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

[moa999]

The 787 will be suitable but ONLY if in an 8 abreast Y configuration. Especially considering the possibility of city pairs like syd/ord and Mel/dfw.

No chance...
Apart from the original two Japanese airlines who have now reverted, no-one else has done 8-abreast.

It will be 9

 

[Awesom Andy]

No chance...
Apart from the original two Japanese airlines who have now reverted, no-one else has done 8-abreast.

It will be 9

And a dream turns into a nightmare...

 

[TomVexille]

No chance...
Apart from the original two Japanese airlines who have now reverted, no-one else has done 8-abreast.

It will be 9

NH may have, but JL are still 2-4-2 and the new deliveries will have 34in pitch

 

[Aussie_flyer]

No chance...
Apart from the original two Japanese airlines who have now reverted, no-one else has done 8-abreast.

It will be 9

I think you may be surprised. QF are using these on ULTRA long haul and they are going to need to differentiate themselves from the JQ product.

 

[moa999]

Not if they are supposedly fitting in 250+ seats in a 3-class J,Y+,Y config.

That's 35+ more seats than this BA config which is 3-3-3
www.seatguru.com/airlines/British_Airways/British_Airways_Boeing_787-9.php

 

[Aussie_flyer]

Not if they are supposedly fitting in 250+ seats in a 3-class J,Y+,Y config.

That's 35+ more seats than this BA config which is 3-3-3
www.seatguru.com/airlines/British_Airways/British_Airways_Boeing_787-9.php

Thats with very large J and Y+ cabins PLUS a first cabin, no comparison

 

[moa999]

You don't make up 35 seats by starting at 25 behind.

But how about United at 252.. Y+ will be less dense than United's Plus
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airlines_Boeing_787-900.php

 

[ajw373]

Re: Qantas to get Dreamliner 787-9 Next year

Still a pity that QF didn't go with something like the A350.

Agree, got my first A350 and 787 rides within the last month and to me the A350 from a passenger view point is a standout.

Guess though the key is what price did Qantas get the 787's for, presumably being a big launch customer they had very keen pricing.

That said there are a number of airlines that have or plan to have the A350 and 787 side by side. Because contrary to popular belief they are not really competitors to each other. The 787 (-8, -9) is more a 767 replacement/A330-200 replacement aircraft with extra range. And the A350-900 and -1000 is more a A330-300 to 777 replacement aircraft again with extra range.

 

[Awesom Andy]

Re: Qantas to get Dreamliner 787-9 Next year

That said there are a number of airlines that have or plan to have the A350 and 787 side by side. Because contrary to popular belief they are not really competitors to each other. The 787 (-8, -9) is more a 767 replacement/A330-200 replacement aircraft with extra range. And the A350-900 and -1000 is more a A330-300 to 777 replacement aircraft again with extra range.

It kind of worked out that way in the end, although the 787-10 would be about the same size as the A350-900, and the A350-800 lost the battle even before it got built, with the A330neo taking its place.

 

[dajop]

Not if they are supposedly fitting in 250+ seats in a 3-class J,Y+,Y config.

Not impossible, although extremely unlikely of course that QF would do the 2-4-2 config. If you took out one seat from each row of Y in the NZ configuration, you'd still end up with 273 seats. Although would expect QF to have more than 18 J seats.

 

[Mattg]

Either way, QF would be silly IMHO to operate these aircraft with 9-abreast in Y on ultra-long haul routes. What an uncomfortable way to fly, and QF would seriously struggle to differentiate itself. I thought the point of competition was to try to be better than your competitors (or undercut on price), but not to try to be exactly the same while no doubt charging a premium price?

People will notice how tight the seats are packed... no point adding extra seats if nobody wants to fill them.

 

[downgraded]

But they can offer the allure of maybe a shadow to keep WPs hooked with the oh we sold the seat at the last minute so "tough" reality.

Ultimately it's up to the consumer to vote with their airline or aircraft selection. That'll drive the price down for the poor layout choice if they go 9 abreast and the majority will get their preference of flying qf the lcc instead as cheaply as possible. Sad day that it will represent.

 

[ajw373]

But they can offer the allure of maybe a shadow to keep WPs hooked with the oh we sold the seat at the last minute so "tough" reality.

Except they, the 787 is actually a small aircraft so doubt Qantas would want too many unsold seats, especially on long runs.

 

[moa999]

Either way, QF would be silly IMHO to operate these aircraft with 9-abreast in Y on ultra-long haul routes..

