QF announce non-stop Perth-London B787 Services

[nlagalle]

Could you please provide a link to these 'numbers'?

Im not at a desktop but here is a quick indicator: http://planes.axlegeeks.com/compare/242-293/Airbus-A380-800-vs-Boeing-787-8-DreamlinerIf you really think a 4 engine aircraft is cheaper to run, why are there no new ones planned?

 

[straitman]

Can you? Have you any verifiable data to backup that statement?

If both aircraft have a similar configuration (the QF A380 would need to lose F and would need a similar J/W/Y mix to the 789) and all seats are filled with pax (100% load factor), the larger aircraft will generally cost less per pax per mile to operate over mid to long range sectors.

On some specific missions, I have read that the A339 (a warmed over A333) will be more economical to operate than the 789.

There is lots of data available. I did post here a few years ago data (from a test pilot and B747 Captain friend) that explained the A380s lack of efficiency on very long haul where they start carrying fuel to burn fuel. If I could find it I would post it again.

jb747 has talked about the A380 actually slowing down airport operations (read rate of moving pax) due to its size. Have a look at Airbus and their efforts to even keep the A380 line open with production down to 1 per month and Emirates deferring their last 12 aircraft.

 

[Quickstatus]

The numbers are already there that the 787 is more efficient per seat than the A380. Let's not forget the extra engines the A380 has too..

What if the seats on the 787 are then reduced and freight is limited to allow the range of a westbound PER-LHR?.
Would be interesting to see the difference then. QF obviously believes in it's numbers

In any case QF has said its not competing on price but it believes there is an extractable premium partly due to a "monopoly" similar to the DFW service.

 

[straitman]

What if the seats on the 787 are then reduced and freight is limited to allow the range of a westbound PER-LHR?. Would be interesting to see the difference then. QF obviously believes in it's numbers

Is this even relevant as this is the type of situation that all aircraft face at some time or other? It is always a balance between fuel, pax and freight. Both types would suffer the headwind and lose efficiency.The only a/c I've flown where this has not been the case were trainers such as the Winjeel, Macchi, PC9, CT4 and a few other light aircraft.

 

[oz_mark]

What if the seats on the 787 are then reduced and freight is limited to allow the range of a westbound PER-LHR?.
Would be interesting to see the difference then. QF obviously believes in it's numbers

In any case QF has said its not competing on price but it believes there is an extractable premium partly due to a "monopoly" similar to the DFW service.

Qantas will have modelled the route, across the whole year. Their models have more than likely factored in a certain number of diversions per year etc.

It's a complex flight for sure, but they would have taken a lot of stuff into account....

 

[Pleb Status]

Im not at a desktop but here is a quick indicator: http://planes.axlegeeks.com/compare/242-293/Airbus-A380-800-vs-Boeing-787-8-DreamlinerIf you really think a 4 engine aircraft is cheaper to run, why are there no new ones planned?

There is lots of data available. I did post here a few years ago data (from a test pilot and B747 Captain friend) that explained the A380s lack of efficiency on very long haul where they start carrying fuel to burn fuel. If I could find it I would post it again.jb747 has talked about the A380 actually slowing down airport operations (read rate of moving pax) due to its size. Have a look at Airbus and their efforts to even keep the A380 line open with production down to 1 per month and Emirates deferring their last 12 aircraft.

Using the data provided by nlagalle, the fuel burn of the A388 is ~2.25 times that of the B789. So based on fuel burn alone, a A388 with a density of 534 pax would have the same fuel burn/seat/mile as the 789 with the QF fitout. Certainly doable considering EK have 517 pax in their three class arrangement with 14F.Other costs also need to be considered but if you needed to move 534 pax per day, requiring 1 A388 or 2.25 B789, it would be a very close call between the two aircraft. Certainly something I would not guarantee without access to detailing modelling....

