Will you use the new ULH PER-LHR?

[downgraded]

In Y, I remain to be convinced (probably not). Currently choose to fly non-optimal routes in order to fly A380 to UK, unless QF was just testing market feedback by proposing 9 across, it's not an option that will win on anything other than being cheap (or living in Perth). Their own website states (of the dreamliner): "17.2inch, 17.4inch usable width". When even QF see the need to advertising an extra 2/10ths of an inch of width, you know it's not a pretty story. It's barely more than a 737, and I'm not big but get fed up being bashed with trolleys and foot traffic if I end up with someone next to me. Where's that shadow as a specified/guaranteed perk of WP and it might be plausible. 17hours flying + boarding and disembarking, narrow isles, narrow seats, fasten seat-belt sign used for crowd control, it's going to be DVT heaven!

 

[OATEK]

As others have said, only in J. But avoiding DXB makes it more appealing than QF1/2 9/10, and the new business class would be another advantage as the A380s are starting to look and feel tired.

 

[drron]

Seeing we fly J internationally and it is likely the 787 seat will be an improvement on the QF 380 J seat I would certainly be willing to fly this route.
As from 2018 we will almost certainly not qualify for Flounge access the lounge doesn't worry me.

 

[samh004]

No F lounge access (while it lasts) means the attraction is even further decreased.

When I was replying earlier I thoought about this and considered that I wont be WP forever, and that the F lounge, while amazing, shouldn't control my booking process. I would be flying out of my way to get to one currently, tank up on food and drink, and possibly feel the effects for the next 24 hours!

Flipping that around, I am in the market for a European getaway next year. I have decided to go the (relatively) longer way, BNE-SIN-DXB-LHR-etc... main reason being, the last time I flew I couldn't hack such a long flight back from DXB-MEL. Now, I'm willing to test PER-LHR in the future, but on my next trip I'd rather break things down into more manageable chunks, and I'm not flying to get to lounges or for more SC (though it marginally earns more than direct).

Won't vote at all since the poll needs more options.

Only in Business Class

Agree - can the poll be changed?

I can change it, but it might be inaccurate as those that have already voted would then not be able to change their vote.

 

[Harpoon]

Not a chance in Y. In fact I will actively refuse to fly Y on the 787 after experiencing this horror on other airlines with 3-3-3.

PE or J..... maybe. But Perth domestic terminal hardly excites as a stopover point.

 

[Kangol]

No F = no deal.
I'm sure this opinion is shared by several.

 

[Sethor]

Being PER based i'll definitely consider this flight in any class. Flying the Kangaroo route in Y is always going to be torture, this direct flight will get to over & done with 1-2 hours sooner. I have already told the misses I plan to be on the inaugural flight, so I expect a role call once tickets are on sale.

 

[wanderer_au]

Unlike most AFF-ers:
1. I don't have a QF F lounge fetish;
2. I've never been to Perth; and
3. I much prefer to spend more time in the UK than the Continent. I run out of time to properly get out of Zones 1 and 2, let alone make it to Paris!

So this looks fine to me. But only in J. A combination of this website, middle-aged spread and plenty of ULH travel in J for work mean I will now go out of my way to engineer my overseas ULH travel in either PE or J.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

IMHO way to early to choose any other than 'Still thinking about it'.

 

[RooFlyer]

No. Never. Not even in J.

 

[wanderer_au]

Would this flight be uneconomical if it was only PE and J?

 

[Harpoon]

No. Never. Not even in J.

Because lack of facilities in Perth or just too long without a break? With J service/food/skybed it would be more than bearable IMO.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Yes, I'll definitely do it. Maybe on the inaugural, or soon thereafter in 2018. I'll be in J.

I really liked the old DFW-BNE in J (16 hours) - time for a relaxed meal, watch a couple of movies, 8 hours sleep, wake up for breakfast - perfect.

