a wonderful thing

Maybe PER-

DXB-LHR is a possibility but doesn't EK already fly this route?

Yes, and they'll continue to do so, Qantas PER-LHR isn't going to change that.

It would be nice if QF reintroduced one option to LHR via SIN/HKG/BKK.

It would be nice if Emilia Clarke sent me a booty call, too, but.......

Seriously: I'd agree with you there, I'd love to see QF reinstate a SYD-SIN-LHR or MEL-SIN-LHR (or HKG for that matter, although history and familiarity is on Singapore's side) but I can't see that happening under the current Emirates arrangement.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

(PER-LHR more likely 17ish hours anyway, I'm informed).

On the upside, that should just about give the cabin crew enough time to serve a meal to the pax sitting in the last row of business class

 

[basso]

The only thing that will stop PER-LHR is PER airport. Not QF, Crew have already been training for it.

I don't think this is true - Non stop flights PER-LHR is bigger than Perth Airport. But one of the bones of contention that I have read is that Qantas want international facilities at their domestic terminals. This is absolutley contrary to 30 years of planning at PER which has envisaged that all operations would be consoilidated at the International Terminal. The last master plan had Qantas moving over there in the early 2020s. Qantas should just go with that - Qantas is being the difficult one here in wanting to go against all hthe planning that has been done.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Yes a replacement of a B747 with B787 would be a reduction in seat capacity, unless the airline manages to secure an additional slot into the airports currently operated by a B747.

QF owns 2 slots at LHR that it is not currently using (I believe they've been subleased to BA for now).

 

[TomVexille]

The same people who sit in economy for 16+ hours on SYD-DFW (PER-LHR more likely 17ish hours anyway, I'm informed).

And ATL-JNB, DXB-AKL, SIN-SFO, and DEL-SFO to name a few

 

[QFflyermelbourne]

I've been wondering for years why they don't throw symmetry out the window and try configuring a 9 abreast aircraft as 2-4-3. That way couples can take the pair seats, those in the middle are only ever one away from the aisle and you only end up with one set of the dreaded 'middle' seat. Less aesthetically pleasing perhaps but surely more comfortable.

 

[Altair]

Wading into the debate. I call bull on the 9 across equals cheaper fares or at least from experience when airlines went from 9 to 10 on the 777 the fares were either not reduced or the drop was not sustained.
Also testing the seats in an environment or experience that simulates a real long haul flight that would have shown the short comings of the seat design, CX and the shell Economy seat and NZ with the PE Spaceseat. Both products were either replaced very quickly or in the NZ took out a row of PE due to complaints, but the seats were design with a particular angle in mind that meant the extra legroom made the seat features slightly unaligned/uncomfortable, now dumped.
I am not saying I never travel on the 787 in WHY but it will not be my first choice and then only in the case where I will be flying with my family on NZ and we take 2 Skycouches either on the 787 or 777. Otherwise there are many other options that we would take and Economy SC is not a large loss for the QFF system.
I wonder if anyone has also called out QF over why they gave 32" pitch, which was my prediction when AJ announced the 9 across and said it would be very "generous". It clearly is because QF using 31" would still not have gotten the extra WHY row in, they would need to go JQ 30" or reduce the premium seating according to the graphic they have released. I guess we should just be thankful that they gave their WHY pax the extra foot or so rather than just used it for something else.
Anyway not excited over the 787 Nightmareliner and would prefer a plethora of other aircraft types over this thing form Boeing.

 

[michaele]

Pax who look only at price will be flying LCCs or Chinese airlines. Others will set a minimum set of standards, i.e. of the things that matter to the individual such as safety, route, time of flight etc etc, and then look for the best value amongst the options meeting these requirements.

If the B789 was configured 8 in a row it would cut out 16 passengers or as I said before 10% of the head count/revenue.

I agree - combine these two points above, something to think about.

1. How often do QF actually sell every available seat? Only once on QF LH have I experienced every single seat in Y taken. (EK is another matter..). Obviously every business wants to maximise available profit, but no airline sells every seat on every day. Isn't it commonly accepted that (route dependent) load factors of ~80-85 are break even to good? Reducing the seat count by 16 only impacts when it is completely full, and *could* be offset by revenue.

2. People who are so price sensitive won't be booking QF fares anyway. As Katiebell said, they will be flying LCC or Chinese most likely to get the cheapest price. Details such as the seat are irrelevant.

 

[Melburnian1]

...People who are so price sensitive won't be booking QF fares anyway. As Katiebell said, they will be flying LCC or Chinese most likely to get the cheapest price. Details such as the seat are irrelevant.

The seat details are relevant to the many corporate types who are placed on an airline by their company's travel agent with no passenger input into the matter.

It is also important that we discuss this horrible, narrow B789 seat because if we did not, all that prospective passengers would have to go on would be the misleading spin from QF management and that company's standard bearers who get invited to hangar parties where a new paint job (big deal!) seems to be about the only attraction apart from free food and, especially, alcohol.

 

[Pierre_a]

I agree - combine these two points above, something to think about.

1. How often do QF actually sell every available seat?

Entirely anecdotal of course but...I am restricted to traveling school holidays due to my partner being a teacher. I have traveled back and forward MEL - LHR on Qantas more than times than I can count now and the aircraft has always been described as going out full. I imagine the additional capacity for these periods where high fare premium are charged is crucial to the overall operating model.

 

[michaele]

The seat details are relevant to the many corporate types who are placed on an airline by their company's travel agent with no passenger input into the matter.

