Qantas: Non-stop flight to UK will happen within two years

[Walter_Plinge]

Personally, I reckon the 787s will be used to restart a SIN-LHR leg, given how popular Singapore is for Aussies and Brits.

That would be a good step. Singapore is in a good position for a stopover on the way home from Europe and has more to offer than Dubai. I can't think what would induce me to stop over in Dubai but I'll allow that it's popular with many flyers.

 

[SFSC]

If it does happen SWMBO and I would use it and perhaps even increase the frequency of our trips to the UK. As people get older and their mobility declines, non-stop international legs become more attractive. When older folk's travel is undertaken in F or J status becomes less relevant to them partly because they no longer have to do domestic work trips in Y the rest of the year.

 

[TomVexille]

I predict that we will see Virgin (dunno which one) first to London nonstop from Australia.

IMO Qantas isn't an innovative company, its M.O. is reactive.

Well VA don't yet have anything on order that could make such a flight.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Well VA don't yet have anything on order that could make such a flight.

True although all variants of the A340, A350 and even the A380 have a longer range than the 787 and the A340 would have more flexibility in long range operations over ocean.
If only VA would acquire one of EY's A340s and operate it from Perth. I can dream.

 

[TomVexille]

True although all variants of the A340, A350 and even the A380 have a longer range than the 787 and the A340 would have more flexibility in long range operations over ocean.
If only VA would acquire one of EY's A340s and operate it from Perth. I can dream.

It would have to be free. Because airlines can't seem to sell them secondhand.

 

[dajop]

It would have to be free. Because airlines can't seem to sell them secondhand.

Yes, aren't they notorious "gas guzzlers"?

 

[esseeeayeenn]

It would have to be free. Because airlines can't seem to sell them secondhand.

Interestingly that is related to their range.
The extra weight of flying with full tanks made ultra-long-haul routes uneconomic when fuel prices soared in 2008.
Leading to TG cancelling the longest flight then flown - BKK-JFK, operated by A345s, which they then sold.
And of course extensions to ETOPS meant twin engine aircraft could outcompete them.
(I still feel more comfortable on a 4 engine aircraft though!)
Obviously the 787 is more fuel efficient but the extra cost of flying with full tanks will still apply.
TG calculated it woulld need 120% occupancy to break even on BKK-JFK.
I wonder what QF would need on PER-LHR.

 

[JohnK]

Good to see Alan Joyce discussing important matters for Qantas.

Why would anyone want to spend that long in a metal tube? Can't see PER people filling up this route and if you're from the East Coast why would you want to transit in PER for the opportunity of such a long flight in economy. And the transit experience in PER wouldn't be anywhere near as nice as the transit experience in SIN/HKG/BKK.

The kangaroo route would be a much better proposal with a change of flight number at each airport.

 

[TomVexille]

Yes, aren't they notorious "gas guzzlers"?

Sure are.

Interestingly that is related to their range.
The extra weight of flying with full tanks made ultra-long-haul routes uneconomic when fuel prices soared in 2008.
Leading to TG cancelling the longest flight then flown - BKK-JFK, operated by A345s, which they then sold.
And of course extensions to ETOPS meant twin engine aircraft could outcompete them.
(I still feel more comfortable on a 4 engine aircraft though!)
Obviously the 787 is more fuel efficient but the extra cost of flying with full tanks will still apply.
TG calculated it woulld need 120% occupancy to break even on BKK-JFK.
I wonder what QF would need on PER-LHR.

I suspect that as margins become thinner in the industry, the cost of burning extra fuel is uneconomic. Even with the lower fuel prices.

QF would surely have to demand a premium over their current (already expensive) SYD/MEL-DXB-LHR services for PER-LHR to make money.

 

[dajop]

Leading to TG cancelling the longest flight then flown - BKK-JFK, operated by A345s, which they then sold.

BKK-JFK is only slightly longer than DFW-SYD (100 miles). The longest flight then flown was actually SQ's SIN-EWR flight also flown by A345's, but reasons articulated for its cancellation in 2013 are the same. Reportedly the fuel bill was completely disproportionate (I think it allegedly made up 8% of SQ's total fuel bill, or something like was rumoured)

Why would anyone want to spend that long in a metal tube? Can't see PER people filling up this route and if you're from the East Coast why would you want to transit in PER for the opportunity of such a long flight in economy.

