QF announce non-stop Perth-London B787 Services

[JessicaTam]

For the London flights... if we are to believe there's lighter cutlery to help achieve range, an easy way to reduce weight would be to enforce the 7kg hand luggage per person - rather than the 8, 9, 10 or more kilos some people probably bring on now.

Interestingly there was plenty of overhead locker space on QF10. It looked like the option to bring the kitchen sink had not been ticked.

 

[JohnM]

Or the companion animals?...

 

[Quickstatus]

Yes the olive myth was only ever just a money saving enhancement but various media outlets couched the weight savings as a way to also reduce the fuel bill.

 

[Quickstatus]

Hey journalists :there has been No fact reporting on the toilet situation.

Any queues for the loos especially in Y?

Premium cabin 70 J and W per 3 loo (23.3;1)
Rear cabin: 166 Y pax per 4 loo (41.5:1)

These ratios are the same as the A330-200 international config

 

[cwd]

However using the Operating Empty Weight metric (akin to Tare weight), the 787-900 is about 25000kg heavier than the 767-400.

This comparison is a little unfair. The 787-9 has to carry a lot of extra fuel to cover the extra range, and so it needs a stronger structure to carry the weight. This is one of the tradeoffs airlines and aircraft manufacturers have to deal with. A plane designed for a shorter range can shed a lot of the extra weight that would be needed to cover a longer range, making it more efficient for shorter flights.

Going by the same Wikipedia pages, the 787-9 has a MTOW of 254,011kg vs 204,116kg for the 767-400ER, and a range of 4000km further.

 

[Quickstatus]

This comparison is a little unfair. The 787-9 has to carry a lot of extra fuel to cover the extra range, and so it needs a stronger structure to carry the weight. This is one of the tradeoffs airlines and aircraft manufacturers have to deal with. A plane designed for a shorter range can shed a lot of the extra weight that would be needed to cover a longer range, making it more efficient for shorter flights.

Going by the same Wikipedia pages, the 787-9 has a MTOW of 254,011kg vs 204,116kg for the 767-400ER, and a range of 4000km further.

That’s why I used the metric “operating Empty Weight”t

Yes the MTOW is significantly higher allowing an extra 27000kg fuel to be carried c/w 767-400. This plus reduced passenger count plus engine efficiencies plus low drag wing design plus (according to Richard Quest) removing stems from wine glasses = LHR.

My post was to illustrate that the 787-9 is NOT actually lighter at Tare weight..

I’ll check but to be fair, I don’t think the airline has ever said the aircraft was lighter.

It’s strange what people believe. A friend has told me that she does not drink alcohol on the plane because she does not have to visit the loos much - saving fuel as the aircraft does not get heavier due to all the loo flushing and storing of waste

But yes everything is a tradeoff.


Another metric:
A380 fuel capacity 320000L. MTOW 560000kg. = 0.57L/kg
B787-9 fuel capacity 138000L MTOW 250000kg = 0.55L/kg

Not a lot of difference.

 

[eminere]

LOL Richard Quest ... more like Cash for Meth.

He is intensely irritating and I tend not to put any stock in his "reporting".

 

[Quickstatus]

Here is a Project Sunrise thought bubble but is ominous on several levels-

Cargo class: Qantas CEO reveals 'out there' options for super long haul flights

@jb747 is right. Passengers are essentially self loading freight

AJ also wants a longer duty times for pilots.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Here is a Project Sunrise thought bubble but is ominous on several levels-

Cargo class: Qantas CEO reveals 'out there' options for super long haul flights

AJ also wants a longer duty times for pilots.

Quite clear the focus is on business flyers - or at least those willing to fill premium cabins. Leisure is not their target (and I guess that is backed up by the narrow seats, lack of WCs etc).

Interesting that people are willing to pay PEY at three times the fare. I think this is true to an extent... but just in this last week someone in the office (travelling with partner) was planning a special anniversary trip to the UK and Europe. They were going QF PEY at $5200 per person.

Couple of brochures their way from the travel show on VN and CI for full business flat beds in the $4000 range, plus VN offering full stopover benefits including hotel and tours - and the QF option is looking less likely.

There will be a fair percentage of people willing to pay PEY on QF because they don't know better options exist. Some aggressive marketing by those airlines could take some market share.

 

[Quickstatus]

After the hoopla settles down other airlines will start their marketing. Qantas is dominating the travel advertising/sponsored space right now.

Also I hope AJ did not forget that pesky metric - oil price.

 

[Melburnian1]

In a breathless article on the Airline Ratings website re QF plans to serve Paris, Perth-based Geoffrey Thomas gushes about QF9/QF10 and quotes a QF spokesman or owman who says it has 'exceeded expectations'; and has passenger loads of abiove 90 per cent in J and Y.

There's also discussion about how the flights consistently beat the timetable.

This is poor 'journalism.'

There's no mention of the sardine like experience in Y (admittedly not only on QF B789s - common to all except JL and NH.)

Is Y often poorly patronised?

If the flights are consistently early at this time of year, that's an argument for speeding up the timetable, not boasting about hos the planes always arrive at gate early assuming they depart the other end on time.

'Exceeding expectations' might simply mean 'it isn't losing quite as much as we thought it would.'

As Quickstatus sagaciously mentioned above, the oil price is important - and it's risen. QF may be mostly hedged but that comes at a cost as well.

There was also a boast of no cancellations. Fair enough, but won't the northern hemisphere winter in one direction be the real test for thes QF flights re avoiding diversions?

 

[TheInsider]

is Y often poorly patronised?

No it's not, usually 95-100% full for the QF9 PER-LHR. MEL-PER is variable.

 

[Himeno]

There's no mention of the sardine like experience in Y (admittedly not only on QF B789s - common to all except JL and NH.)

Only JL have 8 across 787s now. NH changed all theirs to 9 across.

 

[Quickstatus]

Friend did QF9/10 in J
Said he didn’t like it. More noisy than QFA380

 

[downgraded]

Friend did QF9/10 in J
Said he didn’t like it. More noisy than QFA380

Yep. With all the hype about the enhanced passenger experience of 787s, I've been amazed at how noisy they are. A380 is far better in this respect ( and the 787 seems no better to me in the areas they hype).

 

[Quickstatus]

Very interesting that no travel journalist who flew the inaugural did not report the increased noise. I’m not surprised...

 

[suze2000]

Why would they? They were all in J wearing noise-cancelling headphones.

 

[docjames]

Have been on QF10 in J and VS207 in Y.

Noise not an issue in either. Seat width in Y on VS (and pretty much anyone I’d assume) a major issue. Especially having got off VA87 (A330) in Y. The width and (dis)comfort disparity was noticeable.

 

[Quickstatus]

Very interesting that no travel journalist who flew the inaugural did not report the increased noise. I’m not surprised...

Bad grammar - should be:
Very interesting that the travel journalists who flew the inaugural did not report the increased noise. I’m not surprised...

 

[cove]

I have not had anyone I know say that they would fly again on the 787-9 PER-LHR-PER in economy. Everyone says never again because the seats are just too small and that includes slim folks.