qf2220 wrote:

Based on previous posts, aren't the original 12 more or less allocated as below? SYD and MEL both getting LHR and JFK services?

2- SYD-LHR
2- SYD-JFK
2- MEL-LHR
2- MEL-JFK
2- SYD-DFW
2- MEL-DFW

It was mentioned last year that Qantas is planning on upgrading PER-LHR to A350 in 2026

I would think 12 A350's would be able to operate 5 routes, thats presuming that they are all daily. Its unclear how the slots will work at LHR considering when they operated before they had 3 early morning arrivals and 1 lunchtime arrival and 3 evening departures with 1 lunch time departure. If that is still applicable its less likely SYD-LHR, MEL-LHR and PER-LHR can use 6 frames

ZK-NBT wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Based on previous posts, aren't the original 12 more or less allocated as below? SYD and MEL both getting LHR and JFK services?

2- SYD-LHR
2- SYD-JFK
2- MEL-LHR
2- MEL-JFK
2- SYD-DFW
2- MEL-DFW

Nothing has been actually confirmed in schedules, however SYD has been nominated for LHR/JFK, while MEL services seem more speculative

I could see SYD-ORD, DFW will go 35K at some point I’m sure, not sure on MEL-JFK yet.

No. Joyce has been quoted as saying that the A350 will also be on PER-LHR - https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... nrise-a350 - along with SYD and MEL to LHR. That actually makes alot of sense to standardise the product into LHR into just A380 and A350.

So I'd say you will see SYD / MEL / PER - LHR and SYD / MEL - JFK as the initial batch of routes with spare A350's going up to SIN or HKG in the same way the A380 used to. That frees up the PER-LHR 789's to bring them back to the East Coast or it allows for PER - Europe services.

a320fan wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Refuelers at MEL will be going on 24 hr strike on Wednesday, it seems that it will effect QF flights both domestic and international

https://twitter.com/sunriseon7/status/1 ... 16192?s=20

Probably a lot of tankering going on, will likely affect internationals and longer domestic flights more than golden triangle and other shorter flights.

Expect for a lot of MLW landings tomorrow evening and on Wednesday lol

I see SYD-CDG or SYD-FRA before MEL-JFK.

Sydscott wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

Nothing has been actually confirmed in schedules, however SYD has been nominated for LHR/JFK, while MEL services seem more speculative

I could see SYD-ORD, DFW will go 35K at some point I’m sure, not sure on MEL-JFK yet.

No. Joyce has been quoted as saying that the A350 will also be on PER-LHR - https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... nrise-a350 - along with SYD and MEL to LHR. That actually makes alot of sense to standardise the product into LHR into just A380 and A350.

So I'd say you will see SYD / MEL / PER - LHR and SYD / MEL - JFK as the initial batch of routes with spare A350's going up to SIN or HKG in the same way the A380 used to. That frees up the PER-LHR 789's to bring them back to the East Coast or it allows for PER - Europe services.

Yes forgot about PER-LHR, so SYD/MEL/PER-LHR, SYD-JFK, SYD-ORD.

What's the advantage of flying the A350 over the 789 to DFW ? They are configure similarly, without F on the 789 of course, but other than that, I just don't see any advantage. The addition of MEL/DFW would also lessen any need of putting a A350 on the route, just seems like a waste in the current proposed configuration.

Also, I would've thought that any F passengers would be more likely heading to JFK and going on the non stop rather than through DFW.

LTEN11 wrote:

What's the advantage of flying the A350 over the 789 to DFW ? They are configure similarly, without F on the 789 of course, but other than that, I just don't see any advantage. The addition of MEL/DFW would also lessen any need of putting a A350 on the route, just seems like a waste in the current proposed configuration.

Also, I would've thought that any F passengers would be more likely heading to JFK and going on the non stop rather than through DFW.

Why would those in F be heading to JFK via DFW? Of course those going to JFK would go on the non stop. They could be going anywhere. I gather F sold quite well when the A380 was on SYD-DFW? No idea where those in F were actually going.

MEL-JFK is interesting, Joyce has said AKL-JFK will stick around, I’m not so sure, if they add MEL-JFK I can’t see AKL-JFK staying, if they don’t do MEL then perhaps traffic outside SYD will be funnelled through AKL.

qf2220 wrote:

Based on previous posts, aren't the original 12 more or less allocated as below? SYD and MEL both getting LHR and JFK services?

