Qantas brings forward Boeing 787 deliveries

Qantas brings forward Boeing 787 deliveries

Qantas has brought forward the delivery of its second tranche of Boeing 787s, with all four of the Dreamliners now taking wing in the second half of 2018 to allow the launch of a second non-stop route into Europe – with Paris tipped as the front-runner.

The original timetable saw the first four red-tailed Boeing 787s flying in from late 2017 to mid-2018, with four more over the next 12 months through to mid-2019.

Qantas' revised schedule will now see the eight-strong fledging Boeing 787 fleet all in place before the end of 2018.

Qantas International CEO Gareth Evans outlined the airline's tighter timetable during the annual Qantas Investor Day 2017 held last Friday, May 5.

"We will have four aircraft by March 2018, when Perth-London starts... and then a little gap, and the remaining four aircraft come in between July and November 2018," Evans said.

"We've actually bought the last one forward by two or three months so we can get the aircraft in as fast as possible."

Evans reiterated that two Boeing 747s would be retired once the first four Dreamliners were in place, with three more jumbo jets by the end of 2018, "so five old 747s will exit the fleet."

Dreamliner delivery schedule

A tentative schedule sighted by Australian Business Traveller indicates Qantas will pick up the keys to its debutante Dreamliner on October 12, 2017.

Two more red-tailed Dreamliners will follow at either end of December 2017 and another on February 22, 2018.

Those four will all be used to fly a unique London-Perth-Melbourne-Los Angeles sweep designed to maximise the number of hours of flying time which Qantas wrings from the fuel-efficient Boeing 787.

"It's a very efficient pattern which is unreplicable by our competitors, because the hub carriers have to fly through their hubs," Evans explains. "So it's unique competitive advantage for us to build from this new Perth hub."

From Paris, France to Paris, Texas?

The second four Boeing 787s would replicate this pattern, with Paris tipped as the European destination and a possible eastbound leg from Brisbane to Dallas or Los Angeles – resulting in a Paris-Perth-Brisbane-USA corridor for the Dreamliners.

The Paris service would build upon Perth's new role as an Aussie hub for direct flights to Europe.

Rome, Berlin and Frankfurt have also been cited by Qantas for future non-stop services – dependent on Qantas calling in more of its options and purchase rights for as many as 45 additional Dreamliners.

"I'd like to order all of them if I can make a good return out of them," Qantas CEO Alan Joyce previously told Australian Business Traveller.

"We have to demonstrate that we can make money out of the eight we have – but once we’ve done that, we’ll be comfortable in ordering more."

Boosting the Boeing 787 fleet

Qantas has the option to buy 15 more Dreamliners with guaranteed delivery slots through to 2020, while an additional 30 Boeing 787s are pencilled in as 'purchase rights' – without a fixed delivery timeframe – to 2025.

The airline has locked in a very low purchase price for the Boeing 787s stemming from its initial 2005 order rather than the current $US265 million (A$345m) list price – although airlines rarely ever pay the sticker prices, and discounts can be as deep as 40%.

Qantas' long-term plan is for the Boeing 787 to replace not only the ageing and fuel-thirsty Boeing 747 jumbo jets but also its international and domestic Airbus A330 fleet.

This would see the Dreamliners flying Australia's east-west transcontinental routes in addition to the bulk of international services but for the flagship Airbus A380s and either the Boeing 777X or Airbus A350, both of which Qantas is eyeing for the mid-2020s.

David Flynn
David Flynn is the editor of Australian Business Traveller and a bit of a travel tragic with a weakness for good coffee, shopping and lychee martinis.
 

109 comments

  • Lala295

    Lala295

    8 May, 2017 06:56 am

    It is good to see they are bringing forward the 787 orders. It like the sound of having 4 doing LAX-MEL-PER-LHR and 4 doing LAX-BNE-PER-CDG
    Members who gave thanks

    Chris2304, Alessio

  • Michael0306

    Michael0306

    8 May, 2017 07:40 am

    I am not convinced that Paris or anything through Brisbane will work in the current premium configuration. Brisbane is not the quickest Europe routing via Perth. I'm happy to be proven wrong though and think it's great that Qantas is giving some love to Brisbane and Melbourne for a change. Start BNE-DFW and get some lower J 787's for more Europe and Vancouver.
    No member give thanks

  • vincew

    vincew

    8 May, 2017 09:46 am

    You do raise a very valid point in that if their future strategy is revolved around the 789s as a 330 replacement they will need to have a low J (~28-30) configuration as the market is just not there for J and W for the Asian market except a handful of destinations like HKG and HND which can add complexity to the fleet mix
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 12:37 am

    @vincew:
    "..if their future strategy is revolved around the 789s as a 330 replacement they will need to have a low J (~28-30) configuration....for the Asian market...which can add complexity to the fleet mix."
    Which won't be the 1st time in QF fleet history especially whenever fleet size of a type exceeded 20.

    I recall a QF era when their 744 fleet had no fewer than 3 cabin configs /densities.  Even their 332 fleet today has 2 cabin configs/ densities.
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 07:43 am

    How his Qantas going to retire the three non ER refurbished B747s end of next year if those 787s are used to replace the 747s on BNE-LAX which only replace 2 I wonder?
    No member give thanks

  • vincew

    vincew

    8 May, 2017 09:27 am

    They'll probably retire the oldest of the non-ER 744s first (possibly the recently refurbished ones with F that are currently used for charters) before retiring the 744 ERs
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 09:29 am

    Yeah I know, I meant after the first 2 oldest 747 are retired. I just didn't say it. 
    No member give thanks

  • vincew

    vincew

    8 May, 2017 09:34 am

    Sorry I misread - my bad! It's likely that 3-4 787s would be required for the daily (presuming it's daily at this stage) for CDG-PER-BNE-LAX rotation as the routing/block time is much longer than the current BNE-LAX rotation which only require 2 aircrafts.

