QF announce non-stop Perth-London B787 Services

[baggyred]

According to this article, the cost premium for the new service could be 40%!

Non-stop Perth to London flights could cost 40 per cent more: aviation expert

The direct flights will save maybe 3 hours of travel. If the cost differential is $500+ in Y - can't see the leisure traveller coughing up for that. That is almost another day and half's accom and expenses.

The

 

[Daver6]

PER-LHR 14,499km

787-9 range (Boeing) 14,140km
Lowest density 787-9 in service (JAL 195 seat 44J 35W 116Y) 14,400km
QF 787-9 236 seats (42J 28W 166Y).
QF has 41 more seats then JL for the same aircraft. The JL config still doesn't have the range for PER-LHR.
You're looking at having to block at least 50-60 seats.

If that's the case, why on earth didn't they go for 2-4-2 in Y then?

 

[JohnM]

The direct flights will save maybe 3 hours of travel. If the cost differential is $500+ in Y - can't see the leisure traveller coughing up for that. That is almost another day and half's accom and expenses.

More like a couple of weeks or more for a backpacker...

 

[BacchusMarsh]

If that's the case, why on earth didn't they go for 2-4-2 in Y then?

Maybe they want to use the plane on other routes too, or perhaps have the option of doing so? Just a thought.

 

[JohnM]

If that's the case, why on earth didn't they go for 2-4-2 in Y then?

WhY are you worrying yourself about whY .

No way in the world I'd be doing PER-LHR in whY - especially 3-3-3.

 

[mviy]

Having different seating configuration for the plane for different routes would create consistency problems especially when a plane has mechanical problems and has to be swapped with another.

Sometimes the SYD-SFO flights use 747s that have J seats that don't lie flat.

 

[Daver6]

More like a couple of weeks or more for a backpacker...

Or 2 hours for you

 

[JohnM]

Or 2 hours for you

Mate, you'd be surprised how diverse I am - but I do draw the line at whY 3-abreast :shock:.

 

[codash1099]

The direct flights will save maybe 3 hours of travel. If the cost differential is $500+ in Y - can't see the leisure traveller coughing up for that. That is almost another day and half's accom and expenses.

The

Whatever else QF may be, they're not stupid. No way they will have a significant price premium. There are other options to LHR from PER and non-stop won't be such a great attraction to Y travellers that they'll pay more for it.

 

[Mrmaxwell]

Re: Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth)-Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soar

"This is a game-changing route flown by a game-changing aircraft" Qantas CEO Alan Joyce said in a statement.

You'd think QF was the 787 launch airline the way they are carrying on - it's been flying for over 5yrs all over the world, hell even JQ fly it to Bali as the Bogan Express :shock:

Talk about spin!

There is nothing game-changing about this. It's a mess from the outset and I pity the poor PAX stuck in whY in the middle seats for 17.5hrs on a full flight - lord have mercy!

 

[opusman]

According to this article, the cost premium for the new service could be 40%!

Non-stop Perth to London flights could cost 40 per cent more: aviation expert

This sounds like garbage to me, his argument is basically that because the flight is so long the plane has to carry fuel for the entire flight?

I would hope that planes always carry enough fuel for the entire flight!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This sounds like garbage to me, his argument is basically that because the flight is so long the plane has to carry fuel for the entire flight?

I would hope that planes always carry enough fuel for the entire flight!

Well sort of - the argument is that the flight is so long you're carrying fuel at the expense of other payload, and perhaps the performance of the aircraft is less than optimal because you're so heavy (with fuel) at the start of the flight.

 

[opusman]

Well sort of - the argument is that the flight is so long you're carrying fuel at the expense of other payload, and perhaps the performance of the aircraft is less than optimal because you're so heavy (with fuel) at the start of the flight.

Which is basically what happens with SYD-DFW, does that have a 40% price premium?

 

[Skyring]

This sounds like garbage to me, his argument is basically that because the flight is so long the plane has to carry fuel for the entire flight?

I would hope that planes always carry enough fuel for the entire flight!

Imagine the complaints from the passengers if they endured a seventeen hour flight only to discover on final approach that the fuel tanks had run dry and they had to go all the way back.

 

[eastwest101]

Which is basically what happens with SYD-DFW, does that have a 40% price premium?

Regarding SYD-DFW thats from a QF hub in SYD and its a "don't have to do LAX premium" which I doubt is 40% anyway (maybe more like 20% in Y?), do we think that QF will be able to charge a "you end up at LHR premium"? along with a "here's an unusually narrow seat and not particularly generous pitch premium?", also don't forget about the UK Departure Tax that hits long distance flights.

A couple of questions spring to mind about the economics of this - what happens when the price of fuel goes up and the route seems incredibly niche, dependant on "anywhere but the Middle East stop" crowd plus two large dual listed mining companies with HQ's in Perth and London plus an ageing UK expat population and VFRs that are still price conscious.

 

[Skyring]

A couple of questions spring to mind about the economics of this - what happens when the price of fuel goes up and the route seems incredibly niche, dependant on "anywhere but the Middle East stop" crowd plus two large dual listed mining companies with HQ's in Perth and London plus an ageing UK expat population and VFRs that are still price conscious.

Qantas will pull it. I think Qantas will turn this into a PR circus, will keep close tabs on who the passengers are, what it's costing them, what the operational effects are, and if it isn't worthwhile, it won't last. It will be quietly removed.

I think that they have done their homework, they can count on a pool of Perth residents, and they can count on another pool of UK residents who will see it as a one-hop flight to Australia. For me in Canberra, it doesn't work out, except that it now makes a DONE3 possible.

 

[browski]

Qantas have not even taken delivery of the aircraft yet and will not fly the route until 2018, so I suspect that it will prove incorrect that Qantas will have the first non-stop flights between Australia and Europe. They will be lucky to be the 10th airline to perform the journey.


British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Air France and Norwegian Air Shuttle have already taken delivery of these aircraft. In theory, any of them could roll out a service to Perth tomorrow.

 

[flightobserver]

PER-LHR 14,499km

787-9 range (Boeing) 14,140km
Lowest density 787-9 in service (JAL 195 seat 44J 35W 116Y) 14,400km
QF 787-9 236 seats (42J 28W 166Y).
QF has 41 more seats then JL for the same aircraft. The JL config still doesn't have the range for PER-LHR.
You're looking at having to block at least 50-60 seats.

Have you checked the payload-range graphs? My back of the envelope calculations suggest PER-LHR is possible with some seat blocking at a conservative approximate of 20, but certainly not the magnitude you suggest.

FWIW, the JAL website says the range of their 789 is 14,800km while great circle distance of PER-LHR is 14,499km. A better comparison to gauge the capability of the 789 is SFO-SIN (13,593km GC) on UA's 252 seat 789.

 

[coriander]

Range discussions seem based on the great circle route: will the 787 necessarily fly a great circle route? When I flew to LHR on QF1 we flew over DRW, SIN, across India into DXB. Coming back we flew over Indian Ocean, Perth and slightly south of ADL; neither paths seemed great circle. The actual distance flown PER-LHR may thus be longer than 14,499km.

 

[Gold60]

you'd be devastated I'd imagine ? Mind you, you wouldn't be too devastated for too long - or be much of anything else either ??

Imagine the complaints from the passengers if they endured a seventeen hour flight only to discover on final approach that the fuel tanks had run dry and they had to go all the way back.