Maybe it will be targetted at premium end. In business, having experienced SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX or VV several times, it's just an overall more pleasant experience than waking in the middle of the night (or whatever time it may be), trudging through security, 30 mins in a lounge before trudging back to your same seat again. Gives you incredible flexibility to eat, sleep etc when you want to, not to be dictated by a layover. Even in Y, I found the JFK-HKG sector(16 hours + 1 hr ATC delay in JFK) easier than expected. Of course for those wanting to stretch their legs regularly, there's always EK's three hop services to Europe via SIN, KUL or BKK & DXB.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

BKK-JFK is only slightly longer than DFW-SYD (100 miles). The longest flight then flown was actually SQ's SIN-EWR flight also flown by A345's, but reasons articulated for its cancellation in 2013 are the same. Reportedly the fuel bill was completely disproportionate (I think it allegedly made up 8% of SQ's total fuel bill, or something like was rumoured)



Maybe it will be targetted at premium end. In business, having experienced SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX or VV several times, it's just an overall more pleasant experience than waking in the middle of the night (or whatever time it may be), trudging through security, 30 mins in a lounge before trudging back to your same seat again. Gives you incredible flexibility to eat, sleep etc when you want to, not to be dictated by a layover. Even in Y, I found the JFK-HKG sector(16 hours + 1 hr ATC delay in JFK) easier than expected. Of course for those wanting to stretch their legs regularly, there's always EK's three hop services to Europe via SIN, KUL or BKK & DXB.

Absolutely agree. In a premium cabin I'd much prefer one longer flight. I find 15+ hours from SYD-AUH/DXB preferable to the 11 hours from PER. The timing works better for drinks, a meal, movie, sleep, then breakfast before landing. Even better if you can have a shower or two on board as well, althought that won't happen on a QF 787.

 

[TomVexille]

BKK-JFK is only slightly longer than DFW-SYD (100 miles). The longest flight then flown was actually SQ's SIN-EWR flight also flown by A345's, but reasons articulated for its cancellation in 2013 are the same. Reportedly the fuel bill was completely disproportionate (I think it allegedly made up 8% of SQ's total fuel bill, or something like was rumoured)

SQ are pushing Boeing and Airbus for an aircraft to re-launch SIN-EWR (or other NYC airport)

 

[jb747]

And Perth is just surrounded by such good alternates.

 

[exceladdict]

And Perth is just surrounded by such good alternates.

I hear there's a push for a strip in Busselton.

 

[wandering_fred]

I hear there's a push for a strip in Busselton.

That airport would be more useful if the runway there was long enough to handle a fully fueled 738... :shock: AKA P-8...

Having taken the CX flight JFK-HKG a few years ago and having aged an equal number of years since, I will always vote for a 12-14 hour maximum flight time and a stopover with a night in a "normal" bed. And besides why do MRs when you can simply fly the routes you NEED to fly in the first cabin instead of Y (ie getting to LAX or SFO from the USA east coast)

PER-DXB-Germany would be nice and EK might even agree. A return of PER-JNB would be equally nice. New planes and a new combined terminal at Perth might be enough incentive.

Happy wandering

Fred

 

[marki]

787-9 won't have F which probably won't be appealing for the most frequent fliers who like to have the opportunity to upgrade to F, or pay for it, especially if the flight is 18 hours long.

Also, re: a comment above about EK not flying to Berlin, as much as I'd love a direct service there myself, the German Government protects long haul slots in Berlin for LH. The only reason QR have a flight there is that they started flying there 15 or 20 years ago.

Interesting about the EK connection and Berlin. I find it horrible that there is non. (Qantas flew into Frankfurt once then you needed to backtrack on a LH flight) Yet LH will not status match not budging at all.....frown

 

[dajop]

SQ are pushing Boeing and Airbus for an aircraft to re-launch SIN-EWR (or other NYC airport)

More on this here.. An A350-900ULR. Indicates range of 8700 nautical miles, almost long enough for QF to do ADL-LHR nonstop