Qantas 787-9 confirmed and potential routes from Brisbane

By Packetman21 | Sep 03, 2017, 12:20 PM
Hello all!

Here are the potential routes from Brisbane Qantas is evaluating for the 787 fleet based in BNE:
- Vancouver
- Dallas
- Chicago

The definite confirmed routes are:
- Los Angeles

These are from official e-mails sent to Qantas staff.

It is confirmed that they willl not be going to do something like BNE-PER-FRA/CDG.

They will be dedicated to serving North America.
No member give thanks

By GregXL | Sep 03, 2017, 03:02 PM
If you assume that BNE-LAX will continue to JFK as it does now, then adding a BNE-PER-CDG would not have worked. They might consider two other destinations with 3&4 days per week each as CX have just done. 
No member give thanks

By Covo95 | Sep 03, 2017, 09:08 PM
i think the 787 would fly on to JFK from LAX. 
No member give thanks

By afloskar | Sep 04, 2017, 08:55 AM
In terms of being an aviation geek it would be good if they started a route to Chicago or Dallas as Air Canada already serve Vancouver. In terms of frequent flyers, any of these routes would benefit frequent flyers of Qantas.
No member give thanks

By moa999 | Sep 04, 2017, 09:34 AM
Interesting Packetman21. In an interview on SkyNews Joyce mentioned those three plus Seattle.

My personal view is Chicago is most likely - doesn't take traffic from DFW-SYD and is an AA hub itself, with possible some seasonal YVR routings
No member give thanks

By Covo95 | Sep 04, 2017, 10:04 AM
A flight to either chicago or dallas would relieve pressure on the Sydney- Dallas flight. 
No member give thanks

By GregXL | Sep 04, 2017, 11:16 AM
QF also has partner airlines with hub operations out of Seattle (Alaska) and Vancouver (Westjet).
No member give thanks

By Bob Burgess | Sep 04, 2017, 01:30 PM
In terms of being an aviation geek it would be good if they started a route to Chicago or Dallas as Air Canada already serve Vancouver. In terms of frequent flyers, any of these routes would benefit frequent flyers of Qantas.


I don't think anybody cares about what aviation geeks think or want, airlines certainly don't, it's about whatever will make economic sense. I agree however that Chicago or Dallas would make good sense, especially Chicago as it would be an all-new 'monopoly' route, the only catch would be that the bulk of Aussie passengers would have to come from Sydney or Melbourne so they'd need to be convinced to fly via Brisbane.
No member give thanks

By markpk | Sep 04, 2017, 01:56 PM
For mine, Chicago has a lot of merit given its a major AA hub and potentially streamlines travel to east coast JFK AND non-JFK destinations (i.e. Boston, Washington, Atlanta, Montreal, Toronto etc). 

The issue(s) with this and other non-LA destinations include:
  • Whether the flights can be timed so as to minimise dead time on ground
  • What tech support is offered for the 787-9 in ORD or other ports
  • Lounge amenities - can Qantas get access to AA or other lounges? Are they up to Qantas premium lounge standards? Do they need to fit-out their own lounge?
  • What happens when the weather turns foul? They clearly won't lack alternates - but at what cost..?

Assuming  it can be done, you could argue that flights to ORD could be an American version of what it was doing via Dubai
No member give thanks

By Jazzop | Sep 04, 2017, 02:24 PM
Qantas have surprised me a lot over the past week. I was starting to get gloomy about them, but have turned around over their recent announcements.

I like the idea or ORD.  This would provide one stop service (or nonstop from BNE) from all ports in AU.  Thin traffic to LAX a little. And also add some good connections to North East North America.

But, I could see this second flight going to Dallas to grow that base, especially if the loads are strong out of SYD.

But, could this just be double daily BNE - LAX?
No member give thanks

By moa999 | Sep 04, 2017, 03:23 PM
Chicago is a 787 base for AA, so plenty of maintenance support.
BA actually has both a Business and First lounge in ORD T5 (although they are small and average, probably DFW standard). AA is opening a new Flagship Lounge shortly.
No point doing a lounge for one flight (see current ops in JFK, DFW, PEK, PVG for example)
Weather gets foul in other cities as well. You deal with it
No member give thanks

By Joshb | Sep 04, 2017, 03:47 PM
Chicago is a 787 base for AA, so plenty of maintenance support.
BA actually has both a Business and First lounge in ORD T5 (although they are small and average, probably DFW standard). AA is opening a new Flagship Lounge shortly.
No point doing a lounge for one flight (see current ops in JFK, DFW, PEK, PVG for example)
Weather gets foul in other cities as well. You deal with it

Yeah the BA First lounge is atrocious. Small, cramped with average amenity but decent views. Used it prior to a CX flight earlier this year. I can see BNE-ORD working, QF would just need improve domestic transit but international transit would be competitive ex NZ, for example. Will all come down to schedule and utilisation.
No member give thanks

By John Phelan | Sep 04, 2017, 04:31 PM
 the only catch would be that the bulk of Aussie passengers would have to come from Sydney or Melbourne so they'd need to be convinced to fly via Brisbane. 

Those passengers would need to transit somewhere. If the choice was BNE or LAX, I think most would prefer BNE.
Member who gave thanks

Frank

By Himeno | Sep 04, 2017, 06:41 PM
Chicago is a 787 base for AA, so plenty of maintenance support.
BA actually has both a Business and First lounge in ORD T5 (although they are small and average, probably DFW standard). AA is opening a new Flagship Lounge shortly.
No point doing a lounge for one flight (see current ops in JFK, DFW, PEK, PVG for example)
Weather gets foul in other cities as well. You deal with it
The ORD T5 lounges are bad. The BA lounges are small and BA tries very hard to prevent anyone not on their own flights from using them (even if the lounge is empty and you would otherwise be allowed to use it)
The other oneworld airlines that use T5 contract with Air France, which is just as bad as the other AF lounges in North America (The AF lounges in ORD and JFK are some of the worst lounges I've ever seen).

Other airlines arrive at ORD at T5 (like all international arrivals), then get towed over to another terminal for departure. JL arrives at T5, and departs from T3, making use of the AA lounges.

I see the first 787 flight from BNE replacing the 747 QF15/11/12/16 BNE-LAX-JFK.
After that, it depends on an A380 getting confirmed on one of the SYD-HKG flights year round and if QF wants to make YVR year round or just seasonal.
No member give thanks

By oruspicarous | Sep 04, 2017, 08:32 PM
BNE-ORD, BNE-DFW and BNE-SEA imo might be the routes other than LAX of course. SEA is unserved from Oz + it could serve the NW US whereas YVR even with US pre-clearance would be a pain. 

BNE-DFW before QF moved it completely over to SYD had good load factors, although I think it might be a hit and miss especially considering MEL-DFW has been cited a trillion times by AJ.

ORD could perhaps serve the mid-west, good AA hub, even NZ was looking to fly there (considering most of their pax would come from Oz), and it's an opportunity to cannibalise *A sales to Australia from the east coast.
No member give thanks

By QantasFlyer | Sep 05, 2017, 12:33 AM
So there'll be a serious downgrade in capacity on the BNE-LAX. How does Qantas plan to offset this?
No member give thanks

×
×

Forgot Password

If you’ve forgotten your password, simply enter your email address below, then click 'Submit'. We’ll send you an email to re-activate your account and enter a new password.

×