Qantas 787-9 Order Soon?

mffoda · Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:41 am

From CAPA, it looks like Qantas will go Boeing 787-9 after all...

"Qantas says A350 was evaluated, but Boeing '787-9 is a better aircraft for us'

Qantas Group CEO Alan Joyce, at the CAPA Australia Pacific Aviation Summit, said (04-Aug-2015) the Boeing 787-9 “is a great replacement aircraft for some of the 747s over time.” Mr Joyce noted the carrier evaluated the A350 but: “We found in our minds the 787-9 is a better aircraft for us in the markets and network we’re talking about.” Mr Joyce said the recent agreements with pilots to operate the 787-9 “was a major step in the right direction” but noted: “We’re working through the fleet economics, the route economics to see if we can justify the 787s... We’re working through that process now.”"

http://centreforaviation.com/news/qa...is-a-better-aircraft-for-us-470423

Miami · Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:46 am

God, I hope so!

The Qantas livery would look very nice on a 787.

There also this: Qantas swooping on 787-9 order after reaching a deal with pilots

Quote:
Qantas long-haul pilots have overwhelmingly agreed to a crucial enterprise bargaining agreement that will help clear the way for the airline to place a major order of Boeing 787-9 aircraft later this year.

"This [agreement] satisfies a business case for Qantas International to consider purchasing 787s in the very near future, with a possible entry into service as early as 2017," AIPA president Nathan Safe said. "It shows the company and the pilots are capable of working together for a long-term plan."

http://www.afr.com/business/transpor...a-deal-with-pilots-20150729-ginh14

qf340500 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:08 am

I think it looks a bit odd on the 787, the QF livery, very underwhelming, I my opinion... bit blahhhh it seems to make the plane look even shorter then it is...
Pity it seems we won't see any A350 gracing the Aussie skies in QF livery soon...

PA515 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:36 am

Quoting Miami (Reply 1):
with a possible entry into service as early as 2017

Would that be 2017 Calendar Year (01 Jan 2017 to 31 Dec 2017), or 2017 Financial Year (01 Jul 2016 to 30 Jun 2017). There are some unidentified GE 789's due for delivery from Jul 2016. (line numbers 446, 453, 465 and 473 listed so far).

PA515

seabosdca · Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:38 am

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 2):
it seems to make the plane look even shorter then it is...

The pictured photoshop started with a 787-8. If QF orders it will be the 787-9 (and maybe some -10s?).

IndianicWorld · Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:50 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
The pictured photoshop started with a 787-8. If QF orders it will be the 787-9 (and maybe some -10s?).

It has only really talking about the -9, and not sure I see a role for the -10 n their network.

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 2):
I think it looks a bit odd on the 787, the QF livery, very underwhelming,

The QF livery is underwhelming on any aircraft really.

I would have love to have seen them go with a AO (Australian Airlines) styled livery when they made the changes a few years back, but hey they had their reasons.

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 2):
Pity it seems we won't see any A350 gracing the Aussie skies in QF livery soon...

I am surprised in one way as QF's own internal talk seemed to indicate a less than complementary 787 experience at JQ, but I guess the deal is too good to not take up.

seabosdca · Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:12 am

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 5):
It has only really talking about the -9, and not sure I see a role for the -10 n their network.

They fly many, many Australia-Asia flights that would be perfect fits for the range of the -10, at only a minor additional operational cost compared to the -9. If they have the demand and are willing to wait a bit longer for some of their frames, the -10 could make sense.

Dalavia · Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:13 am

Quoting mffoda (Thread starter):
“We’re working through the fleet economics, the route economics to see if we can justify the 787s... We’re working through that process now.”"

This part of the comment suggests to me that the accountants are finding the 789 more attractive than the A350, and I think this can only be so if QF will use the same 3-3-3 seating layout in Y that JQ uses.

That's a great pity in my opinion, and although I understand the bean counters' thinking, I think QF will find considerable and growing customer resistance to 3-3-3 layout 789s over time.

From customers' perspectives, based on everything I have heard, the A350 would be far preferable.

RickNRoll · Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:18 am

If an A350 is too big then a 777X is probably too big as well. QANTAS seems to be sticking to their original 787/A380 plan for now.

qf002 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:29 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 3):

I think it refers to CY17, though I can't say that with 100% certainty.

QF would probably be happy to get the aircraft ASAP, but it seems a bit of a stretch to think that they could start receiving them within a year of finalising the order (which will hopefully happen this month).

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
If QF orders it will be the 787-9 (and maybe some -10s?).

If QF does end up getting -10s then they will probably be part of a future order/conversion, unless Boeing can deliver in 2019 as a 744 replacement on routes like HND and HKG.

That would quell some of the concerns that the 787 can't be an effective 744 replacement.

aryonoco · Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:38 am

My ideal QF widebody fleet would be a combination of A330NEO/A350 only. The two share a lot of fleet commonality and common type rating, which does amount to savings. Eventually sometime in the 2020s, the A380s would be retired, and I would replace them with more A350s and use extra frequency to make up the loss of seats (Imagine BNE, MEL and SYD all having daily A359 flights to DFW for example, it would be a formidable combination).