    It's also likely that more aircrafts are required simply due to the large difference in seating capacity between the 744 and the 789s
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 09:41 am

    The Perth-Paris flights and other European destination will take off from early-mid 2019 after they have retired the 3 refurbished non ER 747s. I'm thinking BNE-LAX and SYD-SFO will be used for the second batch to replace those B747s. 
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 09:48 am

    And then in 2019 more 787 will be delivered to do the

    CDG-PER-BNE-LAX


    TXL-PER-SYD-SFO


    No member give thanks

  • hutch

    hutch

    8 May, 2017 11:45 am

    Some slight problems to work through if these planes will be used for BNE-LAX. 

    The BNE-LAX 747's are also used for the LAX-JFK segment. So they need to leave Australia in the morning, in order to allow the hubbing of pax arriving at LAX from SYD, MEL, BNE. This varies from the MEL-LAX 787 flight, which leaves MEL late at night and has a shorter turn around at LAX.

    So they either need to keep that current BNE-LAX-JFK schedule, drop the JFK leg or use an A380 for LAX - JFK - which I don't see QF doing (which also involves a terminal change at JFK I believe).

    If they keep that schedule, I can't see a BNE-PER-CDG working in conjunction with BNE-LAX-JFK... and it also won't link up with the MEL-PER-LHR (which I assume QF would want if they are looking to use PER as a European hub). 

    SYD-SFO may be more likely to fit this schedule.




    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 11:48 am

    I think they will cancel the LAX-JFK leg and just wait till they can serve JFK directly with A350ULR or B777-8. 
    No member give thanks

  • hutch

    hutch

    8 May, 2017 01:17 pm

    If that was the case, why not just cancel it now? 

    Additionally, evening arrivals into LAX aren't the best for onwards connections to the east coast... so you are excluding a segment of the market. An evening arrival is fine if you have double day flights into LAX like from MEL, but I don't see any indication of that happening for BNE.
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 01:22 pm

    Well because like many people have stated it is not feasible the timing of the slots and turn around time if they want to link the 787s with BNE to Perth an onwards to Europe. 
    No member give thanks

  • hutch

    hutch

    8 May, 2017 05:39 pm

    Yep, but if they were to cancel the LAX-JFK leg, why not just do it now? Probably because it is providing a return!
    If it is providing a return, why would a business wish to get dispose of it.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    8 May, 2017 11:29 pm

    @hutch:
    " if they were to cancel the LAX-JFK leg, why not just do it now?"
    Because 744 retirement not due yet until 789 delivery and QF still hv to find work for those 744s rather than ground them completely and endure zero utilization(e.g. they just hv J cabin updated not that long ago)?

    744 x2 on BNE-LAX is the minimum to maintain daily frequency but U may also noticed that such rotation also mean significant utilization slacks everyday as well....slacks that can perfectly filled by a daily LAX-JFK rotation...a 744 airframe departing BNE on BNE->LAX->JFK->LAX->BNE rotation arrives back in BNE in a little   over 44hrs.

    "Probably because it is providing a return!"
    It probably is...for now...otherwise AJ would not allow it to continue given his laser focus on QF overall yield/profitability.  My gut feeling is that the financial numbers still work out all right due mainly to CapEx for those 744 was completely paid-off a long time ago(may be even b4 Geoff Dixon retired).....like QF just paying for fuel+maintenance+crew to keep 744 flying on LAX-JFK.

    However, maintenance for those old 744s won't be cheap especially when they hit expiry of their mandatory D-checks(Essentially disassemble the whole thing, inspect   every part, repair/replace and then put all back together) which are ultra-costly and will become more frequent as they age further.  Eventually, it won't make financial sense to do that anymore and for QF, their expiry now appears set to be End 2018.  When they are gone, I seriously doubt capital cost for brand new 789 will be remotely similar to old 744 for deployment on LAX-JFK by QF....
    No member give thanks

  • ajstubbs

    ajstubbs

    8 May, 2017 02:22 pm

    They won't cancel the JFK link I don't think - the loadings are usually pretty good and it's a popular route for Australians and Americans alike.
    Member who gave thanks

    romaau

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 12:17 am

    @ajstubbs:
    "They won't cancel the JFK link....loadings are usually pretty good and it's a popular route for Australians and Americans alike."
    Unfortunately, load factors(e.g. can be over-stating financial performance due to non-Rev$ pax such as FFP redemption traffic) and popularity among pax(e.g. parallel connections carried by AA may be even more popular but spread across far more AA frequencies and therefore less visible/more subtle) are only 2 factors among perhaps 50 equally important factors for an operator to decide whether to keep or abandon a route.

    I'm guessing nobody would classified MEL-DXB by QF as having poor load factor or unpopular for Australians and  Europeans yet QF still decided to ditch it....despite it's rather difficult to find alternative QF route with large enough traffic to justify the 380s that are deployed on MEL-DXB. 35-45yrs ago, HNL-LAX by QF was also popular for Australians and Americans alike.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    8 May, 2017 10:39 pm

    @Chris2304:
    "I think they will cancel the LAX-JFK leg..."
    Entirely possible.  It's actually very costly for QF to maintain this sector given that:
    1.  Partner AA can do it @ much lower cost due to ability to also sell+carry any other non-QF pax.  In contrast, mkt size of LAX-JFK by QF is limited only to those pax connecting with QF Trans-Pcf.
    2.  Even during off-peak demand, QF has no real lower trip cost alternative type than 744 to maintain LAX-JFK.  In contrast for partner AA or any U.S. competitors, they can easily downgauge to the smallest 737/320 or reduce frequency to save trip cost but still offer LAX connection timing choices superior to QF.

    I mean think about what QF has recently decided re fleet+network changes in the following context:
    a) QF and EK has a Rev$ sharing JV.
    b) MEL-DXB is clearly a big trunk route between hubs dominated by partners of this JV.
    c) Despite dominance in MEL-DXB, QF still willing to abandon ops here in order to facilitate/support new 789 opportunities elsewhere in the network.
    d) LAX-JFK is also hub-to-hub trunk for AA but not QF because they've no JV(Just codeshares).
    e) Even AA does not dominate LAX-JFK.