2- SYD-LHR
2- SYD-JFK
2- MEL-LHR
2- MEL-JFK
2- SYD-DFW
2- MEL-DFW

I doubt we’ll see the A350 on SYD/MEL-DFW. QF will most likely have SYD/MEL/PER-LHR, SYD-JFK freeing up B789’s which allows MEL-DFW daily services, & bring back SYD-SFO daily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Based on previous posts, aren't the original 12 more or less allocated as below? SYD and MEL both getting LHR and JFK services?

2- SYD-LHR
2- SYD-JFK
2- MEL-LHR
2- MEL-JFK
2- SYD-DFW
2- MEL-DFW

I doubt we’ll see the A350 on SYD/MEL-DFW. QF will most likely have SYD/MEL/PER-LHR, SYD-JFK freeing up B789’s which allows MEL-DFW daily services, & bring back SYD-SFO daily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where do you think the freed up 789s from MEL-LAX later this year will go once A380s are back? BNE-ORD? More MEL-DFW or SYD-SCL, AKL-JFK.

Where do you think the freed up 789s from MEL-LAX later this year will go once A380s are back? BNE-ORD? More MEL-DFW or SYD-SCL, AKL-JFK.

I'm booked MEL-SIN on 10/10 this is showing as a 789, but chances are it will be put back to yet another 333 closer to

AN767

ZK-NBT wrote:

EK413 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Based on previous posts, aren't the original 12 more or less allocated as below? SYD and MEL both getting LHR and JFK services?

2- SYD-LHR
2- SYD-JFK
2- MEL-LHR
2- MEL-JFK
2- SYD-DFW
2- MEL-DFW

I doubt we’ll see the A350 on SYD/MEL-DFW. QF will most likely have SYD/MEL/PER-LHR, SYD-JFK freeing up B789’s which allows MEL-DFW daily services, & bring back SYD-SFO daily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where do you think the freed up 789s from MEL-LAX later this year will go once A380s are back? BNE-ORD? More MEL-DFW or SYD-SCL, AKL-JFK.

The freed up B789’s will allow resumption of SYD-SFO, possibly the long awaited BNE-ORD. The introduction of SYD-AKL-JFK is made possible with the 3 x B789’s scheduled for delivery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These are all very hypothetical, by the time the 35Ks arrive in 2026, who knows where the fuel price will be and what the economics of such routes will look like. The higher the fuel price climbs the less viable these routes become.

jrfspa320 wrote:

These are all very hypothetical, by the time the 35Ks arrive in 2026, who knows where the fuel price will be and what the economics of such routes will look like. The higher the fuel price climbs the less viable these routes become.

Exactly.

However, there is no way that these flights won't start, that would be too embarrassing to the airline and Joyce in particular. They've built up so much hype over this, that to pull out of doing it, no matter how rational such a decision might be, just isn't in the equation.

EK413 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

EK413 wrote:

I doubt we’ll see the A350 on SYD/MEL-DFW. QF will most likely have SYD/MEL/PER-LHR, SYD-JFK freeing up B789’s which allows MEL-DFW daily services, & bring back SYD-SFO daily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where do you think the freed up 789s from MEL-LAX later this year will go once A380s are back? BNE-ORD? More MEL-DFW or SYD-SCL, AKL-JFK.

The freed up B789’s will allow resumption of SYD-SFO, possibly the long awaited BNE-ORD. The introduction of SYD-AKL-JFK is made possible with the 3 x B789’s scheduled for delivery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hence I said more AKL-JFK, SYD-SFO starts in June, well hopefully it’s been pushed back about 6 times.

ZK-NBT wrote:

EK413 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Where do you think the freed up 789s from MEL-LAX later this year will go once A380s are back? BNE-ORD? More MEL-DFW or SYD-SCL, AKL-JFK.

The freed up B789’s will allow resumption of SYD-SFO, possibly the long awaited BNE-ORD. The introduction of SYD-AKL-JFK is made possible with the 3 x B789’s scheduled for delivery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hence I said more AKL-JFK, SYD-SFO starts in June, well hopefully it’s been pushed back about 6 times.

I was responding to another post claiming the A350’s will go onto MEL-DFW.

My money is on BNE-ORD commencing / being announced soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

EK413 wrote:

The freed up B789’s will allow resumption of SYD-SFO, possibly the long awaited BNE-ORD. The introduction of SYD-AKL-JFK is made possible with the 3 x B789’s scheduled for delivery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hence I said more AKL-JFK, SYD-SFO starts in June, well hopefully it’s been pushed back about 6 times.

