Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777LR Perth-London?  
User currently offlineVikingA346 From Sweden, joined Oct 2006, 515 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7296 times:

I was wondering if perhaps Qantas/British Airways or any other carrier will eventually begin doing Sydney-Perth-London once the 777LR gets delivered to more companies. Right now they are doing Sydney - Singapore - London. Would it be profitable to use the 777LR and go via Perth? Do you think there is a market for Perth-London nonstop? Any insight would be appreciated.


...you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you shall return
50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFly2CHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7282 times:

I've thought about this for a while. I don't really think there is a demand for solely PER-LHR traffic, and if the aircraft has to refuel somewhere regardless then an Asian stopover would provide more options. However, if they did a LHR-SYD non-stop, the return leg could be operated through PER.

User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7412 posts, RR: 57
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 7175 times:

No need to wait for the B777LR to fly nonstop PER-LHR ...

PER-LHR is 14499km/7829nm.
The A345 could cover the distance without problem (SQ flies the A345 on JFK-SIN which is 15349km/8288nm).

Beside this, I don't think there is a profitable market for a nonstop PER-LHR ...
And if a stop is still required on the SYD-LHR flight, it is certainly much more profitable to stop in SIN, BKK or even HKG rather than PER.


User currently offlineVikingA346 From Sweden, joined Oct 2006, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 7141 times:

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 2):
SQ flies the A345 on JFK-SIN which is 15349km/8288nm).

SQ actually flies EWR-SIN, not JFK-SIN. You got the main idea though  Smile It's SQ21, longest flight in the world.

Could the 777LR fly SYD-LHR nonstop? Would THAT be profitable? According to my data, I show the 777LR being able to do just over 17,400km, with SYD-LHR being a 17,016km flight. What do you guys think?



...you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you shall return
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7076 times:

Once a flight e.g. LHR-SYD is long enough that a stop is required, fuel costs are minimized by making that stop near the half-way point. Operating LHR-PER-SYD would use more fuel in the same aircraft with the same payload than operating LHR-SIN-SYD.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7062 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting VikingA346 (Reply 3):
Could the 777LR fly SYD-LHR nonstop? Would THAT be profitable?

Yes to the former and no to the latter, according to QF, which had been investigating such an option.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7044 times:

Qantas and Boeing looked in depth at this possibility.

The conclusion thus far is that the 772LR doesn't quite cut it. Because of winds, LHR/SYD (or MEL) is feasible, going the other way isn't except with a much-reduced load. In any case Qantas was thinking in terms of a mix of Business/'Executive Economy' at higher-than-average fares, rather than normal loads.

Qantas know their own market best - presumably their research shows that there is insufficient demand for such a service. And possibly the arrival and departure times are difficult to orchestrate, given that there is an enormous time-change.

All I can say is that if such a service was introduced from Melbourne, I would never use anything else - even if it included a refuelling stop at Perth. I would much prefer an early stop in Perth rather than a mid-journey one at Changi. And I'm quite sure that I would be joined on the flight by people from Adelaide and Brisbane who currently have to 'backtrack' on local flights to Sydney or Melbourne even before they can get on their way to Singapore.

I think it will definitely happen some time, after the 772LR proves itself in ultra-longhaul role. But not yet.

[Edited 2006-10-17 15:40:01]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineSK909 From Denmark, joined Nov 2005, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7044 times:

Quoting VikingA346 (Reply 3):

First, I don't think it would be profitable. The aircraft would have to carry the extra fuel a long way. A stopover in Asia, would be more profitable. The flying time would only be slightly shorter on the SYD-LHR.
Second, it is not about the distance that it theoretically can fly. If it flew SYD-LHR there would be heavy weight penalties.



Life's for Living!
User currently offlineVikingA346 From Sweden, joined Oct 2006, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6972 times:

If the winds are a problem, what about running:

LHR-SYD nonstop

The opposite way running SYD-AKL-LHR or perhaps even SYD-LAX-LHR?

Maybe that destroys the benefit of a nonstop flight, but if the winds play such a difference, perhaps it is do-able.

AKL is almost exactly half way around the world from LHR - either way you go it's about the same. So what if Qantas offered this service? I know its a long shot, just trying to grasp the possibilities...



