Qantas FY14/15 F/Y Results [Dreamliner in 2017]

[Awesom Andy]

To be fair - 3-3-3 seating on the 787 is standard. There are only two exceptions for the japanese carriers.

And that's not completely true either. ANA has 3-3-3 on their 787-9 as well (some versions of the 787-8 are also 3-3-3).
Seatmap [International Flights]｜At the airport/In flight [International]｜ANA

 

[Himeno]

And that's not completely true either. ANA has 3-3-3 on their 787-9 as well (some versions of the 787-8 are also 3-3-3).
Seatmap [International Flights]｜At the airport/In flight [International]｜ANA

Boeing designed the 787 for 8 across. NH and JL accepted that. When other airlines started taking the 787 with 9 across, NH started refitting their cabins (which they were already doing due to customer complaints about the window tint system)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And that's not completely true either. ANA has 3-3-3 on their 787-9 as well (some versions of the 787-8 are also 3-3-3).
Seatmap [International Flights]｜At the airport/In flight [International]｜ANA

oh! thanks for the heads-up!

 

[Isochronous]

Instead of Joyce following everyone with 9 across, he should seize the opportunity to be different.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Instead of Joyce following everyone with 9 across, he should seize the opportunity to be different.

I can't see the math for 8 across.

8 across - just for the rear cabin (based on the ANA model) would lose at least 12 seats. Assuming a $1000 return fare, and one round-trip a day, that's around $4.4m a year. Just for one plane. I don't think pax would be willing to pay for that shortfall.

 

[docjames]

Or the rest would pay $1100 instead of $1000

 

[Awesom Andy]

Instead of Joyce following everyone with 9 across, he should seize the opportunity to be different.

That's what the rest did when Boeing, JL, and NH started with 8 across...

Although on second thoughts, I just realised that both SQ and CX are getting the A350, and if they choose to fly it to Australia, then Qantas would be at a severe disadvantage (in Y, at least) on the main Asian routes.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Instead of Joyce following everyone with 9 across, he should seize the opportunity to be different.

10 Across!

 

[Mr_Orange]

10 Across!

CozySuite - suggests just that :shock:

 

[smit0847]

Boeing designed the 787 for 8 across.

Thats because Boeing only sell the planes, thet dont have to make money operating them

 

[kamchatsky]

With 787 range, can DRW serve all Europe and say New York?

 

[moa999]

CozySuite - suggests just that :shock:

And I thought they had a tough enough so with prior experience with small pitch fixed back seats (eg. CX)

 

[Mr_Orange]

And I thought they had a tough enough so with prior experience with small pitch fixed back seats (eg. CX)

Yeah, fixed seat back in Y or Y+ are not good. The AF Y+ seat was horrible.

AFAIK, Thompson Aero have yet to sell the CozySuite to any airlines.....

 

[Himeno]

With 787 range, can DRW serve all Europe and say New York?

DRW-LHR is within the stated range of the 787-9, though reaching LHR, France and Spain would likely have similar issues to DFW-SYD. DRW-JFK is 2,000km past stated 787-9 range.

 

[codash1099]

Thats because Boeing only sell the planes, thet dont have to make money operating them

But they do have to make the economics look good!

 

[Awesom Andy]

With 787 range, can DRW serve all Europe and say New York?

DRW? Where is that? I have enough trouble finding PER and ADL already...

 

[Timba-Jet]

DRW? Where is that? I have enough trouble finding PER and ADL already...

Imagine if Darwin was a large city with $1M+ population and business focus of Australia, it would be a logical hub to Asia and Europe suitable to all State capitals with the exception of Perth.

Now back to the real world, would love to see the 787-9 used to open up a:
- new asian route Maybe ICN or PEK
- Continental Europe, Duetchland or Paris

 

[Awesom Andy]

Imagine if Darwin was a large city with $1M+ population and business focus of Australia, it would be a logical hub to Asia and Europe suitable to all State capitals with the exception of Perth.

Now back to the real world, would love to see the 787-9 used to open up a:
- new asian route Maybe ICN or PEK
- Continental Europe, Duetchland or Paris

DRW would have worked well if the population was there, I guess. And it wasn't all that long ago when JQ attempted to use DRW as a hub. The high airport fees killed it, although the flight times weren't the best either - cutting a red eye flight into 2 halves, and travel on single aisle planes for both of them.

PEK would be good, I think, and it would actually be a restart. Air China just started PEK-MEL a couple of months ago as well, so there should be demands up that way.

 

[moa999]

A lot of the new route talk ignores the fact that QF is replacing 5 747s with (approx 364 seats based on reconfig = 1820)

With 8 787s with 250 = 2000

This not a dramatic capacity increase, and these planes are more likely to add to frequency rather than new routes

That said if for example QF has 250 pax a day doing PER-SYD/MEL/BNE-LAX a direct might be possible, but I doubt it

 

[Himeno]

Imagine if Darwin was a large city with $1M+ population and business focus of Australia, it would be a logical hub to Asia and Europe suitable to all State capitals with the exception of Perth.

Now back to the real world, would love to see the 787-9 used to open up a:
- new asian route Maybe ICN or PEK
- Continental Europe, Duetchland or Paris

Qantas wants to be able to do daily flights to Paris before they go back there. Under the current air services agreement, they can only do daily if the aircraft used is less then 200 seats.