I was responding to another post claiming the A350’s will go onto MEL-DFW.

My money is on BNE-ORD commencing / being announced soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe it’s not what you were meaning and I’ve just read it wrong but I don’t see BNE-ORD happening with an a350/sunrise. They’ll use a 789 or it will be SYD-ORD on a 350.

a320fan wrote:

EK413 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Hence I said more AKL-JFK, SYD-SFO starts in June, well hopefully it’s been pushed back about 6 times.

I was responding to another post claiming the A350’s will go onto MEL-DFW.

My money is on BNE-ORD commencing / being announced soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe it’s not what you were meaning and I’ve just read it wrong but I don’t see BNE-ORD happening with an a350/sunrise. They’ll use a 789 or it will be SYD-ORD on a 350.

Misinterpreted what I was saying…

A350’s
SYD/MEL/PER-LHR, SYD-JFK & not to say there won’t be other A350 routes, however these are the routes AJ quoted as initial A350 routes.

B789’s
BNE-ORD, SYD-SFO, PER-FCO, SYD-SCL (daily), SYD/MEL-DFW (daily) just to name a few possible routes and ramp of current routes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

A350’s
SYD/MEL/PER-LHR, SYD-JFK & not to say there won’t be other A350 routes, however these are the routes AJ quoted as initial A350 routes.

That only accounts for about 8 frames though (9 if one is permanently held as an operational spare), so there must be more on their mind. I cant see these first ones being used to Asia all that much and not taking advantage of the ULH capability.

qf2220 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

A350’s
SYD/MEL/PER-LHR, SYD-JFK & not to say there won’t be other A350 routes, however these are the routes AJ quoted as initial A350 routes.

That only accounts for about 8 frames though (9 if one is permanently held as an operational spare), so there must be more on their mind. I cant see these first ones being used to Asia all that much and not taking advantage of the ULH capability.

That will be at least 9, PER-LHR can be done with 2 frames if the aircraft turns in PER and they rotate then at LHR, SYD/MEL will be I would imagine something like

SYD 1900 LHR 0600
LHR 1200 SYD 1700

May just be doable with 2 frames. I would think SYD-SIN-LHR would keep the current schedule so use the third morning slot at LHR. PER might need to change to a 0200 departure or so ex PER to use the lunch time arrive at LHR

PER 0200 LHR 1200
LHR 2200 PER 2300

Interesting times. May just fit with 8 for 3x LHR and SYD-JFK though what I just wrote doesn’t allow the 350 to rotate at LHR as PER will arrive after SYD/MEL depart and SIN-LHR will be an A380 for a while.

ZK-NBT wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

A350’s
SYD/MEL/PER-LHR, SYD-JFK & not to say there won’t be other A350 routes, however these are the routes AJ quoted as initial A350 routes.

That only accounts for about 8 frames though (9 if one is permanently held as an operational spare), so there must be more on their mind. I cant see these first ones being used to Asia all that much and not taking advantage of the ULH capability.

That will be at least 9, PER-LHR can be done with 2 frames if the aircraft turns in PER and they rotate then at LHR, SYD/MEL will be I would imagine something like

SYD 1900 LHR 0600
LHR 1200 SYD 1700

May just be doable with 2 frames. I would think SYD-SIN-LHR would keep the current schedule so use the third morning slot at LHR. PER might need to change to a 0200 departure or so ex PER to use the lunch time arrive at LHR

PER 0200 LHR 1200
LHR 2200 PER 2300

Interesting times. May just fit with 8 for 3x LHR and SYD-JFK though what I just wrote doesn’t allow the 350 to rotate at LHR as PER will arrive after SYD/MEL depart and SIN-LHR will be an A380 for a while.

I would imagine the current PER-LHR flight times will remain. RE the slot times at LHR, i would imagine QF could work out a slot swap with BA

ZK-NBT wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

A350’s
SYD/MEL/PER-LHR, SYD-JFK & not to say there won’t be other A350 routes, however these are the routes AJ quoted as initial A350 routes.

That only accounts for about 8 frames though (9 if one is permanently held as an operational spare), so there must be more on their mind. I cant see these first ones being used to Asia all that much and not taking advantage of the ULH capability.

