vikinga346
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:45 pm

777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:06 pm

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
 
Fly2CHC
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 10:35 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:13 pm

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.
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5182
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:58 pm

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.
 
vikinga346
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:45 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:11 pm

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
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:30 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23075
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:34 pm

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.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:36 pm

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
 
sk909
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:38 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:36 pm

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!
 
vikinga346
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:45 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:54 pm

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
 
gh123
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:09 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:08 pm

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)
 
Slovacek747
Posts: 634
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:10 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:20 pm

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

Slovacek747
 
vikinga346
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:45 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:22 pm

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
 
gh123
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:09 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:24 pm

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]
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:37 pm

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
 
vikinga346
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:45 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:17 am

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
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:41 am

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.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:38 pm

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
 
vikinga346
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:45 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:05 pm

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
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:43 pm

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"
 
vikinga346
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:45 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:12 pm

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
 
QantasA380
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:22 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:54 pm

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????
 
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:11 pm

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.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:02 pm

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
 
ComeAndGo
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:35 pm

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.
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5182
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:56 pm

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.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:59 pm

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 24):
The "ultra light" configuration is a commercial choice, not a technical obligation to make the distance...

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 westbounds.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
vikinga346
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:45 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:05 pm

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

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 make the plane lighter? Little cargo, that kind of thing?

Cheers
...you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you shall return
 
Razza74
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:17 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:41 pm

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 destination or Dubai as this allows for direct connection to your destination ie PER-SIN-AMS, who would want to backtrack via LHR.

Granted a great deal of people do travel to London but there are other locations in Europe which many airlines offer as one stop from PER.

LHR-PER would be convienient for those who require it and be a great marketing tool for British Airways, Qantas and Virgin as they would be the only carriers allowed to operate the service

What PER really needs is more local destinations in Asia and around the rim of the Indian Ocean

razza74
Ahh the joy of living under a flightpath
 
Thomson735
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:37 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:49 pm

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 stop ona plane no thanx i find 10 hrs hard enuf
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:05 pm

Quoting Thomson735 (Reply 28):
i herd BA would do LHR-PER non stop, but PER-LHR surely wudnt be possible?

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. From SYD or MEL it goes over Darwin and then over China and Manchuria.

But there probably aren't enough people travelling from Perth to justify buying four or six expensive aeroplanes. And Qantas remains a bit 'Sydney-centric' - if Sydney can't have it even Melbourne doesn't bloody get it, leave alone Brisbane or Perth.......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:20 pm

Quoting Razza74 (Reply 27):
What PER really needs is more local destinations in Asia and around the rim of the Indian Ocean

Maybe that is what the purpose of that huge 787 order is for.... Wink
"Up the Irons!"
 
ksmd11
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:19 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:07 pm

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 was probably the reason they ditched it. QF then offered a connection from SIN with a 767 when BA dropped the flight. There could be demand possibly 3/4 times a week as there is a very large ex pat population in PER but i wouldn't wanna do it non-stop personnally. Cheers

Kev
 
gh123
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:09 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:42 pm

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 near a 20 hour flight) where/how do you store all the food, water, toilet waste etc.

In fact, while I'm on the topic, could someone please explain to me about where all the waste goes on a modern aircraft. I've always wondered.

I'd like to think that whenever I have done my business over France, I've really done (and dropped) my business over France.

Thanks in advance.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:56 pm

Quoting Gh123 (Reply 33):
If you have a plane with hundreds of passengers (thats going to fly near a 20 hour flight) where/how do you store all the food, water, toilet waste etc.

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 when ALL flights from the UK to the USA refuelled at New York, the aeroplanes of the day simply couldn't go any further.

Also worth remembering that Australians, anyway, are already used to long flights. Melbourne-LAX is all of fourteen hours even now.

Personally, going to the UK or to the US East Coast (my two most frequent destinations) I'd jump at the chance of getting it all over in one hit. MEL-SIN-LHR tends to take all of 24 hours, and neither of the two legs give you a decent opportunity to sleep. MEL-LAX-JFK is similar. Non-stop time to either destination would be about 17 hours - and, given good timing and reasonable luck with your seat-neighbours, you could probably sleep a lot of that time anyway.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:14 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 22):
again, that is worse than just SYD-LHR

Worse in what sense? As a commerically viable route? Sure, SYD-LHR would be better.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 22):
What in the hell are you talking about? AKL-LHR is 800nm longer than SYD-LHR

AKL-LHR would be flown eastbound; SYD-LHR would be flown westbound. The prevailing winds are such that AKL-LHR requires less fuel with the same payload than SYD-LHR despite being farther.

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 24):
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.