    If QF is willing to drop its trunk where it already dominates for the sake of other 789 opportunities, imagine its willingness to drop a non-trunk route where its partner does NOT dominate in order to also support 789 opportunities....
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 10:45 pm

    very well said FLX1
    No member give thanks

  • petercr

    petercr

    10 May, 2017 03:31 pm

    It's not so much the pax on the LAX-JFK-LAX flight that keep it going,  it's the cargo down below.  You wont fit much on a US domestic carrier if they were taking up the load instead. 
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    8 May, 2017 09:40 pm

    @hutch:
    "I can't see BNE-PER-CDG working in conjunction with BNE-LAX-JFK..."
    But they don't hv to work in conjunction, do they?

    If my recollection of QF fleet rotation history re LAX-JFK is correct, this sector had been a thru-flight(or same airframe)  continuation of various QF Trans-Pcf sectors for diff periods in the past such as SYD-LAX sector and even a QF 332 fm AKL-LAX sector.

    BNE-LAX-JFK is a relatively recent phenomenon re QF Trans-Pcf fleet rotation and I won't be surprised if QF will tweak it again in the near future.  When a new type with some unique capabilities joins an airline, it won't just open new routes but often also create cascading impacts affecting how other exiting types are rotated/deployed  across the entire network.

    "...it also won't link up with the MEL-PER-LHR (which I assume QF would want if they are looking to use PER as a European hub)."
    Do both rotations need to "link up" to make PER work as a QF connecting hub between major AU cities and Europe?

    To connect with PER-LHR by QF fm BNE, there're typically  upto 5 daily BNE-PER by QF to choose fm.  To connect with PER-CDG fm MEL, there're typically upto 7 daily MEL-PER by QF(Not even counting JQ codeshares) to suit practically all timing preferences.

    In reality, MEL-PER-LHR needs to "link up" with BNE-PER-CDG only if a pax insist to fly all the way on nothing else in QF fleet except the 789.

    "SYD-SFO may be more likely to fit this schedule."
    I would say SFO-SYD-PER is as likely as LAX-BNE-PER re QF 789 deployment due to schedule/rotation fit.
    No member give thanks

  • Himeno

    Himeno

    8 May, 2017 10:19 pm

    Are you missing what "link up" means?
    MEL-LAX and PER-LHR are linked as they use the same aircraft in the rotation, are timed to work together and have MEL-PER to get the aircraft to the next long haul flight. 1 787 will fly LAX-MEL-PER-LHR and return over a period of 4 days.
    It has nothing to do with connections and passenger movement and everything to do with aircraft scheduling.

    The LAX-JFK tag used to use the same aircraft all the way from SYD. The old QF107/108.
    The 747, for most of the year, is too big an aircraft, seat wise, for the transcon sector. Which is why it was changed to the A330 when AKL-LAX went to the 332. When AKL-LAX was pulled, they only had 747s and A380s going to LAX. 1 of those had to go to JFK and it wasn't going to be a 380. BNE-LAX was the only flight that had a 747 all the time.
    North America will end up becoming all 787 and A380, and they aren't going to send the 380 to JFK. It is too large.
    No member give thanks

  • hutch

    hutch

    8 May, 2017 10:33 pm

    Thanks Himeno... that's exactly what I mean! Perfectly put.
    No member give thanks

  • hutch

    hutch

    8 May, 2017 10:43 pm

    On the SFO point; the reason why I think SYD-SFO may work where BNE-LAX won't, is that SYD-SFO could do a later departure and arrival into SFO (similar to the B787 from MEL-LAX) quite easily. 
    -Evening departure from SYD (allows full day work in Sydney, with evening arrival at San Fran).  
    -Late evening departure from SFO for morning arrival into SYD. 
    -SYD-PER-CDG (similar to MEL-PER-LHR schedule to allow connections in PER)
    -CDG-PER-SYD (similar to LHR-PER-SYD schedule to allow connections in PER)

    No member give thanks

  • moecat

    moecat

    10 May, 2017 10:27 pm

    Why do they have to have PER-LHR and PER-CDG (or any other European stop) leaving PER at the same time?
    No member give thanks

  • Himeno

    Himeno

    8 May, 2017 06:28 pm

    The 744ERs have another 5-7 years life in them.
    The first 787s will allow the 2 with the old F seats to retire, though one of those will be doing a charter before going.
    The 2nd batch will see the 3 A380 seat non ERs retire.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    8 May, 2017 11:43 pm

    @Himeno:
    "The 744ERs have another 5-7 years life in them."
    Hence why we continued to hear from QF about 778 or 359ULR potential induction circa 2022-24....if CASA relent by that time re ETOPS330 rules or beyond....
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 09:31 am

    I can't see how Perth-Paris can work if qantas wants to retire 3 B747s with the second batch of 4. 
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    8 May, 2017 08:42 pm

    @Chris2304:
    Because the current BNE-LAX rotation only requires a pair of 744 airframes(Plus the equivalent of 1 more 744 airframe to act as back-up/stand-by yr-round for all QF 744s due to their old age and therefore lower dispatch reliability) to maintain daily departure.  In contrast and similar to LAX-MEL-PER-LHR, a hypothetical LAX-BNE-PER-CDG rotation by QF, as mentioned in the article, will require a minimum of 789 x4 to maintain daily departure....i.e. a particular QF 789 airframe leaving LAX on such rotation won't return to LAX until almost 96hrs later!
    No member give thanks

  • marto

    marto

    8 May, 2017 07:52 am

    After all the delays its good that the opposite finally happening! It's fantastic to see strengthening of the continually dwindling QF European network. 
    I'd like to see a MEL-DXB-TXL route. It would replace some capacity to Dubai as well as take a lot of EK pax to one of the few destinations it doesn't serve. 