That will be at least 9, PER-LHR can be done with 2 frames if the aircraft turns in PER and they rotate then at LHR, SYD/MEL will be I would imagine something like

SYD 1900 LHR 0600
LHR 1200 SYD 1700

May just be doable with 2 frames. I would think SYD-SIN-LHR would keep the current schedule so use the third morning slot at LHR. PER might need to change to a 0200 departure or so ex PER to use the lunch time arrive at LHR

PER 0200 LHR 1200
LHR 2200 PER 2300

Interesting times. May just fit with 8 for 3x LHR and SYD-JFK though what I just wrote doesn’t allow the 350 to rotate at LHR as PER will arrive after SYD/MEL depart and SIN-LHR will be an A380 for a while.

I personally see QF9/10 keeping the same timings and MEL-LHR being the following

MEL 2359 LHR 1200
LHR 2300 MEL 0430

getluv wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

That only accounts for about 8 frames though (9 if one is permanently held as an operational spare), so there must be more on their mind. I cant see these first ones being used to Asia all that much and not taking advantage of the ULH capability.

That will be at least 9, PER-LHR can be done with 2 frames if the aircraft turns in PER and they rotate then at LHR, SYD/MEL will be I would imagine something like

SYD 1900 LHR 0600
LHR 1200 SYD 1700

May just be doable with 2 frames. I would think SYD-SIN-LHR would keep the current schedule so use the third morning slot at LHR. PER might need to change to a 0200 departure or so ex PER to use the lunch time arrive at LHR

PER 0200 LHR 1200
LHR 2200 PER 2300

Interesting times. May just fit with 8 for 3x LHR and SYD-JFK though what I just wrote doesn’t allow the 350 to rotate at LHR as PER will arrive after SYD/MEL depart and SIN-LHR will be an A380 for a while.

I personally see QF9/10 keeping the same timings and MEL-LHR being the following

MEL 2359 LHR 1200
LHR 2300 MEL 0430

I think that makes more sense than a 0200 departure from Perth. The current dinner departure is lovely… not that I am going to take the QF9 again until the prices get back to normal.

Qantas has sent an A380 to MEL to be used as a tanker to accommodate other planes during tomorrow's strike

https://twitter.com/BlakeJohnson/status ... 09664?s=20

ZK-NBT wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

What's the advantage of flying the A350 over the 789 to DFW ? They are configure similarly, without F on the 789 of course, but other than that, I just don't see any advantage. The addition of MEL/DFW would also lessen any need of putting a A350 on the route, just seems like a waste in the current proposed configuration.

Also, I would've thought that any F passengers would be more likely heading to JFK and going on the non stop rather than through DFW.

Why would those in F be heading to JFK via DFW? Of course those going to JFK would go on the non stop. They could be going anywhere. I gather F sold quite well when the A380 was on SYD-DFW? No idea where those in F were actually going.

MEL-JFK is interesting, Joyce has said AKL-JFK will stick around, I’m not so sure, if they add MEL-JFK I can’t see AKL-JFK staying, if they don’t do MEL then perhaps traffic outside SYD will be funnelled through AKL.

AJ/QF were on record stating they would want to maximise their premium yields on SYD-JFK. Even if they do eventually launch MEL to JFK, they won't want any low yield/budget travellers from any Queensland International Airport (BNE, CNS, OOL) or other Australian states on the JFK non-stops. Hence the AKL service used a funnel point for the other states/lower yielding travellers.

Jetstar did a very short flight for just 9 mins. Flying from MEL to AVV it even took 50 passengers. The A321 LR was sent for the Airshow.

https://simpleflying.com/jetstar-airbus ... te-flight/

Even though QF announced the extra A220’s last month they are not firm In Airbus books yet, hopefully they will be firmed this month

https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jl ... craft.xlsx

SCFlyer wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

What's the advantage of flying the A350 over the 789 to DFW ? They are configure similarly, without F on the 789 of course, but other than that, I just don't see any advantage. The addition of MEL/DFW would also lessen any need of putting a A350 on the route, just seems like a waste in the current proposed configuration.

Also, I would've thought that any F passengers would be more likely heading to JFK and going on the non stop rather than through DFW.

Why would those in F be heading to JFK via DFW? Of course those going to JFK would go on the non stop. They could be going anywhere. I gather F sold quite well when the A380 was on SYD-DFW? No idea where those in F were actually going.

MEL-JFK is interesting, Joyce has said AKL-JFK will stick around, I’m not so sure, if they add MEL-JFK I can’t see AKL-JFK staying, if they don’t do MEL then perhaps traffic outside SYD will be funnelled through AKL.