It is also important that we discuss this horrible, narrow B789 seat because if we did not, all that prospective passengers would have to go on would be the misleading spin from QF management and that company's standard bearers who get invited to hangar parties where a new paint job (big deal!) seems to be about the only attraction apart from free food and, especially, alcohol.

I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I was referring only to those pax whose sole focus is price. Of course, the seat details are important to other pax, including myself.

Prime example, a friend who is going to visit his partner in Germany. He didnt ask me for recommendations based on seat, comfort, transfer times. He just wanted the cheapest price.

 

[michaele]

Entirely anecdotal of course but...I am restricted to traveling school holidays due to my partner being a teacher. I have traveled back and forward MEL - LHR on Qantas more than times than I can count now and the aircraft has always been described as going out full. I imagine the additional capacity for these periods where high fare premium are charged is crucial to the overall operating model.

I agree, it's time like this where they cream the profit, and make up for lesser loads throughout the year. School holidays (inc Christmas) is the time of the year where most routes are running fuller than usual/at capacity. For routes/times of significant demand, the 16 extra seats doesn't really take advantage of the extra demand, and so airlines often upgauge where possible (eg HKG -> A380 every Chinese NY). At these times, pax are already charged a premium.

My point was more focused on QF already charging a premium on other airlines (eg LCC/Chinese carriers) so pax are choosing to pay more to fly QF for any/a combination of quality of the product, convenience of routes/timings/stopovers, corporate policy.

 

[JohnK]

Clearly execs at Qantas and Perth Airport and state & federal govt are all wasting their time hammering out the details when they should simply have consulted your prescience. PER-LHR has a very very good chance of happening.

....

The same people who sit in economy for 16+ hours on SYD-DFW (PER-LHR more likely 17ish hours anyway, I'm informed).

Yes I see it now. Qantas can't make PER-SIN work but all of a sudden PER-LHR is going to be a success because passengers from the East Coast will rush over to PER to connect to a 17+ hour flight.

Talk is real cheap. PER should keep hoping for a direct PER-LHR because that's our biggest concern in life. We really don't want to waste an extra hour connecting via SIN or DXB....

 

[under the radar]

I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I was referring only to those pax whose sole focus is price. Of course, the seat details are important to other pax, including myself.

Prime example, a friend who is going to visit his partner in Germany. He didnt ask me for recommendations based on seat, comfort, transfer times. He just wanted the cheapest price.

TOTALLY agree michaele. Plus, the fact that the QF789s profits/success will come from it's premium cabin/s (J/C P/Y), which I have no doubt will be mostly fully booked. These seats/space are the less dense yet take up HALF of the aircraft cabin. Y/C is still for those who are price sensitive (as always), but QF still NEEDS to have a Y/C cabin on the aircraft, to cover ALL bases. Y/C cabins are NOT the profit makers on an aircraft. They are a necessary evil to please the masses on the routes it will fly.

 

[under the radar]

Yes I see it now. Qantas can't make PER-SIN work but all of a sudden PER-LHR is going to be a success because passengers from the East Coast will rush over to PER to connect to a 17+ hour flight.

Talk is real cheap. PER should keep hoping for a direct PER-LHR because that's our biggest concern in life. We really don't want to waste an extra hour connecting via SIN or DXB....

Ignorance is even cheaper!!! do some research on the target markets for PER-LHR....I certainly am not gonna help you...And loving how YOU (we????) 'speak' for EVERYONE else...gotta love when 'apples' get compared to 'anything OTHER than apples'

 

[mannej]

Yes I see it now. Qantas can't make PER-SIN work but all of a sudden PER-LHR is going to be a success because passengers from the East Coast will rush over to PER to connect to a 17+ hour flight.

Talk is real cheap. PER should keep hoping for a direct PER-LHR because that's our biggest concern in life. We really don't want to waste an extra hour connecting via SIN or DXB....

To be fair they have increased the frequency on PER-SIN and now will up-gauge to 332 during periods of higher demand.

 

[Pierre_a]

My point was more focused on QF already charging a premium on other airlines (eg LCC/Chinese carriers) so pax are choosing to pay more to fly QF for any/a combination of quality of the product, convenience of routes/timings/stopovers, corporate policy.

I would think that the market for passengers solely focused on price is probably quite small, especially when you're looking at long haul, and for those passengers they likely wouldn't choose QF.

I have a theory that the largest portion of the economy airfare market is not enabled with a high level of market awareness and in actual fact does not choose to fly a particular airline at all. Instead flying the airline their tour operator, travel agent, online hotel and flight package retailer sold them or the airline that has a flight that leaves and arrives at a time convenient to them. Of course there will be a number of subsets of consumers driven by differing motivating factors within the overall market who choose an airline based on a huge myriad of factors but overall I would wager the market is not generally discerning at the economy level. I would also wager that the market comprised of well informed value seeking travelers such that exist on this site would most likely be one of the smallest segments.

I'd be really interested in some data indicating the % of sales of long haul tickets through the various sales channels, for example what % of QF sales are made direct through the website, from high street retailers, what % are corporate accounts etc?

 

[JohnK]

I agree, it's time like this where they cream the profit, and make up for lesser loads throughout the year. School holidays (inc Christmas) is the time of the year where most routes are running fuller than usual/at capacity. For routes/times of significant demand, the 16 extra seats doesn't really take advantage of the extra demand, and so airlines often upgauge where possible (eg HKG -> A380 every Chinese NY). At these times, pax are already charged a premium.

Not that it means much in this discussion but I had a number of overseas flights during September and October. The Qantas flights were nowhere near full. The SQ flights were full(ish) months out and not surprisingly the Air Asia X flight was full.