UA, NZ and LA do -- and all on long haul routes that are likely to compete head to head with QF

 

[TheInsider]

Either way, QF would be silly IMHO to operate these aircraft with 9-abreast in Y on ultra-long haul routes. What an uncomfortable way to fly, and QF would seriously struggle to differentiate itself. I thought the point of competition was to try to be better than your competitors (or undercut on price), but not to try to be exactly the same while no doubt charging a premium price?

People will notice how tight the seats are packed... no point adding extra seats if nobody wants to fill them.

QF have already stated somewhere that that 789's will be 9-abreast. It's not going to change. I've already posted on another thread all the airlines who have this arrangement, there is only one or two airlines that have 8-abreast and even so they are currently changing it to 9-abreast.

Well I don't think there is any other 'premium' airline that offers a 2-4-2 arrangement that isn't in the process of changing it excluding JAL

United 3-3-3
British Airways 3-3-3
LAN 3-3-3
Air Canada 3-3-3
Etihad 3-3-3
KLM 3-3-3
Air NZ 3-3-3
ANA 3-3-3
Virgin Atlantic 3-3-3

 

[Cool Cat Phil]

UA, NZ and LA do -- and all on long haul routes that are likely to compete head to head with QF

Valid point.

Whilst 8 abreast would be wonderful for pax comfort, the sheer economics of utilising 9 abreast will almost certainly will over at the end of the day, particularly with the speculated seat count of approx 250..

 

[Mattg]

QF have already stated somewhere that that 789's will be 9-abreast. It's not going to change. I've already posted on another thread all the airlines who have this arrangement, there is only one or two airlines that have 8-abreast and even so they are currently changing it to 9-abreast.

Happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think anyone at Qantas has actually confirmed (in public) that Y will be 9 across. When the news came out last year, Joyce simply said that "nine-abreast is the standard". This could mean "almost everyone else is doing it, so we will copy them" (which I admit is the more likely option), or "most other airlines are doing nine-abreast, so we'll better them by giving our passengers greater comfort in an 8-abreast configuration".

 

[Pleb Status]

Either way, QF would be silly IMHO to operate these aircraft with 9-abreast in Y on ultra-long haul routes. What an uncomfortable way to fly, and QF would seriously struggle to differentiate itself. I thought the point of competition was to try to be better than your competitors (or undercut on price), but not to try to be exactly the same while no doubt charging a premium price?

People will notice how tight the seats are packed... no point adding extra seats if nobody wants to fill them.

QF would be silly NOT to go 9 across when all of their competitors are 3-3-3 in Y.

I completely agree that it is uncomfortable, so I will try to avoid them (and all 787 operators) where possible when travelling in Y.

I am hoping SQ put the A350 on Australian routes rather than the 787-10. CX should also bring the A350 to Australia.

 

[Mattg]

I completely agree that it is uncomfortable, so I will try to avoid them (and all 787 operators) where possible when travelling in Y.

Exactly my point...

 

[eastwest101]

QF would be silly NOT to go 9 across when all of their competitors are 3-3-3 in Y.

I completely agree that it is uncomfortable, so I will try to avoid them (and all 787 operators) where possible when travelling in Y.

I am hoping SQ put the A350 on Australian routes rather than the 787-10. CX should also bring the A350 to Australia.

Yes interesting comments there - I think Boeing may have stuffed up by the 787 being late and being close to obnoxious in the 3-3-3 in Y configuration. Wheras by making the A350 fuselage a little wider than the B787 I think Airbus have made the A350 just wide enough to be tolerable (and better than the B787) even in a 3-3-3 Y cabin but just narrow enough to prevent the accountants (or laws of physics?) from attempting to try 3-4-3 in the A350. Pretty smart in hindsight because the average traveller will probably associate the B787 with discomfort and the A350 with similar 3-3-3 but slightly wider and more tolerable Y cabin.

Even infrequent flyers are also starting to make this association with uncomfortable = 10 across B777. Seat pitches can't go much lower already and without a way to easily shrink or widen a fuselage cross section it may be that the width of seats is becoming a deciding factor.

As other posters have also said - if QF go 9 abreast for long haul B787 fleet then they are going to have to have some awesome service, IFE and food to differentiate themselves from the JQ B787 product and superior and cheaper competitors with B787s and A350s. Are the QF soft products that awesome enough to justify the price differential between QF and everyone else? Time will tell.