Sorry, no, unless you mean the decision not to stop for fuel along the way is a commercial one.

Quoting Antares (Reply 29):
The guidance on freight on the A345 is that it regularly carries around two tonnes on both US routes and might go to four if they could actually find four tonnes someone wanted to fly in the reverse direction to most of the air freight consignments. However it was never clarified if the freight figure goes up because a pax load is down, and so forth, so it doesn't actually prove anything. Statements that it carries no freight are however factually wrong, and laughable in the context of airline operations, since managers will identify opportunities to carry freight in advance if at all possible.

I depends on the weather. On most days, EWR-SIN carries a few tonnes of cargo, but on some days it carries none.

Back to PER-LHR, if that will be flown it would be in a B787-8/9, not in a B777-200LR. The demand is not sufficient to fill the latter with high yields.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9046
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:11 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 6):
Qantas was thinking in terms of a mix of Business/'Executive Economy' at higher-than-average fares, rather than normal loads.

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 looking at charging a 15% premium for the faster flights. Then we had the Dot Com Bust, 9/11, SARS, etc and all of a sudden that premium looked very risky and the SC was changed to the 787. If the airline business hadn't been hit with all of these problems the SC wold be very close to EIS about now.

I believe that the premium fare risk may well impact the potential of non-stop SYD-LHR-SYD just as it did with the SC.
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:37 am

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 offer connections to all of Australia. Rather than going through a third country, connecting passengers from Perth would be able to fly "domestically" and not have to go through customs at their destination airport.

However, since many airlines offer competitive fares on this route AND it has been done for so long (facilitating transit passengers in the various stopover airports), a Perth connection would have to offer some sort of incentive not found on these other routes. Time saving? Ease of customs? Ultra-premium service?

Until then, the "Kangaroo Route" will probably remain as is.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:43 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 37):
My line of thinking was that connecting through Perth would enable QF to offer connections to all of Australia. Rather than going through a third country, connecting passengers from Perth would be able to fly "domestically" and not have to go through customs at their destination airport.

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 a lot in between.

The reason the flights go out of Sydney and Melbourne is because that is where most people want to be - the business travellers, the tourists - so it makes little sense on your argument to have everyone go through Perth.

Quoting Ksmd11 (Reply 32):
BA used to fly to Perth daily via Singapore until around 4 years ago i think

... as did they back in the 1980s with the BA9 (where part of the route was KUL-PER-SYD). There's a large British population in Perth so it makes a lot of sense. However, I am sure BA have their aircraft deployed on more profitable routes than Perth.
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
 
StarGoldLHR
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:29 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:09 am

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 revenue, as much of Asia is imported to/from both the UK and AU, and much less is shipped between the UK and AU.
So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:06 am

Quote:
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 a lot in between.

The reason the flights go out of Sydney and Melbourne is because that is where most people want to be - the business travellers, the tourists - so it makes little sense on your argument to have everyone go through Perth.

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-SIN: 3253 nm
SIN-LHR: 5879 nm

Total: 9132 nm (158 nm shorter)

SYD-SIN: 3395 nm
SIN-LHR: 5879 nm

Total: 9274 nm (328 nm shorter)

The crux of the argument I was originally making was that if the distances are similar, perhaps QF and BA could fly non-stop to Perth, and passengers go through customs there, and transfer to domestic services. IF the stopover could be minimized and save some time (I don't know the formalities of the Kangaroo Route third-country transits), then perhaps this might be a viable alternative. New Zealand and what covers most of Australia isn't relevant.

I also realize that most people are going to Sydney and Melbourne - but no matter what airline they fly, there is a stopover somewhere. If Perth can be a viable alternative because of processing speed, then logically it could be considered. Whether or not the cargo market as well as premium market are there is up to the airlines to decide.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:53 am

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".......there simply is not enough premium traffic between Perth and London to justify QF or another carrier to go out and buy a fleet of very expensive 772LRs. Qantas has a very successful hub operating at SIN and can already get you from London to any major city in Australia with one easy stop, QF can already get you from London to Sydney via several major Asian cities, Perth may be very slightly quicker, but its does not offer any real advantage as its still one stop between London and Sydney or Melbourne. And, there is far more premium traffic to go after on the LHR-HKG, LHR-BKK and LHR-HKG or LHR-SIN routes than there is between LHR and Perth. Perth is a beautiful and unique place, there is something that is so intriguing about its "isolated" location.....but its not a major financial center for Australia and the population cannot support nonstops (think premium traffic) to London.