AJ/QF were on record stating they would want to maximise their premium yields on SYD-JFK. Even if they do eventually launch MEL to JFK, they won't want any low yield/budget travellers from any Queensland International Airport (BNE, CNS, OOL) or other Australian states on the JFK non-stops. Hence the AKL service used a funnel point for the other states/lower yielding travellers.

Even the current 789s are not configured for lower yielding pax. QF's 789s, in their current configuration, are amongst the most premium heavy of any airline. For lower yielding pax heading to the US east coast, QF will still more likely prefer them flying on an A380 to LAX and then transferring to Oneworld partners AA or AS for the transcontinental flight.

qf789 wrote:

Even though QF announced the extra A220’s last month they are not firm In Airbus books yet, hopefully they will be firmed this month

https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jl ... craft.xlsx

Interesting! And then one a month for next few years?

I'm curious as well - what will happen with the options for E190 lease, have never heard of leases talked about in the context of options. Do QF have any more due to start coming onboard soon, or have they reached their current lease agreement? Such an interesting operation!

The Australian (paywall) is reporting that ACCC has reported that Qantas is Australia's most complained about company with complaints up 68% to 1740 in 2021/22. In the same period JQ was down 33% to 544 and VA down 68% to 359.

After their performance over the past few months, I'm sure JQ will jump up the leaderboard in 2022/23

getluv wrote:

I personally see QF9/10 keeping the same timings and MEL-LHR being the following

MEL 2359 LHR 1200
LHR 2300 MEL 0430

That would be a Northern Summer schedule (AEST, BST), during Northern Winter (AEDT, GMT) they would arrive 2 hours earlier. 10:00 should be easier to find than another 06:00 slot, but would still be harder to come across than 12:00/early afternoon.

The upshot is that it would also arrive in Melbourne 2 hours later during NS, at a more respectable time around/after 06:00.

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has sent an A380 to MEL to be used as a tanker to accommodate other planes during tomorrow's strike

https://twitter.com/BlakeJohnson/status ... 09664?s=20

How does this help? All the fuel is piped to the airport already, but doesn't someone still have to do the refueling?

ZK-NBT wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

A350’s
SYD/MEL/PER-LHR, SYD-JFK & not to say there won’t be other A350 routes, however these are the routes AJ quoted as initial A350 routes.

That only accounts for about 8 frames though (9 if one is permanently held as an operational spare), so there must be more on their mind. I cant see these first ones being used to Asia all that much and not taking advantage of the ULH capability.

That will be at least 9, PER-LHR can be done with 2 frames if the aircraft turns in PER and they rotate then at LHR, SYD/MEL will be I would imagine something like

SYD 1900 LHR 0600
LHR 1200 SYD 1700

May just be doable with 2 frames. I would think SYD-SIN-LHR would keep the current schedule so use the third morning slot at LHR. PER might need to change to a 0200 departure or so ex PER to use the lunch time arrive at LHR

PER 0200 LHR 1200
LHR 2200 PER 2300

Interesting times. May just fit with 8 for 3x LHR and SYD-JFK though what I just wrote doesn’t allow the 350 to rotate at LHR as PER will arrive after SYD/MEL depart and SIN-LHR will be an A380 for a while.

Probably most feasible destination which warrant the A350’s range would be a South American destination considering? LA is no longer in OW, do QF/LA have any interline agreements since DL stake / takeover of LA even though QR have their finger on the pie too.

AJ has indicated further expansion into Europe FRA / BER / CDG perhaps?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

That only accounts for about 8 frames though (9 if one is permanently held as an operational spare), so there must be more on their mind. I cant see these first ones being used to Asia all that much and not taking advantage of the ULH capability.

That will be at least 9, PER-LHR can be done with 2 frames if the aircraft turns in PER and they rotate then at LHR, SYD/MEL will be I would imagine something like

SYD 1900 LHR 0600
LHR 1200 SYD 1700

May just be doable with 2 frames. I would think SYD-SIN-LHR would keep the current schedule so use the third morning slot at LHR. PER might need to change to a 0200 departure or so ex PER to use the lunch time arrive at LHR

PER 0200 LHR 1200
LHR 2200 PER 2300

Interesting times. May just fit with 8 for 3x LHR and SYD-JFK though what I just wrote doesn’t allow the 350 to rotate at LHR as PER will arrive after SYD/MEL depart and SIN-LHR will be an A380 for a while.

Probably most feasible destination which warrant the A350’s range would be a South American destination considering? LA is no longer in OW, do QF/LA have any interline agreements since DL stake / takeover of LA even though QR have their finger on the pie too.

