QF Dreamliner to fly MEL/SYD/BNE to HKG

[offshore171]

The only surprise here is how quickly the 789 has been consigned to the existing 'vanilla' routes rather than the new 'aspirational' routes like BNE-DFW and PER-CDG.

To be honest, that was my thought as well. I wonder if this move is an unplanned pivot.

How have the loadings been on PER-LHR and what has been the customer feedback? If both have been not as good as expected, it may have led to a change in tactics away from adding more ULH dreamliner routes, and pivoting to the sub 9 hour asian routes.

 

[michaele]

To be honest, that was my thought as well. I wonder if this move is an unplanned pivot.

How have the loadings been on PER-LHR and what has been the customer feedback? If both have been not as good as expected, it may have led to a change in tactics away from adding more ULH dreamliner routes, and pivoting to the sub 9 hour asian routes.

I agree that (anecdotally) the hype hasn’t matched the loadings, but also (according to csm) struggles with the US government has hindered the expansion to new US ports.

 

[Himeno]

I agree that (anecdotally) the hype hasn’t matched the loadings, but also (according to csm) struggles with the US government has hindered the expansion to new US ports.

Australia and the US have open skies. There are no limits to where/how many flights can go. The only issue with the US government QF might have that prevents them from opening new flights is the ATI application with AA.

 

[clifford]

In five years time, most Asian services will be operated by the 789 (with its 737 like comfort in Y)....

How awful that would be. Might as well fly JQ (not).

 

[clifford]

1. No airline would make money in a 2-2-2 config for Y passengers

I don't think anyone was advocating that...

 

[mviy]

The only surprise here is how quickly the 789 has been consigned to the existing 'vanilla' routes rather than the new 'aspirational' routes like BNE-DFW and PER-CDG.

Probably SYD-CDG is more realistic as a possible second European destination for Project Sunrise if the LHR and JFK flights from SYD, MEL & BNE are successful.

I think PER-LHR is a stop gap before Project Sunrise. I doubt whether PER will remain a 787 hub once Project Sunrise is in full swing.

 

[JohnK]

The only surprise here is how quickly the 789 has been consigned to the existing 'vanilla' routes rather than the new 'aspirational' routes like BNE-DFW and PER-CDG.

In five years time, most Asian services will be operated by the 789 (with its 737 like comfort in Y)....

Agreed. I didn't think it would be used that quickly into Asia. I'm really going to miss the 747 and A380.

I don't know how this is going to work for me. Should be fine travelling with wife and daughter as I could have their shoulder room but it will be a struggle travelling on my own.

May have to rely more on EK flights. Not really keen on CX as revenue airfares tend to be expensive to earn SCs in QFF and awards for CX flights on QFF are also overpriced. Interesting dilemma.

 

[odysseus]

I don't mind it going to Asia... it's more appropriate for short/mid-haul routes.

Leave the long hauls to the A380...

 

[GoldCanyon340]

How have the loadings been on PER-LHR and what has been the customer feedback? If both have been not as good as expected ...

I’m not sitting on any side of the fence but anecdotal evidence suggests loading is good. Assuming this is matched or surpassed by yield (a point some forget) then that will, for the most part, override feedback.

 

[TheInsider]

How have the loadings been on PER-LHR and what has been the customer feedback? If both have been not as good as expected, it may have led to a change in tactics away from adding more ULH dreamliner routes, and pivoting to the sub 9 hour asian routes.

As previously stated, loadings on the PER-LHRvv flight are very strong and usually over 95% for every flight. Premium cabins usually 100% every flight. Yield is exceeding their expectations and forecasts.

Also their Net Promoter Score (NPS) is also the highest for any route or aircraft.

They won't expand from PER due to PER airport not allowing them to use their own terminal (the reason why they canned planes for a PER-JNB). They won't expand to the US until the AA/QF joint venture gets approved form the US DOT.

 

[codash1099]

As previously stated, loadings on the PER-LHRvv flight are very strong and usually over 95% for every flight. Premium cabins usually 100% every flight. Yield is exceeding their expectations and forecasts.

Also their Net Promoter Score (NPS) is also the highest for any route or aircraft.

They won't expand from PER due to PER airport not allowing them to use their own terminal (the reason why they canned planes for a PER-JNB). They won't expand to the US until the AA/QF joint venture gets approved form the US DOT.