...you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you shall return
User currently offlineGh123 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6937 times:

Surely by having a flight stop on route (say from LHR - SYD) you open your plane up to another market.

By flying non-stop you only can take passengers from London or Sydney but if you stop on HKG then you can take Chinese pax as well. (more potential to fill the aircraft)


User currently offlineSlovacek747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6883 times:

Flyin from Auckland to LAX or LHR would just be dumb man. Keep it real

Slovacek747


User currently offlineVikingA346 From Sweden, joined Oct 2006, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6868 times:

Quoting Slovacek747 (Reply 10):
would just be dumb man

Great, some backup evidence to the fact that it's "dumb" would be appreciated!

Don't knock it without offering a viable option



...you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you shall return
User currently offlineGh123 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6854 times:

Quoting Slovacek747 (Reply 10):
Flyin from Auckland to LAX or LHR would just be dumb man. Keep it real

     

Plain (plane) stupid economics. Sure it would be a marvel in terms of technological achievement but that's about it.

People like the chance to get off a plane for 30 mins to stretch legs etc and it makes no economic sense to shut-out other markets.

[Edited 2006-10-17 16:25:03]

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6799 times:

VikingA346, Qantas faces different problems to those of any other airline.

Firstly, our summer tourist season coincides with Christmas - thus traffic to and from Europe, and to a lesser extent the USA, is uniquely seasonal. Secondly, the distances are huge - Qantas regularly flies any number of routes that are 6,000 nms. or more.

I'm only guessing - but it could very well be that, if QF were to start a Business Class 'direct special' to and from Heathrow, it would 'work' in terms of selling tickets - but they might lose out on profits, because it siphoned off a damaging proportion of premium traffic from their 'traditional' one-stop routes.

Services to the USA are a different matter since they are less affected by seasonal factors. I think that, in a few years, you probably WILL see Qantas using 772LRs, or some of the 45 X 787s they have on order, to fly direct services to DFW or Chicago, rather than handing over almost all their US-East-bound traffic to American Airlines at LAX, as they do at present.

[Edited 2006-10-17 16:40:04]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineVikingA346 From Sweden, joined Oct 2006, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 6682 times:

Thanks for the ideas... It is an interesting topic that will surely be even more interesting as new planes are introduced and airlines juggle with these ultra long haul routes..


...you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you shall return
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6522 times:

Quoting VikingA346 (Reply 8):
AKL is almost exactly half way around the world from LHR - either way you go it's about the same. So what if Qantas offered this service? I know its a long shot, just trying to grasp the possibilities...

AKL-LHR is easier to fly nonstop than SYD/MEL-LHR. However, the premium market is also much smaller. A B787-8ER with 3 belly tanks could fly AKL-LHR nonstop easily enough. The question is would there be enough premium demand to fill it at fares that would cover the costs. That's doubtful.

I think the plane that will open up SYD/MEL-LHR nonstop will probably be a B787-9ER. CASM wouldn't be obsenely high and the number of seats to fill would not be too high.


User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 38
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6143 times:

There have been rumours around for a while of a Qantas order for 'something' from Boeing being announced in January. 'Something' might be the application of the 777-200LR to a route like this, then again it might be a 787-10 (conversion or additional order). Or even a 748-I. And rumours might be wrong, as is so often the case on this forum, no criticism intended of anyone, why spoil the fun.

Antares


User currently offlineVikingA346 From Sweden, joined Oct 2006, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5937 times:

Perhaps the rumours that are floating around about extending the 777LR to 10,000mi is what they're planning to announce? Who knows - either way it will be very exciting to see if Boeing can cough up the ingredients to connect two cities on opposite sides of the world. Can't imagine the cost of flying those routes though, especially for pax flying in J or F class!


...you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you shall return
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5656 times:

When it comes down to it, even if 772LR has another 500 or 1000 miles of range, which I'm sure it easily can, and will, it will burn more fuel. By stopping mid-way you are only carrying enough fuel for half a trip at a time at most, going the entire way nonstop you are carrying more fuel the whole flight, whether or not avoiding the stop justifies a slightly higher fair, or if that saves money on the ground stop, I don't know.