 

[moa999]

Would this flight be uneconomical if it was only PE and J?

I'm sure QF yield management have done the math. I suspect just not enough J/PE pax

 

[flychrisfly]

I'll give it a go in J on the inaugural, if I can. Ongoing, it depends on the flight times. For me it will ideally leave Perth between about 3pm and 10pm so I can eat and get some sleep onboard when my body clock thinks it's time to sleep. Coming home from Europe always screws up the body clock so less fussed about the timing of this flight.

 

[mrdctau]

Perhaps it's a bit easy for me to say as I stopped flying long-haul Y several years ago, but I'm struggling to understand the seemingly strong preference for the A380 Y product compared to the B787 Y product. From the QF press release, the B787 Y product will have an extra inch of legroom and a few new innovations which will surely make for a more comfortable ride than A380. Sure, a 2-4-2 cabin would be nice to only have to climb over one person, but even on the A380's 3-4-3 you can still wind-up in one of those 3s and face the same predicament with an inch less of leg room.

 

[Harpoon]

Perhaps it's a bit easy for me to say as I stopped flying long-haul Y several years ago, but I'm struggling to understand the seemingly strong preference for the A380 Y product compared to the B787 Y product. From the QF press release, the B787 Y product will have an extra inch of legroom and a few new innovations which will surely make for a more comfortable ride than A380. Sure, a 2-4-2 cabin would be nice to only have to climb over one person, but even on the A380's 3-4-3 you can still wind-up in one of those 3s and face the same predicament with an inch less of leg room.

It's simple. it's the shoulder room that is significantly worse on 3-3-3 787 than 3-4-3 on A380. I'm a tall/skinny bloke and I was struggling on the two 787 3-3-3 seats Ive flown in on other carriers. I can't imagine what it's like for anyone wider than me.

So unless Qantas have magically widened the cabin width and have wider seats than their competitors, this is gonna be one hell hole of an experience for anyone in Y 787 on that long of a journey.

Also the aisles are so narrow that larger proportioned people nearly have to side step down the Y aisles. On a 17 hour journey, good bloody luck getting any sleep if you have a Y aisle seat, you'll be bumped constantly.

 

[wanderer_au]

I'm struggling to understand the seemingly strong preference for the A380 Y product compared to the B787 Y product. From the QF press release, the B787 Y product will have an extra inch of legroom and a few new innovations which will surely make for a more comfortable ride than A380.

Put bluntly, I think people are growing wider faster than I think they are growing longer. In that equation, an extra inch of legroom is less valuable than an extra inch's width in the seat, or even armrest.

 

[RooFlyer]

No. Never. Not even in J.

Because lack of facilities in Perth or just too long without a break? With J service/food/skybed it would be more than bearable IMO.

Because I'd have to fly across the continent to connect to it. So it's still one stop to London, with little saving in time, if any. Anyway, if you are going to Europe, what's the attraction of saving a few hours? Even for a crisp business reason, would you trust the schedule within, say, 3 hours?

I find it hard to understand QFs claim that the main market will be east coasters. Again, via Perth is still one stop to London for them. What's the attraction?

I do SYD to YVR every so often, so long flights aren't necessarily a problem for me ( in J!), but I just can't see the point on going to these lengths just to save a few hours.

I enjoy stop overs and the opportunity to have a shower and a walk around.

Good luck to those in Perth, and others who prefer a Perth stop-over in a domestic terminal Vs, say DXB First or Biz lounges. I won't be competing with you for seats!

 

[Sethor]

Put bluntly, I think people are growing wider faster than I think they are growing longer. In that equation, an extra inch of legroom is less valuable than an extra inch's width in the seat, or even armrest.

Either if its short haul or long haul, I'd take 17.2" width & 32" pitch over 17.5" width & 31" pitch any day. The difference in width is marginal & the extra inch in pitch might allow you to cross legs (For me the ability to do this makes Y flights much more comfortable).