    Imagine a strong QF with over 50 787s and a large presence in all continents ex multiple Aus ports. Suddenly that dream seems no so unreasonable. 
    Member who gave thanks

    Chris2304

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 07:54 am

    Also if they order those 15 787s for 2019 and 2020 with the 787 orders that will mean 8 one year 7 the next and the same with the 30 purchase right between 2021-2025. On average of 7.5 every year. 
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 02:05 pm

    correction

    6 deliveries every year between FY2021-2025 with with the 15 options delivered by mid 2020 (2021)
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    8 May, 2017 11:58 pm

    @Chris2304:
    "6 deliveries every year between FY2021-2025"
    Annual delivery rate of 6 sounds about right in terms of econ logic for the AJ era @ QF these days:
    a) Pragmatic annual CapEx funding to pay for pricey widebody deliveries.  Won't upset QF financials/cashflow/debt and spook QF stock investors.
    b) Dovetail nicely with the ideal/typical retirement cycle, @ least from Int'l duties, for QF 330 fleet with roughly 18-20yrs of service for each airframe by that time.  Younger 330s @ that time can still fly for QF domestic.
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    9 May, 2017 12:19 am

    It will be interesting to see if Qf options for 14 or more or so B787-10 for the  A330-300/200 (EBA, EBB, EBC, EBD) replacements for Asia. I suspect the other younger domestic A330s will be replaced Boeings brand new mid sized aircraft in the late 2020s.

    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 08:09 am

    I definitely think that early next year at the 1H FY results they will top up the 787 orders using the 15 across two years for deliveries early 2019. 
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 12:28 am

    @Chris2304:
    "...early next year at the 1H FY results they will top up the 787 orders using the 15 across two years for deliveries early 2019."
    Timing won't work like that.

    If QF convert their 787 options x15 into firm order say, in Jan 2018, QF won't get 1st delivery fm that batch until 3Q2019 @ the earliest.  Typical order lead time for 787 these days is @ least 1.5-2yrs(350 is even longer).
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    9 May, 2017 12:30 am

    what are you saying they will push the third batch out or they will order more later this year in August?
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    9 May, 2017 12:32 am

    well then they must order in August
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    9 May, 2017 12:41 am

    if they announce a further order of using the 15 options for delivery in 2019 and 2020 on August 24th FY release date and add 1.5 years brings you to 24th February 2019 for the next earliest approximate delivery which seems good. 
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 05:54 pm

    @Chris2034:
    "if they announce a further order of using the 15 options.....on August 24th FY release date..."
    A move which will directly contradict against AJ's proclamation re more 787 order as below(also reported in the article):
    "We have to demonstrate that we can make money out of the eight we have – but once we’ve done that, we’ll be comfortable in ordering more." - Alan Joyce

    How can AJ demonstrate 789 can make $ for QF on 24Aug 2017 when QF is not even scheduled to take 1st delivery  until 12Oct 2017?  In fact, the 1st 789 won't start making or losing $ for QF until it carries its 1st fare-paying pax in Dec 2017.

    Either AJ is lying or he is planning time travel into the future to take a peek if 789 will make or loose $ for QF?
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    9 May, 2017 05:56 pm

    I guess when AJ says he want to see how much money they make in return. I don't think he means the economic of the actual aircraft perhaps but the seating configuration. as because since the 787 flights will have been on sale for a while by August in my option can be sure by then they can order more. He knows that they will make money. 
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    9 May, 2017 06:01 pm

    it was about how well can the seats sell in this new configuration. They know the economics of the aircraft, Jetstar has the 787-8 for instance. 
    No member give thanks

  • Himeno

    Himeno

    9 May, 2017 09:57 am

    Options have confirmed build slots in the build queue. They just have to be firmed by a set date in order to meet that production slot. If they aren't firmed by that date, they lose the option and other airlines get a chance to bring their orders forward.
    Firming up an option doesn't make them go to the end of the queue like a new order would.
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    9 May, 2017 12:47 am

    *correction on August 24th FY results day
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    9 May, 2017 10:08 am

    ** double correction 28th August FY results day. 
    No member give thanks

  • Angus  Coventry

    Covo95

    8 May, 2017 08:46 am

    we need more 787 orders, come on Joyce. then qantas will grow dramatically. 
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 01:11 am

    @Covo95:
    I think by now it's pretty obvious about what is remaining that stands between AJ and more 787 firm order for QF.....

    1st bet on 8(i.e. current firm order quantity) 2yrs ago and then wait to see win or lose.  If win, place 2nd bet for 15(i.e. existing  options x15) which will be nearly doubling the 1st bet and wait again to see win or lose.  If win again, place 3rd bet for 30(i.e. existing purchase rights x30) which will be again doubling the 2nd bet.

    Gee, this sounds like a gambler's double-up strategy @ the Crown casino....coincidence?
    No member give thanks

  • ajstubbs

    ajstubbs

    8 May, 2017 08:50 am

    Add to this the future A350 or 777x orders and there's potential for an even more impressive route map developing. I'm skeptical about east coast direct to Europe not because of technical potential but length of journey being unappealing. Still big kudos for innovative expansion. 
    No member give thanks

  • mviy

    mviy

    8 May, 2017 12:28 pm

    Can't see it as being much worse than MEL-PER-LHR for economy passengers. A stop so soon into the journey is probably not much better for economy passengers than having no stop at all. I don't think QF will continue MEL-PER-LHR once they can fly direct unless the cost is prohibitive.
    No member give thanks

  • kimshep

    kimshep

    8 May, 2017 09:36 am

    Glad to see all this QF B787-9 fleet expansion finally happening.

    Anyone else think that it will make interesting 'talking points' at the EK-QF JVA renegotiation, if/when they proceed?

    No member give thanks

  • JBL

    JBL

    8 May, 2017 10:36 am

    So it takes 4 787s per EU-AU-US route? Would be interested in seeing something like a Frankfurt-Perth-Auckland-New York
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 12:57 am

    @JBL:
    "...it takes 4 787s per EU-AU-US route?"
    And noticed that every such route planned or under evaluation by QF always involve @ least 1 QF hub/base within AU in addition to PER.