If you go to book on qantas.com depending on the day of tje week you could be on LA SYD-AKL-SCL or MEL-SCL with a QF flight number.

If anywhere was going to be added on QF metal, my guess (based on zero data by the way) would be SYD-GRU ... if they can reach that far.

ABpositive wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has sent an A380 to MEL to be used as a tanker to accommodate other planes during tomorrow's strike

https://twitter.com/BlakeJohnson/status ... 09664?s=20

How does this help? All the fuel is piped to the airport already, but doesn't someone still have to do the refueling?

They did it AKL before - it’s slow but some how they hook the two aircraft up together - I assume engineering for this, and not a refuelling provider.

Any info on how Bonza is going? Haven't heard much about them at all since the launch.

tullamarine wrote:

Even the current 789s are not configured for lower yielding pax. QF's 789s, in their current configuration, are amongst the most premium heavy of any airline. For lower yielding pax heading to the US east coast, QF will still more likely prefer them flying on an A380 to LAX and then transferring to Oneworld partners AA or AS for the transcontinental flight.

Way i see it there would be three tiers of traffic to the US.

Ultrapremium - A350 ex SYD to JFK (possibly ex MEL to JFK and others)
Premium - 789 ex AKL to JFK, 789 ex SYD/MEL to DFW, 789 ex SYD to SFO, possibly 789 ex BNE to LAX (if not A330), and possibly 789 to ORD.
Normal - A380 ex SYD to LAX, A330 ex BNE to LAX 789 ex MEL to LAX (tho id wonder if A380 might work here too), feeding into the AA network.

qf2220 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Even the current 789s are not configured for lower yielding pax. QF's 789s, in their current configuration, are amongst the most premium heavy of any airline. For lower yielding pax heading to the US east coast, QF will still more likely prefer them flying on an A380 to LAX and then transferring to Oneworld partners AA or AS for the transcontinental flight.

Way i see it there would be three tiers of traffic to the US.

Ultrapremium - A350 ex SYD to JFK (possibly ex MEL to JFK and others)
Premium - 789 ex AKL to JFK, 789 ex SYD/MEL to DFW, 789 ex SYD to SFO, possibly 789 to ORD.
Normal - A380 ex SYD to LAX, 789 ex MEL to LAX (tho id wonder if A380 might work here too)

The 789 can’t do SYD-ORD hence the talk of BNE -ORD, I could see an A350 SYD-ORD. A380 will be back in MEL-LAX, should be this year.

qf2220 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Even the current 789s are not configured for lower yielding pax. QF's 789s, in their current configuration, are amongst the most premium heavy of any airline. For lower yielding pax heading to the US east coast, QF will still more likely prefer them flying on an A380 to LAX and then transferring to Oneworld partners AA or AS for the transcontinental flight.

Way i see it there would be three tiers of traffic to the US.

Ultrapremium - A350 ex SYD to JFK (possibly ex MEL to JFK and others)
Premium - 789 ex AKL to JFK, 789 ex SYD/MEL to DFW, 789 ex SYD to SFO, possibly 789 ex BNE to LAX (if not A330), and possibly 789 to ORD.
Normal - A380 ex SYD to LAX, A330 ex BNE to LAX 789 ex MEL to LAX (tho id wonder if A380 might work here too), feeding into the AA network.

That does make sense for a lot of circumstances, but I'm starting to wonder how Premium/Ultra Premium that QF can be. This is why I've been thinking a forthcoming strategy from QF is to remain heavy premium and replace the existing B789's with an A359 in a 3 class layout (Y/Y+ or W/J) for routes like BNE-LAX, BNE-ORD, SYD/MEL-SFO, PER-JNB, PER-CPT.
I could see JQ ditching the B788 to be replaced by QF B789s in a 3 class layout: (Y/Y+/"J") - existing LCC economy seating, economy plus/pseudo premium econ' with like a 32/33" seat pitch at 8 abreast (2-4-2), followed by a pseudo or old school business with a 38" seat pitch in 2-2-2.

Just a thought,
Cheers

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Even the current 789s are not configured for lower yielding pax. QF's 789s, in their current configuration, are amongst the most premium heavy of any airline. For lower yielding pax heading to the US east coast, QF will still more likely prefer them flying on an A380 to LAX and then transferring to Oneworld partners AA or AS for the transcontinental flight.

Way i see it there would be three tiers of traffic to the US.