"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineVikingA346 From Sweden, joined Oct 2006, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5448 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 18):
whether or not avoiding the stop justifies a slightly higher fair,

RIght, I see what you're saying. I think the whole thing will come down to the economics - it always does.

It would be pretty darn cool though if Qantas offered a nonstop LHR-SYD. Perhaps they would need to designate a lot of F or J class seats in order to make it profitable, but I think eventually it will be done. Just a matter of time!



...you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you shall return
User currently offlineQantasA380 From Australia, joined Apr 2005, 212 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5220 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
Once a flight e.g. LHR-SYD is long enough that a stop is required, fuel costs are minimized by making that stop near the half-way point. Operating LHR-PER-SYD would use more fuel in the same aircraft with the same payload than operating LHR-SIN-SYD.

 checkmark   checkmark 

That... and the fact that by operating their European flights through Asia as "open connections" they actually reduce the number of dedicated Asia flights they need to operate (ie by flying SYD-BKK-LHR-BKK-SYD they cut out the need to send a dedicated B767 or A330 on SYD-BKK every day, because the B744 going to LHR covers it for them). If they cut back their fuel stops in Asia, they'd need to add dedicated flights to BKK, SIN, HKG, etc.

I hear you say, "that's fine, but couldn't they use the SYD-PER-LHR flight to cover SYD-PER at that time of day)?" Well, yes, but only for people who have a passport to be able to board what is legally an international flight (and who feel like getting caught up in possible Customs queues). Probably not a huge delay in PER, but if it was me I'd prefer a domestic flight...

Cheers,

Rowan



Virgin Blue - what colour's RED????
User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3505 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5123 times:

I might be able to see it if PER was already a strong hub for QF, but that's not the case. IMHO, any PER-LHR service is dependent on already established n/s service between SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR (thus avoiding the backtracking of transfering through SYD/MEL), and neither of those routes are possible yearround right now. We'll have to wait and see.


Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26493 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4168 times:

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 2):
The A345 could cover the distance without problem (SQ flies the A345 on JFK-SIN which is 15349km/8288nm).

However, SQ has to fly their A345s in an ultra-light configuration to make the distance from EWR to SIN.

Quoting VikingA346 (Reply 8):
The opposite way running SYD-AKL-LHR

again, that is worse than just SYD-LHR

Quoting VikingA346 (Reply 8):
or perhaps even SYD-LAX-LHR?

Theoretically, QF could do that right now, but it would require more aircraft than they have right now and may well dilute the yields of their number one money maker, SYD-LAX.

Quoting Slovacek747 (Reply 10):
Flyin from Auckland to LAX or LHR would just be dumb man. Keep it real

What were you planning on doing? Swimming?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15):
AKL-LHR is easier to fly nonstop than SYD/MEL-LHR. However, the premium market is also much smaller. A B787-8ER with 3 belly tanks could fly AKL-LHR nonstop easily enough

What in the hell are you talking about? AKL-LHR is 800nm longer than SYD-LHR



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1041 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3963 times:

Doesn't the Jet-stream counter flow at the equator?

West to East on the northern hemisphere

East to West at the equator

West to East on the southern hemisphere

Qantas should have head winds no matter which way it goes to Europe.


User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7412 posts, RR: 57
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3829 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 22):
However, SQ has to fly their A345s in an ultra-light configuration to make the distance from EWR to SIN.

The "ultra light" configuration is a commercial choice, not a technical obligation to make the distance...

I doubt anybody could resists to an 18 hours (and more) flight in a "traditionnal" 31" or 32" pitch Y class.