    "Would be interested in seeing something like a Frankfurt-Perth-Auckland-New York"
    Chances are beyond remote IMHO because none in that route is a QF hub/base except PER.
    No member give thanks

  • Richard Burgess

    richard89

    9 May, 2017 04:45 pm

    Auckland IS a QF hub indeed. They have 8 738 aircraft based there and a sizeable crew both short and long haul. AKL crew are also very cheap and a good option to run the 787. I wouldn't discount it too highly.
    No member give thanks

  • Les White

    Les White

    8 May, 2017 10:37 am

    So you have still got two flights a day into London and then intend to fly to Paris as well? There less than an hour apart in flight time , why not service Southern Europe by flying into Rome first? With a huge population of Italian origin this seems to make sense to me, I don't know and I'm no expert but it seems that people are avoiding Paris ATM due to bombings and terrorism. Just doesn't seem right to me, but hey, it's there money!
    No member give thanks

  • Christian Ryan

    aussie-flyer

    8 May, 2017 11:28 am

    My guess why Paris is so high on the priorities is that with the $50bn or so being spent on the sub's there will be a lot of business travel between Paris/Adelaide and likely the rest of Australia
    No member give thanks

  • Stephen Dowding

    stevo_d

    8 May, 2017 07:44 pm

    I've often noticed a good number of French passengers on QF1/2 and 9/10 travelling to Australia via LHR when they could have flown from France with Emirates. Smaller planes and direct flights to continental Europe make a lot of sense and Rome should also be on the list when the aircraft are available.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 01:51 am

    @Les White:
    "...intend to fly to Paris as well?...why not service Southern Europe by flying into Rome first?"
    Because financial benefit-wise, QF kind of already do that via EK codeshares.  Folks keep forgetting QF & EK hv a Rev$-sharing JV covering all traffic between AU and Europe....

    Routing convenience-wise to attract pax, little diff between AU-PER-FCO vs AU-DXB-FCO anyway. 

    "With a huge population of Italian origin this seems to make sense to me.."
    And precisely why QF/EK pax originating fm AU can already connect /codeshare with @ least 8 daily DXB-Italy frequencies by EK.  In contrast QF/EK pax originating fm AU can connect /codeshare only with 5 daily DXB-France frequencies by EK....a legacy of the French authority being less liberal than the Italian's  in granting mkt access to EK.

    Clearly, mkt coverage by QF in France is less than in Italy.  PER-CDG rather than PER-FCO is likely a QF attempt to address that imbalance.

    "...seems that people are avoiding Paris ATM due to bombings and terrorism. Just doesn't seem right to me, "
    Yes, people are.  However, that's an AU-outbound view as U've forgotten about the other end of the equation:  Inbound demand from CDG/France to fly not only to PER but via PER to visit/tour/attend meetings in other AU cities.
    No member give thanks

  • Joe

    Joe

    8 May, 2017 11:06 am

    Unless the 777X is able to compete with the A350 legitimately from a pax comfort perspective (not just bean counter perspective) I hope QF goes with the A350.
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 12:23 pm

    well the B777X has a wider cabin than the A350
    No member give thanks

  • ajstubbs

    ajstubbs

    8 May, 2017 02:21 pm

    That's not the sole consideration though. Boeing would need to be sure they transfer all the cabin pressure and hydration comforts of the B787 to properly compete.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 02:05 am

    @ajstubbs:
    "Boeing would need to be sure they transfer all the cabin pressure and hydration comforts of the B787..."
    According to product development details released so far, Boeing will re 787->77X.
    No member give thanks

  • downdata

    downdata

    8 May, 2017 02:44 pm

    777x is 10 across
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 02:45 pm

    it is indeed but the 777x has 18inch economy seating
    No member give thanks

  • downdata

    downdata

    8 May, 2017 02:54 pm

    I will believe it when it comes out of assembly. It has the same fusalage diameter as 77W and we all know how 10 across fare on that model.
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 03:04 pm

    I understand how ever Boeing has increased the width of the cabin a combination of re-sculpting the sidewalls around the passenger seat area and moving to more modern and thinner insulation blankets.
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 03:05 pm

    so you can have 18inch and 10 abreast seating
    No member give thanks

  • downdata

    downdata

    8 May, 2017 03:07 pm

    Yes. But its essentially a paper airplane now, even if they do manage to carve out 7 inched like they promised, i wonder what they might compromise. 77w isn't exactly a 787 in terms of quietness...
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 02:34 am

    @downdata:
    "I will believe it when it comes out of assembly."
    350-900ULR is currently in development and won't be certified with firm performance specs until 2018 yet U hv no problem believing it'll hv comparable payload/range performance as the 778 to perform ULR missions such as SYD-LHR/JFK for QF's consideration to buy......amazing.

    "It has the same fusalage diameter as 77W and we all know how 10 across fare on that model."
    350-900ULR has the same available MTOW and wingspan(both drive/limit range performance regardless of fuel tank size) as the standard 359 and we all know how many fewer seats/lower mission payload SQ has planned for theirs vs the std 350-900s and we also already know a std 778 can carry how many more seats over how much longer distance than a std 350-900....
    No member give thanks

  • Jedinak K

    Jedinak K

    9 May, 2017 10:04 pm

    "350-900ULR is currently in development and won't be certified with firm performance specs until 2018 yet U hv no problem believing it'll hv comparable payload/range performance as the 778 to perform ULR missions such as SYD-LHR/JFK for QF's consideration to buy......amazing."

    In case you've forgotten, the B777X is also still under development and won't be certified with firm performance specs until late 2019/2020, yet you have no problem believing it will perform with the preliminary payload/range performance parameters that Boeing provided when they launched the B777X years ago. Is this bias I'm sniffing? Case in point - Boeing reduced the performance parameters for the B787 when it came out - typical range for 280 seats dropped to 14100km from 15400km. 
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    12 May, 2017 02:31 pm

    @Jedinak K:
    In case U've missed, I hv never claimed anywhere here re 77X that I "have no problem believing it will perform with the preliminary payload/range performance parameters that Boeing provided....".  Conversely, I understand there's always a bit of uncertainty per history of civil aerospace industry regardless of manufacturer...particularly about payload/range performance of a new type.

    "Boeing reduced the performance parameters for the B787 when it came out - typical range for 280 seats dropped to 14100km from 15400km."
    I hv been following 787 development news for 17yrs since b4 it was still the 7E7 concept and started life as the Sonic Cruiser(Curise @ Mach 0.95) studies.  So let me share a few key events with U throughout that affected 789(Also other 787 variants) range/seatcount published by Boeing:

    Circa 2003-04=
    Boeing launched 787 program.  789 published seat count=250-290, range=14,800-15,700km @ zero cargo.  Note that weight was still based on 1970s era(Yes, I know) Boeing cabin config assumptions such as F seat was a recliner @ 6abreast, J was equivalent to today's PY @ 7abreast, Y was 8 abreast(for the 250seater) and no IFE installed on any seat onboard.  Clearly, this was a very light load set-up by 2000s cabin config std...let alone today.

