Increased choice for international air travellers

[Melburnian1]

Quickstatus, I agree with your analysis (even if as you say some is speculative.)

An increased fuel price has to affect viability of a so-called 'long, thin' route, even if QF charges the highest fares on the route despite SQ, for instance, having a better reputation for service to passengers.

QF9/10 may well, however, be a route a bit like QF to JFK via LAX where for reasons of pride, the carrier continues to offer it, at least until there are aircraft capable of travelling SYD or MEL non stop to LHR.

AJ admitted previously that the LHR routes (via DXB) were not profitable yet the airline did not discontinue its connection with London. It was more judicious with HKG and BKK to LHR that were ditched, and also the FRA route.

 

[Quickstatus]

Thanks for the corrected info.

Still a lot more seats in NZ versions.

I think NZ v2 with 275 flies their ultra long hauls for the very reason that it has to carry less payload ( passengers + freight).

The difference in weight would be about 4 tonnes assuming 100kg (80kg Plus 2kg for luggage) between NZV2 and QF

Apparently QF filled every seat on the inaugural PER-LHR. But what we were not told is whether the cargo hold was also full.

In the peak of summer at high temperatures, seats in that westward route may be blocked because takeoff weight may be limited by the temperature.

So in the end the price of oil is critical. The route can’t just raise prices or put more passengers/ cargo on the route to make up the difference when the fuel price goes up

QF8 from DFW also does not fill every seat for range purposes.

 

[Melburnian1]

...Still a lot more seats in NZ versions.

The yield per seat is the main bit of info we miss.

 

[Quickstatus]

Quickstatus, I agree with your analysis (even if as you say some is speculative.)

An increased fuel price has to affect viability of a so-called 'long, thin' route, even if QF charges the highest fares on the route despite SQ, for instance, having a better reputation for service to passengers.

QF9/10 may well, however, be a route a bit like QF to JFK via LAX where for reasons of pride, the carrier continues to offer it, at least until there are aircraft capable of travelling SYD or MEL non stop to LHR.

AJ admitted previously that the LHR routes (via DXB) were not profitable yet the airline did not discontinue its connection with London. It was more judicious with HKG and BKK to LHR that were ditched, and also the FRA route.

Yes while the kangaroo route is shrinking on a passenger count basis year on year, it is such an iconic and brand defining route that the airline is prepared to subsidise it

 

[Archipelago]

Was Quickstatus referring to how the number of seats on board is low, compared to say many A333s of various airlines that carry 300 or more?

Remember, 'the 9' and 'the10' used to be an A388, which carries about twice the number of passengers as QF's B789s.

Understood, but the A388 can't fly from Perth to London non stop. Same for the A333.

Comparing apples to oranges there. I'm talking about the aircraft which is doing the PER-LHR route. Understandably there are less seats, but that's one of the reasons it's doing that route.

 

[Toad]

The yield per seat is the main bit of info we miss.

Yes that's true but looking at the amount of J seats on QF 787 9 (42) NZ 18 and 27. IMHO I think that is what makes the flight more profitable as well as decreasing weight to carry more full for the extra fuel if that makes sense.

 

[Melburnian1]

Yes while the kangaroo route is shrinking on a passenger count basis year on year.../QUOTE]

In the past 15 years, the number of nonstops to elsewhere in Europe or UK has increased, such that it's easier to fly via SIN or other airports, not LHR.

The dreaded airport passenger duty on outbound flights ex thye UK must also be a factor.

 

[Quickstatus]

Was Quickstatus referring to how the number of seats on board is low, compared to say many A333s of various airlines that carry 300 or more?

Remember, 'the 9' and 'the10' used to be an A388, which carries about twice the number of passengers as QF's B789s.

The 787-900 is not necessarily more economical in carrying passengers. It really depends on the route, the target market, and a host of other factors. Not just fuel efficiency

I think the airline is using this aircraft because it’s easier to fill 1 small aircraft than one with double the size. Then they had to tweak the seating and payload to make it do a PER-LHR. The airline has also said that without the combined DOM/INT airport the route would not work. Most of the passengers will come from MEL.