25 N1120A : Wrong. The 181 seat configuration is specifically because the A345 can't handle more than that. As it is, they have to carry no cargo on the westboun
26 VikingA346 : I know this is a bit off-topic, but do you know the logistics of the way SQ configures their A345? Do they just simply have to put in less seats to m
27 Razza74 : Living here in Perth, I personally think PER-LHR non-stop would be a nieche market at best. It is more convienient to travel to Europe via an asian de
28 Thomson735 : i herd BA would do LHR-PER non stop, but PER-LHR surely wudnt be possible? flying into wind non stop, plus who the hell wants 18hrs or watever non sto
29 NAV20 : The 772LR could do PER-LHR and back with a full load, no problem, Thomson735. The Great Circle route is much simpler from there, goes over the Gulf.
30 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Maybe that is what the purpose of that huge 787 order is for....
31 Ksmd11 : BA used to fly to Perth daily via Singapore until around 4 years ago i think. BA011/12- I done it once. The flights were quiet between PER & SIN which
32 Gh123 : So the plane might be able to fly that far but what what about the other factors. If you have a plane with hundreds of passengers (thats going to fly
33 NAV20 : Times change, GH123. The first time I flew from Britain to Australia the first stop was Rome, the next was Beirut...........and I can still remember
34 Zvezda : Worse in what sense? As a commerically viable route? Sure, SYD-LHR would be better. AKL-LHR would be flown eastbound; SYD-LHR would be flown westboun
35 Ken777 : And that, I believe, is the real problem. It's like the Sonic Cruiser. When the SC was first presented we were in the Dot Com Boom and airlines were
36 PanAm747 : I had a thread on this topic a long time ago, and I suggested the same thing. My line of thinking was that connecting through Perth would enable QF to
37 ClassicLover : You have to remember that Perth is further away from SYD/MEL and BNE than those three cities are to New Zealand. Additionally, there isn't a hell of
38 StarGoldLHR : Dont forget just because most of the passengers are going from SYD to LHR, the freight doesnt have to. Stopover in SIN, HKG you can double the freight
39 PanAm747 : It might be a bit out of the way, but it is on the general route: SYD-PER: 1773 nm MEL-PER: 1461 nm PER-LHR: 7829 nm Total: 9602 nm and 9290 nm MEL-S
40 Dutchjet : The Perth-London idea, again! Flying between London and Sydney or Melbourne via Perth with a 777LR sounds like a great idea, but its a "non-starter"..
41 ClassicLover : I doubt the processing speed would be much different. Also, you have to remember that SIN, BKK and HKG are more exciting places to stop off for pax f
42 PanAm747 : I agree completely. Perth is always a possibility, but only if it can offer something the well-established hubs at SIN or BKK cannot. That's it in a
43 N1120A : You have to fly a return flight. When they introduced the routes, there were posts here about how they weren't carrying freight Worse as in distance
44 Zvezda : AKL-LHR would be flown eastbound in both directions. In terms of distance along the ground, you're right. In terms of still-air flight distance with
45 Antares : Zvezda, The seating configuration on the 777-200LRs was to be 202 seats, back when they were considered. The deal which didn't go ahead after too many
46 Post contains images Zvezda : All of that at lower operating cost. I agree with the rest of your post.
47 ANother : OK, I've got a question that hasn't been asked. I just flew LHR - SYD via BKK. We left LHR at 2200, flew for a few hours to BKK, had almost three hour
48 Zvezda : A flight could depart LHR at noon and arrive in SYD or MEL about 17:00 (depending on summer/winter times).
49 ANother : Ah, yes silly me.
50 Razza74 : HA what a joke, if you do not get the shuttle bus between the domestic and international terminals it will be a 12km taxi ride and hat will set you b
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Perth To London Non-stop? posted Thu Oct 16 2003 13:16:22 by Motorhussy
DL Putting Air Bags On 777LR posted Sat Nov 18 2006 04:38:09 by Belizexp
London ATC/Hold Or No Hold posted Wed Nov 15 2006 02:40:47 by P3Orion
Passenger Plane Escorted By Airforce Over London posted Mon Nov 13 2006 20:48:29 by OyKIE
757? Escorted Over North West London posted Sat Nov 11 2006 17:08:50 by LHRneighbour
El Al Israel Timbetable For Flights To London. posted Fri Nov 10 2006 01:54:32 by 8herveg
HK Air Firm 30 737/787; To Launch London Flight posted Thu Nov 2 2006 06:45:24 by Jimyvr
Osaka/Kobe Wants JetStar Fly Nonstop To Perth posted Thu Nov 2 2006 04:17:27 by Jimyvr
London Heathrow Terminal 5 posted Thu Oct 26 2006 03:05:30 by Anirudhvs
Press Release: DL Ordering 777LR posted Tue Oct 24 2006 20:59:12 by RwSEA