    Jun 2014=
    Shortly before 1st 789 delivery, Boeing realized all future 787 customers would use 9abreast in Y.  789 revised seat count=280(3-class), max range dropped to 15,400km @ zero cargo despite a 2t increase(mostly for carrying  more fuel) in MTOW than planned earlier.  These are the 'before'   seatcount+range data U quoted.

    Aug 2015=
    Boeing finally ditched their 1970s cabin config assumptions across their product range(not just 789).  For Boeing 789   brochures, it's now a 2-class cabin with 290seats where F has vanised, J is a flatbed suite with direct aisle access for every seat(i.e. much heavier than yesterday's F), Y is 9abreast @ 262units(i.e. far more than earlier versions), IFE in every seat is assumed fm nose to tail and total weight per pax+bags increased by about 5-10%(Avg pax becoming heavier since the 70s).  This is obviously a much heavier set-up than earlier versions in which range naturally dropped to 14,100km(lost about 8%).  This is the 'later' range U quoted.

    In a nutshell, it's the far heavier cabin config reducing the range, not a performance shortfall due to design not meeting target....@ worst, we can only say Boeing has moved their brochure target.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 02:10 am

    @downdata:
    "777x is 10 across"
    So as 350 in hi-density config which is not some dreamy set-up appearing only on Airbus brochure.  E.g. real customer AirAsiaX has already selected 10 abreast Y for their 350s which is an existing operator in the AU mkt..... 
    No member give thanks

  • GregXL

    GregXL

    8 May, 2017 02:45 pm

    The 777X may be wider, but if we are talking about the Y cabin, most A350s will be 3-3-3, while the 777X is being designed for 3-4-3. 
    No member give thanks

  • tallinnman

    tallinnman

    8 May, 2017 03:58 pm

    but will have a narrower seat due to 10 across seating as opposed to 9 across on the 350
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 02:41 am

    @tallinnman:
    "but will have a narrower seat due to 10 across seating as opposed to 9 across on the 350"
    But will hv EQUAL seat width in Y as 350 per Boeing tech spec documents for 77X(available for download fm boeing.com) due to wider fuselage despite being 10 across.

    We can play this PR propaganda games here for days....
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 02:01 am

    @Joe:
    "Unless the 777X is able to compete with the A350 legitimately from a pax comfort perspective (not just bean counter perspective) I hope QF goes with the A350."
    Huh?  The above is as good as:

    Unless the 350 is able to compete with the 77X legitimately from a pax comfort perspective, I hope QF goes with the 77X.
    No member give thanks

  • crazybenjamin

    crazybenjamin

    10 May, 2017 09:44 pm

    At the end of the day, the bean counter perspective is the only one that matters.

    That's just the way it is and there's nothing we can do about that.
    No member give thanks

  • Trogdor

    Trogdor

    8 May, 2017 12:19 pm

    Always good to see Qantas picking up new aircraft and routes.

    However, for the shorter-range domestic routes where A330s are used (transcon or east coast city routes), I wonder whether Qantas will convert any of their dreamliner orders to 787-10s? 

    Some years back Qantas was supposedly interested in the larger version
    No member give thanks

  • grahama33

    grahama33

    8 May, 2017 01:55 pm

    I wonder how many months it will take after the aircraft start flying to the US / UK for the inevitable customer adverse reaction to show up in the press and forward bookings :( 'Qantas - the backpacker's choice'..... 
    9 abreast seating - what genius came up with the idea :( How long then til they pull the seats out and re-fit as 2-4-2 layout. Then I might fly it. 
    No member give thanks

  • Ozshanel

    Ozshanel

    8 May, 2017 05:05 pm

    Well, given that 9 across is the industry standard, and those who went with 8 and now regret it are retrofitting with 9, I think you will be waiting a very long time.
    No member give thanks

  • Himeno

    Himeno

    8 May, 2017 06:25 pm

    The 787 was designed for 8 across. The first 2 airlines to get it, NH and JL, did put in 8 across. Every other airline to get it has used 9 across, and NH has refit to match. JL hasn't.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 02:55 am

    @grahama:
    "9 abreast seating - what genius came up with the idea..."
    I don't know but apparently, the Airbus magicians are copying that genius by coming up with the same 9 abreast layout for their 4.8in wider 350 cabin diameter but still claiming 1in wider seat width across ALL 9 seats than 787......go figure.

    If QF's 787 Y is regard as the backpacker's choice, then technically, any 350 Y must be regarded as the backpacker's choice+4%....
    No member give thanks

  • Neck

    Neck

    8 May, 2017 04:11 pm

    Good to see the retractable privacy divider. Not much consideration given by many carriers to couples traveling long distance in Business.
    No member give thanks

  • Stefan

    Too Technical

    8 May, 2017 06:00 pm

    Does that diagram mean Qantas is getting two more A380's?
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    8 May, 2017 06:02 pm

    just 2 A380s which were previously operating QF9/10, not through any orders. 
    No member give thanks

  • Himeno

    Himeno

    8 May, 2017 06:23 pm

    It is not possible to start a route to Europe and retire 3 747s with the 2nd batch of 4 787s without cutting back an existing 747 route.
    Putting the 787 on BNE-LAX will replace 2 747s. Pairing that with a BNE-PER-Europe will force the BNE-LAX into the evening and prevent the LAX-JFK-LAX.
    No member give thanks

  • Stephen Dowding

    stevo_d

    8 May, 2017 07:25 pm

    They could avoid changing existing schedules and open up new North American routes as add-ons to the Perth-Europe flights. Something like Brisbane-Vancouver would also take the fight to Air Canada.
    No member give thanks

  • Himeno

    Himeno

    8 May, 2017 08:51 pm

    You're missing the point. The 2nd batch needs to replace 3 747s. To do that, they need to be put on existing 747 routes, which after the changes from the 1st batch will be HND, SFO, YVR (seasonal), BNE-LAX-JFK, JNB and SCL.