The 772LR seems to have become an "all or nothing" deal for QF.....and the other carriers flying between London and Australia. If the 772LR cannot fly nonstop year round in both directions between London and Sydney or Melbourne with a reasonable payload, the airlines are not buying. The real money to be made on the Kanagroo route is between London and the these two Australian cities.....thats were the business and premium traffic is, and those are the only routes that justify the the investment required in the 772LR. Perth is nice, and the idea is interesting, but its not the answer to the 772LR/Europe-Australia issue. If and when Boeing can further push the performance of the 772LR....QF will be more than willing to take another look at the 772LR.

[Edited 2006-10-19 00:23:03]
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:57 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 40):
If Perth can be a viable alternative because of processing speed, then logically it could be considered

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 from either end for a couple of days shopping and sightseeing than Perth.

Additionally, the three cities also offer heaps of other international city connections (eg: QFs codeshare with AF from SIN-CDG) that Perth just doesn't have.
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:06 am

Quote:
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 from either end for a couple of days shopping and sightseeing than Perth.

Additionally, the three cities also offer heaps of other international city connections (eg: QFs codeshare with AF from SIN-CDG) that Perth just doesn't have.

I agree completely. Perth is always a possibility, but only if it can offer something the well-established hubs at SIN or BKK cannot.

Quote:
If the 772LR cannot fly nonstop year round in both directions between London and Sydney or Melbourne with a reasonable payload, the airlines are not buying.

That's it in a nutshell!! Excellent example.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:33 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 35):
AKL-LHR would be flown eastbound; SYD-LHR would be flown westbound. The prevailing winds are such that AKL-LHR requires less fuel with the same payload than SYD-LHR despite being farther.

You have to fly a return flight.

Quoting Antares (Reply 29):
Statements that it carries no freight are however factually wrong

When they introduced the routes, there were posts here about how they weren't carrying freight

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 35):
Worse in what sense? As a commerically viable route? Sure, SYD-LHR would be better.

Worse as in distance
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:49 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 44):
You have to fly a return flight.

AKL-LHR would be flown eastbound in both directions.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 44):
Worse as in distance

In terms of distance along the ground, you're right. In terms of still-air flight distance with either worst-case or typical-case winds, AKL-LHR and LHR-AKL are both shorter than SYD-LHR.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 44):
When they introduced the routes, there were posts here about how they weren't carrying freight

Your main point that SQ's A340-500s had to be configured with only 181 seats in order to make EWR-SIN nonstop was correct. When the winds are favorable, they carry a few tonnes of freight. So what? They need to be able to fly even when the winds are not favorable, which requires few seats.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:50 pm

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 direct flights to China came into frame to reduce demand for Singapore non-stops to around the current capacity was to fly the Boeing without auxiliary tanks, which produced about the same practicable range although with more seats.

The significant benefit of the Boeing was an extra 21 seats, including 8 in first. The actual total may have changed a little toward the end, I'm referring to advice given in 2004. The E-economy product was to be eight across not seven across in the Airbus. But had SIA waited even two years for the Boeing to be available they might have reconsidered the commercial merits of the services in the light of a shift of high yield time sensitive travel more to China, less to Singapore. This drift was never quantified, and it wasn't discussed in detail but it is there, and took the routes into slightly negative territory from early 2005.

If the demand for these services continues to support around 180 seats we might anticipate a configuration in a 787 or should it come to pass, an A350 of similar generosity in terms of space, if not better, but we will be four or more years older before it happens.

Antares
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:36 pm

Quoting Antares (Reply 46):
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 direct flights to China came into frame to reduce demand for Singapore non-stops to around the current capacity was to fly the Boeing without auxiliary tanks, which produced about the same practicable range although with more seats.

The significant benefit of the Boeing was an extra 21 seats, including 8 in first.

All of that at lower operating cost.  Smile I agree with the rest of your post.
 
ANother
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:47 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:48 pm

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 hours on the ground at BKK, kept going and arrived in SYD at 0630ish. OK - the ground time in BKK was so we didn't arrive before the 0600 curfew at SYD.

It seems to me that a flight leaving LHR two hours later at one minute to midnight (to beat the LHR curfew) - nonstop to SYD would arrive (well) before the 0600 curfew at SYD. In the Northern Winter it gets worse by two hours as the clock changes.

Without an exception to curfew rules (Ya right!) it doesn't seem possible.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:02 pm

Quoting ANother (Reply 48):
Without an exception to curfew rules (Ya right!) it doesn't seem possible.

A flight could depart LHR at noon and arrive in SYD or MEL about 17:00 (depending on summer/winter times).
 
ANother
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:47 am

RE: 777LR Perth-London?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:27 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 49):
A flight could depart LHR at noon and arrive in SYD or MEL about 17:00 (depending on summer/winter times).

Ah, yes silly me.

Who is online