 

[straitman]

Using the data provided by nlagalle, the fuel burn of the A388 is ~2.25 times that of the B789. So based on fuel burn alone, a A388 with a density of 534 pax would have the same fuel burn/seat/mile as the 789 with the QF fitout. Certainly doable considering EK have 517 pax in their three class arrangement with 14F.Other costs also need to be considered but if you needed to move 534 pax per day, requiring 1 A388 or 2.25 B789, it would be a very close call between the two aircraft. Certainly something I would not guarantee without access to detailing modelling....

Last comments. The experts don't think it's a close call at all and I'm inclined to believe them rather than reinventing the wheel that they have built.Also assuming equal capacity two a/c offer a huge flexibility benefit over one and that needs to be added to the mix.

 

[Quickstatus]

Is this even relevant as this is the type of situation that all aircraft face at some time or other? It is always a balance between fuel, pax and freight. Both types would suffer the headwind and lose efficiency.

The only a/c I've flown where this has not been the case were trainers such as the Winjeel, Macchi, PC9, CT4 and a few other light aircraft.

its as relevant as any discussion in a forum as this.
Im just trying to get a sense of the relative penalties / costs of a 1 sector ULH compared to a 2 sector. Pros and Cons - (does not apply equally to every player in the industry). I'm just exploring the Cons . I'm sure that's relevant

Its true that the A380 pose certain problems that are not necessarily compensated by benefits supposedly conferred by its size. Big is not necessarily better.

 

[straitman]

its as relevant as any discussion in a forum as this.
Im just trying to get a sense of the relative penalties / costs of a 1 sector ULH compared to a 2 sector.

Its true that the A380 pose certain problems that are not necessarily compensated by benefits supposedly conferred by its size

Pros and Cons - does not apply equally to every player in the industry

Based on that then I would say the A380 would be worse off based upon the data from the test pilot as it would be equivalent to flying a longer leg which is where the A380 suffers.

 

[eastwest101]

The appearance would be that the ULH economics and fuel burn of the B789 will always beat the fuel burn /economics of ULH A380, right up to the point where you run out of slots with curfew constrained airports and then you are screwed.

The other thing people haven't considered is the negative perception around the 9 abreast B787 product that is becoming more and more public, I suspect that with these lengths of flights that the seating will actually depress yields and pax demand. People may try this in Y once and will then say never again, sure the PE and J yield may keep them alive but all it would take is for BHP and Rio to have a bad run and the J yields would vanish as well.

Put it this way - who ever got off a 9 abreast JQ B787 flight in Y to-from Australia to Japan and thought - you know what ? I'd really like to do that for another 10 hours please, and pay through the nose for a non-stop rather than a huge choice of 1 stop competitor options with a wider choice of flight timings and superior, cheaper Y product.

Its a stretch too far by the QF accountants - and just like the 2-3-2 J class on the A330s they will be ripping out/reconfiguring their B787 fleet in the future if they keep them on ULH routes.

QF PR can spin all they want but once fuel prices go up, or another competitor starts B787 or A350 or B777-X services that compete with a lower cost base, then this LHR-PER-MEL route will be toast.

 

[Quickstatus]

I think Singair gave up the nonstop to EWR when oil hit $100US barrel. It's 2 sector to the USA still going presumably the greater number of pax plus cargo, less fuel, overcame the landing fees and other costs plus perceived hassles associated with an intermediate stop

 

[Pleb Status]

The appearance would be that the ULH economics and fuel burn of the B789 will always beat the fuel burn /economics of ULH A380, right up to the point where you run out of slots with curfew constrained airports and then you are screwed.The other thing people haven't considered is the negative perception around the 9 abreast B787 product that is becoming more and more public, I suspect that with these lengths of flights that the seating will actually depress yields and pax demand. People may try this in Y once and will then say never again, sure the PE and J yield may keep them alive but all it would take is for BHP and Rio to have a bad run and the J yields would vanish as well.Put it this way - who ever got off a 9 abreast JQ B787 flight in Y to-from Australia to Japan and thought - you know what ? I'd really like to do that for another 10 hours please, and pay through the nose for a non-stop rather than a huge choice of 1 stop competitor options with a superior Y product. Its a stretch too far by the QF accountants - and just like the 2-3-2 J class on the A330s they will be ripping out/reconfiguring their B787 fleet in the future if they keep them on ULH routes.QF PR can spin all they want but once fuel prices go, up or another competitor starts B787 or A350 or B777-X services that compete with a lower cost base, then this LHR-PER-MEL route will be toast.