    The 787s can't be used on JNB and SCL while CASA continues to insist on no better then ETOPS180.
    Doing the same with the 2nd batch that they did with the 1st, replacing a US 747 route and new EU route, will only replace 2 747s and use all 4 787s. Also, doing that will require pushing the US route departure time into the evening, which would then prevent a JFK tag if used for LAX (not being able to do the ~11 hour LAX-JFK-LAX turn in ~3 hours).

    The HND, SFO and LAX routes use 2 aircraft each. YVR uses 1, but is seasonal. HND can be retimed to use 1, but the slot limits at HND (HND flights to/from AU can only land/depart between 10pm and 6am) and QF's desire to have SYD-TYO overnight in both directions would cause problems.

    Using the 4 aircraft from the 2nd batch on SFO and BNE-LAX-JFK would allow 3 747s to retire and put some slack into the 6 aircraft 747 fleet for maintenance, increased frequency, etc. eg, they could make SYD-HKG A380 3 weekly, 747 4 weekly and change the Tuesday QF11/12 back to A380.
    Member who gave thanks

    Chris2304

  • moutere101

    moutere101

    8 May, 2017 10:22 pm

    CASA issued a EDTO>180 standard based on ICAO Annex 6  effective July 2015. Probably no carrier has applied yet for twins because quads are still being used on affected routes of SYD-SCL/JNB. The quads are  covered by the same dispatch rules as the twins but the time between EDTO entry and exit points is calculated differently.

    Member who gave thanks

    Chris2304

  • Joe

    Joe

    8 May, 2017 08:28 pm

    It's pressurisation, cabin humidity AND noise. Airbus have always been far superior noise wise and equal if not better in pressurisation and humidity levels as Boeing, The A380 is a sheer delight to fly in long haul and especially ultra long haul. The 787 is a step up on every other Boeing but definitely not as good as at the A350 let alone A380 (which was in fact 'over sound proofed'). As an Aussie with nothing close those 3 factors combined are priorities for me. I go out of my way to fly the A380 when available yet never fly 777 and will even go as far as changing schedule to avoid it on a long haul.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    9 May, 2017 09:15 pm

    @Joe:
    "Airbus have always been far superior noise wise and equal if not better in pressurisation and humidity levels as Boeing."
    Except the 380, I wouldn't be so sure re those metrics by objective measurable data but fine as an individual subjective impression.....pretty sure there are opposite subjective views about those.

    "The A380 is a sheer delight to fly in long haul.."
    It is and indeed superior to all other types in production or development today.

    However, being a sheer delight to fly in long haul or being superior to others in comfort is no longer a sufficient selling point for most airlines to justify investment in 380.  New builds hv not been selling for yrs(e.g. assembly rate recently reduced to 1 per mth despite Airbus already invested in a 380 production infrastructure scaled for 4 per mth) and existing operators are having a hard time to find suitable work/2nd-hand buyers for their current 380 fleets....let alone adding more(Even mighty EK is deferring 380 deliveries).

    "The 787 is...but definitely not as good as at the A350.."
    Again, I wouldn't consider any minor edge in comfort, if any at all, as "definite" based on available objective data/specs and also my personal experience inside both cabins.  But fine as an individual subjective opinion...

    If 350 is a step above 787, it's a baby step @ best....both platforms are developed around the same tech era using similarly advanced innovations for creature comfort and hv practically equal access to the same set of supplier networks  worldwide.

    "...let alone A380 (which was in fact 'over sound proofed')"
    U may be interested to hear that part of the tech reasons why 380 is so much quieter than other types hv little to do with sound-proofing but more to do with its overall engine/airframe config(packaging in layman terms) which is increasingly unique among all airliner types:
    a)  Each turbofan on 380 generates the same thrust/power level as that on a 330/789.  However, the former engine is far larger/heavier than the latter.  Engine makers effectively de-tuned 380 engine to reduce its thrust-to-weight potential(Which is fine on the 380 because it has 4 of them anyway and the wing is huge to support extra weight) in exchange for lower noise level....it's akin to a larger car engine running @ lower rpm(therefore low noise) produces the same power as a smaller car engine running @ higher rpm(therefore high noise).  Twin engine types does not hv that detuned engine luxury enjoyed by 380.
    b)  Engines are mounted lower & further backward of the wing.  As a result, the wing is shielding more noises emitted fm the engine.  In contrast, new gen twins such as 777, 787 and 350 tend to mount engine higher & further forward of the wing...less noise shielding by the wing.  Why the twin is designed like that?  Make the landing gear as short as possible(i.e. weight savings) while keeping engine-to-ground clearance.
    c)  Inboard engines(i.e. noise emission sources) are mounted further away fm the fuselage/cabin.  In contrast, modern twins hv engines mounted closer to fuselage/cabin in order to lighten outer wing load and maximize wing flex for the most efficient airflow.
    d)  While 380 wingspan is not much wider than a 777 or 350, it's enormous in terms of square footage.  Such a huge blanket absorbs/deflects a lot of engine noise fm below regardless of where to mount the engine.  In contrast, 350, 787 and even 777 hv much more slender wing shapes /square footage.

    "I go out of my way to fly the A380 when available.."
    U'll need to go out of your way even further and/or more often in the future to fly 380.  It's increasingly unavailable.

    "..yet never fly 777 and will even go as far as changing schedule to avoid it on a long haul."

    Total number ever built /on order backlog as of today:

    380=210 /107

    777=1,354 /396 (Excluding freighters)


    777 population out-number 380 by 5 to 1 on current trajectory. On longhaul routes worldwide, today's 777 is even more common/dominant than yester-years' 744 which was already pretty hard to avoid on most airlines' intercon schedules....