Ultrapremium - A350 ex SYD to JFK (possibly ex MEL to JFK and others)
Premium - 789 ex AKL to JFK, 789 ex SYD/MEL to DFW, 789 ex SYD to SFO, possibly 789 ex BNE to LAX (if not A330), and possibly 789 to ORD.
Normal - A380 ex SYD to LAX, A330 ex BNE to LAX 789 ex MEL to LAX (tho id wonder if A380 might work here too), feeding into the AA network.

That does make sense for a lot of circumstances, but I'm starting to wonder how Premium/Ultra Premium that QF can be. This is why I've been thinking a forthcoming strategy from QF is to remain heavy premium and replace the existing B789's with an A359 in a 3 class layout (Y/Y+ or W/J) for routes like BNE-LAX, BNE-ORD, SYD/MEL-SFO, PER-JNB, PER-CPT.
I could see JQ ditching the B788 to be replaced by QF B789s in a 3 class layout: (Y/Y+/"J") - existing LCC economy seating, economy plus/pseudo premium econ' with like a 32/33" seat pitch at 8 abreast (2-4-2), followed by a pseudo or old school business with a 38" seat pitch in 2-2-2.

Just a thought,
Cheers

I have a feeling that the JQ 788’s will be gone from the fleet and they will solely use A321LR/XLR and some routes will be transferred to QF, any route that can’t be operated viably by QF will probably get axed.

I see MEL-BKK being transferred to QF, it seems QF is building their Asian network out of MEL again (SIN, HKG, HND, DEL, DPS, CGK) and it makes sense for BKK to be served by mainline.

ben175 wrote:

Any info on how Bonza is going? Haven't heard much about them at all since the launch.

Operationally, quite good, with on time performance within 15min near 100% from what I can tell. To be fair they do have plenty of spare aircraft ready to go if needed!.Their staggered start to operations has been rather smart, which I assume has allowed them to scale up and train teams in a controlled manner. So far MCY-TSV,AVV,MKY and PPP and TSV- ROK are in operation.

From what I understand, loads have been strong MCY-TSV and MCY-AVV, with the other routes also doing quite well. Looking at their app and available seats I can ascertain that many routes for easter are booked heavily, with routes like MCY-CNS , NTL-PPP and MCY-ABX looking very positive.

I've flown them once already and can say very impressed by the service. Super friendly staff and their modern interiors beat anything QF or VA currently offer. New aircraft smell and proper power ports on each seat. Decent on board menu too..

My take is that if they can keep prices low and ensure that their first 6 months of operations don't result in much poor media (which can really subdue a new airline in AU as we know), they will do well. Sure, some routes may be just too thin to work, but the trial and error method isn't a bad one if you have some funding behind you which it seems they do?

Yeah QF really need to get some less premium heavy 787’s or A350’s… they’ve really lost international market share over the decades and I feel that a huge chunk of that is due to their fleet being made up of aircraft either being too big (A380/747) or not having enough range (A330)

Whilst airlines like Cathay, EK, BA etc. have moved on, introducing newer aircraft types and modern cabin designs and great service, QF has stayed behind, and it has resulted in them losing some of their share in the market, in which I believe they can win back if only they spend the money. I've never understood why they wait so long to receive new aircraft types. They ordered the A320neo in 2011, and yet the first one is due to be here in 2024/2025. I know that they like new to 'prove themselves', but imo they watch and wait for too long.

I think being premium heavy is a point of difference for QF and they probably realised this when the 787s were launched. Hence, Sunrise.

They’ll never be able to compete on price not do they really try to especially when they have a QFF base that are addicted to points and status.

One thing QF has got going for them is that they never have trouble filling their premium cabins, even with their markups. And it’s no wonder their A380 cabin refit was solely focussed on increasing the real estate for their premium cabins in J and W.

I would argue the A333s only having 28J seats is leaving money on the table, when they could have easily pushed it up to 45J and had no issues. Premium cabins are also resistant to macroeconomic downturns.

While their competitors may have a better hard and soft product and at much cheaper prices, there is a perceived exclusivity people feel when flying QF. It sounds outrageous but it’s there. And it’s why I think all their dual aisle aircraft going forward will have at least 30% of real estate dedicated to premium cabins.

[twoid][/twoid]

YSSYplanespoter wrote:

Whilst airlines like Cathay, EK, BA etc. have moved on, introducing newer aircraft types and modern cabin designs and great service, QF has stayed behind, and it has resulted in them losing some of their share in the market, in which I believe they can win back if only they spend the money. I've never understood why they wait so long to receive new aircraft types. They ordered the A320neo in 2011, and yet the first one is due to be here in 2024/2025. I know that they like new to 'prove themselves', but imo they watch and wait for too long.