Reading between the lines, I think PER airport would let them use T3 for new routes. The argument in the case of JNB was that the route was already being serviced from T1.

 

[TheInsider]

Reading between the lines, I think PER airport would let them use T3 for new routes. The argument in the case of JNB was that the route was already being serviced from T1.

PER airport were going to allow them to use the International terminal, but the costs for QF and the timings for aircraft use and towing over to a different terminal were not sustainable (or something along those lines)

 

[DavidFlynn]

Such a route was never announced.
This means they can't decide on a NA route for the 787s without an approved joint venture with AA.

That's a neat summation of where we're at. QF talked up a new US destination, repeatedly name-checking Seattle and Chicago as well as citing DFW for a possible second AU service to that city (eg BNE-DFW) – the money was on Chicago, but my info is that this hinged on US DoT approval for AA JV which has not (as yet) come through, so with the clock ticking, QF has enacted Plan B (or rather, Plan HKG).

Should the AA JV receive a smiley stamp, I'd not be surprised to see ORD back on the map.

 

[Pleb Status]

PER airport were going to allow them to use the International terminal, but the costs for QF and the timings for aircraft use and towing over to a different terminal were not sustainable (or something along those lines)

These are all very weak 'excuses'. Prior to March 2018, QF were towing aircraft between PER T3/T4 (and the stands adjacent) and T1 on a very regular basis.

I would not be surprised if QF tow aircraft further distances at other airports. VA tow a 332 between BNE Dom and BNE Int most Sundays without an 'issue'.

 

[Isochronous]

Good to see PE service to HKG resumed!

 

[DavidFlynn]

Some more reading on the 'What happened to that extra BNE-USA Dreamliner route?" question here..

Qantas to use last Brisbane-based 787 for Hong Kong. What happened to Brisbane-Seattle? – Blue Swan Daily

 

[NM]

Mrs. NM gave the QF 789 a thumbs-up last week when she scored it on a MEL-BNE sector. But she was in seat 2A so I expect that made a bit of a difference. I was surprised to find it on the MEL-BNE route, and only realized when doing seat assignment for her and saw the layout. When booking the flight I just assumed all BNE-MEL-BNE were operated by 738 aircraft.

While I have not been on a 789, I would imaging the 3-3-3 config is not much different to a 3-4-3 Y config on 747 or A380. Perhaps the seats are 1/2 inch narrower. But a sardine tin is a sardine tin. The A380 has the possibility of upper deck Y cabin seating in 2-4-2, so that is a bit of an advantage. And 747 probably feels more spacious due to higher ceiling.

Would be book a 789 flight for a Y BNE-HKG flight? Well it would depend on the options available to me at time. Schedule is always more important to me than aircraft type. It would also depend on with whom I am travelling. If 2 people, then perhaps a QF A330 2-4-2 might get my vote ahead of 789 3-3-3, but if three people, maybe 3-3-3 is not so bad, especially if its a full cabin.

And the only way I getting on any aircraft non-stop LHR-PER, SYD-JFK is in the J cabin. Otherwise a connection/stop is always going to be my choice. I am not so time-poor that I need to endure 17+ hours on any Y cabin. 14 hours trans-pacific is bad enough.

 

[levelnine]

Mrs. NM gave the QF 789 a thumbs-up last week when she scored it on a MEL-BNE sector. But she was in seat 2A so I expect that made a bit of a difference.

No one is complaining about J.

While I have not been on a 789, I would imaging the 3-3-3 config is not much different to a 3-4-3 Y config on 747 or A380. Perhaps the seats are 1/2 inch narrower. But a sardine tin is a sardine tin.

When you're in Y, every half an inch matters -- an enormous amount. Far more than half an inch in PE or J.

 

[serfty]

It seems the average hip width of an adult is ~15", so an 18" width allows 1.5" space on each side. That reduces by a third for a 17" width giving 1" each side.

I myself am 16" hip to hip, so it's much worse for me.

Now let's get to shoulder width which is ~18" for an adult male ...

 

[JohnK]

Now let's get to shoulder width which is ~18" for an adult male ...

Average adult male?

I sat in window seat on a QF 737 on the weekend first time in ages with spare middle seat. With one shoulder against the window the other shoulder was 4"-6" into the middle seat.

That's fine in aisle seat as I can lean into aisle but in a middle seat or window seat I'd have to sit sideways which would not be a fun flight.