All future 787 deliveries will be 9 across in Y and all future 777 deliveries will be 10 across in Y. Competition will only come from the A359ULR in Y. However, QF may struggle with their regional J seat if someone else enters the market with a decent J product. I still think that the qSheep will make this route an absolute gold mine for QF even if some limited competition comes along.

 

[hutch]

I think Singair gave up the nonstop to EWR when oil hit $100US barrel. It's 2 sector to the USA still going presumably the greater number of pax plus cargo, less fuel, overcame the landing fees and other costs plus perceived hassles associated with an intermediate stop

Noting that Singapore will soon be restarting non-stop Singapore - New York flights with the long-range A350.

So clearly they see the benefit of long-range non-stop flights too.

 

[hutch]

Noting that Singapore will soon be restarting non-stop Singapore - New York flights with the long-range A350.

So clearly they see the benefit of long-range non-stop flights too.

Not too many flatbed regional products out there... particularly on the European end.

 

[nlagalle]

I think Singair gave up the nonstop to EWR when oil hit $100US barrel. It's 2 sector to the USA still going presumably the greater number of pax plus cargo, less fuel, overcame the landing fees and other costs plus perceived hassles associated with an intermediate stop

And it was on the A340 IIRC... not very fuel efficient. The A350 will be much better

 

[Quickstatus]

Noting that Singapore will soon be restarting non-stop Singapore - New York flights with the long-range A350.

So clearly they see the benefit of long-range non-stop flights too.

Sure - easy when oil price is $50USD barrel

Its not so much that ULR non stop are good. I see it as dynamic manoeuvres within the industry in response to competition which tends to commoditise air travel. If you can create a unique product then there may be a premium until other jump onboard.

.....

And it was on the A340 IIRC... not very fuel efficient. The A350 will be much better

No doubt but there will be a point where a 2 sector is more cost / yield effective. Even if 10% less costly on any basis, it's not a great buffer when oil prices have been shown to at least double in the past in a short period. Sure it affects every airline similarly but there's a limit to what passengers will pay - hence the rise and rise of the LCC

 

[jb747]

As usual QF enhancements are about enhancing the facade but cutting /reducing the underlying service. Seat reduction, prices going up, 2 stop into EU for QF pax from MEL, narrower seats in YPER passengers get a proper enhancement only if going to LHR, worse if going EU.

This only covers up to 787 #4. I'd have thought a likely use for some of the others would be Per-EU...

 

[Quickstatus]

This only covers up to 787 #4. I'd have thought a likely use for some of the others would be Per-EU...

Yes PER-EU non stop rather than current PER-LHR-EU

But Is PER enough of a hub to support several end ports at the other end?

...

Where would QF send their pilots to get rated on the 789 apart from the simulator?. Do they get seconded to another airline or is the training aircraft provided by the manufacturer?

 

[straitman]

Yes PER-EU non stop rather than current PER-LHR-EU

That's what jb747 said.

 

[JohnK]

J is probably the only cabin I would consider doing this flight in!

I would not want to be on this flight in any cabin. I still don't understand the reasoning other than a gimmick that other airlines may replicate soon after.

Would prefer it if the A380 received a seat upgrade to match the A330. Not a fan of a stranger stepping over me in J!

My concern is A330 economy but I guess the same can be said for business class. Skybed mark I and II both fine by me for the rare times I'm at the front.