Interesting few examples of airlines there that you think have left Qantas behind with their newer aircraft types and modern cabin designs.
-It's been 15 years since EK introduced a new aircraft type, and the archaic business hard product on half their fleet is arguably the worst of any major airline.
-Cathay's cabins haven't changed much since they introduced their current business seat over 10 years ago.
-I've always had a soft spot for BA's old club world seats, but I was certainly in the minority and even now only a fraction of their fleet has their new product.

I've flown all of the above airlines' long haul business products multiple times with the exception of the new BA seat, and I'd put Qantas and Cathay fairly close together in overall quality, and both miles ahead of the other two. Qantas has a great product, which is uniform across their whole fleet (with the exception of maybe one or two A380s), has invested a lot into their now excellent international lounges and I always seem to have good on board crews. Qantas don't have enough planes right now, but that's the only thing I see as hurting their market share right now, and based on their very high prices enough people are still buying seats to maintain some great yields.

ABpositive wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has sent an A380 to MEL to be used as a tanker to accommodate other planes during tomorrow's strike

https://twitter.com/BlakeJohnson/status ... 09664?s=20

How does this help? All the fuel is piped to the airport already, but doesn't someone still have to do the refueling?

I was thinking this too. There's plenty of fuel at the airport, getting it onto the planes is the hard part with the strike!

FYI not all of MEL's fuel is piped to the airport, the pipeline doesn't have nearly enough capacity and a significant amount is taken via road to the JUHI facility, which is just east of the terminal precinct.

smi0006 wrote:

They did it AKL before - it’s slow but some how they hook the two aircraft up together - I assume engineering for this, and not a refuelling provider.

I'd be interested to know more about how they do this, I'm assuming engineering staff wouldn't be qualified to use the equipment that the refuellers use to pump from the hydrants, is it some kind of onboard fuel transfer pump on the aircraft then? Pumping equipment for flammable liquids is very specialised, I'd be surprised if they had specific equipment just for pumping between aircraft.

I must say the QF B738 product across the Tasman is looking pretty dated now. Has anything been said publically about what and when is likely to replace it? I doubt they would waste the A321XLR on such a short sector?

a7ala wrote:

I must say the QF B738 product across the Tasman is looking pretty dated now. Has anything been said publically about what and when is likely to replace it? I doubt they would waste the A321XLR on such a short sector?

A220s and A320neo family aircraft. QF have plenty of A320neo family options to exercise.

Anyone’s behaviour changing due to the continuing high domestic fares?

I looked to go to Melbourne from Perth this weekend and the data are in the $1000-$1250 region. So cancelled the trip. A few people I’ve spoken to here have started changing their behaviour - weekends in Sydney and Melbourne are for special occasions not on a whim.

redroo wrote:

Anyone’s behaviour changing due to the continuing high domestic fares?

I looked to go to Melbourne from Perth this weekend and the data are in the $1000-$1250 region. So cancelled the trip. A few people I’ve spoken to here have started changing their behaviour - weekends in Sydney and Melbourne are for special occasions not on a whim.

If you’ve only just looked to go this weekend that’s pretty late notice, so not surprised it’s high. There’s still plenty of reasonable and affordable fares to be had however. I flew MEL-SYD on VA for $89 last month.

a320fan wrote:

redroo wrote:

Anyone’s behaviour changing due to the continuing high domestic fares?

I looked to go to Melbourne from Perth this weekend and the data are in the $1000-$1250 region. So cancelled the trip. A few people I’ve spoken to here have started changing their behaviour - weekends in Sydney and Melbourne are for special occasions not on a whim.

If you’ve only just looked to go this weekend that’s pretty late notice, so not surprised it’s high. There’s still plenty of reasonable and affordable fares to be had however. I flew MEL-SYD on VA for $89 last month.

This weekend is a bit of a bad case given it is a long weekend in Melbourne. Looking out a week or so, you can pretty comfortably do a return MEL-SYD-MEL most weekends for under $400 on ZL, JQ or VA. QF are probably about $50-$100 dearer for the return trip but can be competitive if you are prepared to fly earlier etc.

You are correct though that fares have increased generally from where they were pre-pandemic. The days when the dearest part of the trip was the airport parking have gone away, for now at least.