    No member give thanks

  • David Robertson

    David Robertson

    8 May, 2017 09:27 pm

    This 'flying pattern' is very interesting and certainly very efficient. BNE-DFW would make a lot of sense but the next leg of Paris-Perth doesn't have to be Brisbane, it could be MEL-DFW as that is a much bigger market. I'd like to see Paris-Perth link up with Sydney-San Francisco. But we can't rule out Sydney-Tokyo for instance, this would replace some 747s too?
    No member give thanks

  • Himeno

    Himeno

    8 May, 2017 10:10 pm

    Again, pairing up any of the 2 aircraft 747 routes with any PER-EU route will use all 4 787s in the batch and only replace 2 747s. It will not meet the aim of replacing 3 747. Thus the 2nd batch of 787s will not open new routes without cutting frequency or another route entirely.
    No member give thanks

  • patrickk

    patrickk

    9 May, 2017 05:40 am

    There is talk of a crew base in Brisbane that is why it seems to be LA-Brisbane-Perth-Paris. It could be quite different times to the other 787 as it does not have to hub with the other 787, just flight from other cities.
    No member give thanks

  • MelbFlyer

    MelbFlyer

    8 May, 2017 10:34 pm

    Everyone is presuming the PER-CDG flights will match PER-LHR timings and will alter the BNE-LAX flights. I think the opposite is more likely. The planes could fly straight from BNE to PER in the morning after landing from LAX, leave PER also in the morning and land in CDG in the evening. It's more of a lesuire destination and I don't think it would require the 5am arrival time of QF9 
    No member give thanks

  • hutch

    hutch

    8 May, 2017 10:53 pm

    Very true! But that does hold back the PER hub factor... particularly for MEL customers. 

    Also, leaving BNE in the morning, say 9-10am, would mean a 11pm/12am arrival in CDG and then a return to PER a few hours later. Workable? Yep... but probably as desirable as a 5am LHR arrival.

    We are also presuming it'll be Paris... and Brisbane.
    No member give thanks

  • Himeno

    Himeno

    9 May, 2017 10:09 am

    Most major EU airports have overnight curfews. It is possible they would not be able to operate to CDG late night/early morning.
    No member give thanks

  • moecat

    moecat

    10 May, 2017 10:48 pm

    Last time i checked there is more than one flight a day MEL-PER.... maybe think first 
    No member give thanks

  • Yota Takeshima

    japanair772

    9 May, 2017 06:43 am

    Which aircraft will be used for Tokyo, Santiago and Johannesburg? The 787s?
    And which 747 will retire? OJM, OJM,OEB?
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    9 May, 2017 07:29 am

    OEB and OJM will retire first
    No member give thanks

  • Yota Takeshima

    japanair772

    9 May, 2017 07:31 am

    It it because it's the oldest?
    When did OJS come in to QFA
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    9 May, 2017 10:07 am

    yes, OJS, OJT, JU were delivered between September 1999 and January 2000. 
    No member give thanks

  • johnnypc67

    johnnypc67

    9 May, 2017 05:22 pm

    So what of the 2 spare A380's? SYD-HND, SYD-SIN, MEL-HKG? 
    No member give thanks

  • Christopher Campbell

    Chris2304

    9 May, 2017 05:25 pm

    one will be used to start the A380 refurb which will be announced later this year. and the other will be moving around SYD/MEL-HKG/SIN. 
    No member give thanks

  • David S

    DaveSyd

    11 May, 2017 03:05 pm

    If  QF re-route the SYD-DXB-LHR via PER instead of DXB, and operate it using the second batch of 787-9s, and place a 787-9 on SYD-SFO, the changes will free up two a380s (I think that's how many operate QF1), and one 747 from SYD-SFO.

    The a380s could be redeployed into Asia on current 747 routes, allowing two more 747 retirements. In total that would allow 3 747s to be retired. 
    No member give thanks

  • Himeno

    Himeno

    11 May, 2017 08:48 pm

    3 A380s are used to operate QF1/2 and 2 747s are used to operate QF73/74.

    SYD-LHR is a premium route which sells well. It doesn't have the low periods that MEL-LHR does (which has lead to MEL-LHR being scheduled less during certain parts of the year) They aren't going to cut the SYD-LHR capaity by 262 seats (14F/36J/7W/205Y).
    Member who gave thanks

    DaveSyd

  • David S

    DaveSyd

    13 May, 2017 08:40 pm

    Initially I did think QF would never drop the a380 from SYD-LHR, but after reading the investor day presentation slides QF are aiming for the high yield customer. Also Alan Joyce's recent comments about direct services out of PER combined with EK's one stop options to Europe got me thinking deeper about the possibility of improving the AUS- EUR operation.

    I'm sure they can fill a380s from SYD but at what yield cost? There is so much yield pressure on the kangaroo route, and a more premium 787-9 would generate more consistent and higher RASK and possibly make Australia-LHR generate acceptable return? It would also give the option of an entirely QF operated double daily service to LHR from many points across Australia.

    Just me enjoying pretending to be a QF route planner :)
    No member give thanks

  • Himeno

    Himeno

    11 May, 2017 08:50 pm

    Also, only 3 Asian routes currently use 747s, MEL and SYD-HKG and SYD-HND.
    The 747s to HKG have already been covered by the MEL-LHR changes. HND has restrictions on the use of A380s.
    Member who gave thanks

    DaveSyd

  • FLX

    FLX1

    12 May, 2017 03:04 pm

    @Himeno:
    "HND has restrictions on the use of A380s."
    If I recall correctly, 380 landing/takeoff restricted to 23:00-06:00 time zone per current rules.  Current QF25 inbound HND arrives around 05:30(i.e. within permitted zone) but QF26 outbound HND departs 22:00.

    If QF willing to tweak QF26 to depart HND a bit later @ 23:00 or thereafter, not difficult to swap 744 for 380 on this route.  Despite a reputation for slot starvation, HND has tons of slots available 23:00-06:00.

    Of course, whether QF willing to park expensive 380 asset(long depreciated 744 is cheap to park) @ HND for 17hrs everyday to maintain this route is a diff story.....
    Member who gave thanks

    DaveSyd

Guest

23 Jul, 2019 04:07 pm

×
×

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.

×

Resend activation email

If you have not received the activation email, simply enter your email address below, then click 'Submit'. We’ll send you an email containing the activation link.

×