Keeping the 9-abreast 787 exclusive to JQ and using 8-abreast A330 and 9-abreast A350 with 18" seats would have been an excellent differentiation point between the two airlines.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 5):
but I guess the deal is too good to not take up.

I think this true.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 5):
and not sure I see a role for the -10 n their network.

Why not as an eventual A330 replacement? All of QF's Asian network is comfortably shorter than 4,500nm, which should be perfect for the 787-10. All the indications are that the 787-10 will have better CASM than pretty much anything else for these segments.

Also, the A339 is apparently going to be less efficient than the A333 on routes shorter than 2,000nm (as it is heavier). Again considering that pretty much all of Australian transcon routes are under that, the 787-10 might be a better eventual replacement for the A330s on these routes.

[Edited 2015-08-03 22:41:15]

tullamarine · Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:43 am

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 7):
This part of the comment suggests to me that the accountants are finding the 789 more attractive than the A350, and I think this can only be so if QF will use the same 3-3-3 seating layout in Y that JQ uses.

Given the pricing that QF reportedly has locked in with Boeing, it is not surprising that it makes the most sense financially. The A350 may be the better plane for QF given it has the best combination of size and range for QF but I can't see how it overcomes the advantage that QF are buying the 787s at a knockdown price upon which Boeing will lose a fortune.

I too think QF will go with 9 abreast in Y as it appears the operational economics of the 787 just aren't there at 8 abreast. From a pax point of view, this is not ideal but the Y pax experience is not necessarily a very high priority for most airlines.

IndianicWorld · Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:56 am

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 11):
I too think QF will go with 9 abreast in Y as it appears the operational economics of the 787 just aren't there at 8 abreast. From a pax point of view, this is not ideal but the Y pax experience is not necessarily a very high priority for most airlines.

Its funny though given the positioning of the 787 as an improved customer experience, with unrivaled efficiency. It was meant to be the era where customers felt more space and taking us back to the golden era of flying.... Oh that was just the standard Boeing dream

Gasman · Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:57 am

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 7):
That's a great pity in my opinion, and although I understand the bean counters' thinking, I think QF will find considerable and growing customer resistance to 3-3-3 layout 789s over time.

Indeed. Boeing make it way too easy for airlines to adopt a sardine can config.

Last year I changed my loyalty and $40,000 pa flying budget from NZ to QF, as QF seemed to have greater professionalism, better food, and far less cramped aircraft than NZ. Let's hope they continue to buck the trend.

IndianicWorld · Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:14 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 13):
Last year I changed my loyalty and $40,000 pa flying budget from NZ to QF, as QF seemed to have greater professionalism, better food, and far less cramped aircraft than NZ. Let's hope they continue to buck the trend.

In a word where the lowest fare seems the main decision point for most travellers, the airlines are unfortunately all too willing to make such decisions. The accountants love it

There are very few 8-abreast 787's left, which really just shows that the promises made have just not come to fruition.

AirNiugini · Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:36 am

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 2):
I think it looks a bit odd on the 787, the QF livery, very underwhelming, I my opinion... bit blahhhh it seems to make the plane look even shorter then it is...

Just you wait til you see the real thing in the flesh! It is one of the best looking livery's out there.

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 11):
The A350 may be the better plane for QF given it has the best combination of size and range for QF but I can't see how it overcomes the advantage that QF are buying the 787s at a knockdown price upon which Boeing will lose a fortune.

- Spot on! Never walk away from a good old Bargain. The A350 might be the best plane to replace the QF 747 400s, but the 787's will replace all A330's too. Maybe QF see it as the best plane for International and Domestic missions. If QF could get the A350 for the same price as the 789, then who knows what might have been... but it is not worth worrying about now. I am just happy to see that QFi is profitable and starting to grow.

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 11):
I too think QF will go with 9 abreast in Y as it appears the operational economics of the 787 just aren't there at 8 abreast. From a pax point of view, this is not ideal but the Y pax experience is not necessarily a very high priority for most airlines.

I have never been on a A350 so I cannot compare, but I have flown on a 787, and I have flown on Qantas. When you merge the two experiences together, I think it will be a wonderful way to travel no matter where you sit.

The one issue I have with this 3x3x3 (

) chatter, is the fact that Seatguru has the QF 747 seat width as 17.5". Also BA and UA 747's are around the 17-17.5" mark as well. Never once have I seen thread started, or people carrying on about the 3x4x3 configuration on the 74's.

Don't get me wrong... I like a good 18"

, but are we actually going to feel any difference from what we are experiencing today on 747's?

Have pasted a few links with the stats below - If the data on seat-guru is wrong, then I will be slightly embarrassed, but I need to make the point...

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Bri...itish_Airways_Boeing_747-400_C.php

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Bri...s/British_Airways_Boeing_787-8.php

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Qan...as_Airways_Boeing_747-400RR_V2.php

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Uni...ited_Airlines_Boeing_747-400_B.php

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Uni...United_Airlines_Boeing_787-900.php

777Jet · Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:41 am

Quoting Miami (Reply 1):
God, I hope so!

The Qantas livery would look very nice on a 787.

The simple QF livery looks good on most types that wear it.

IMHO it even makes the A380 appear nice on the eye at times

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 2):
it seems to make the plane look even shorter then it is...

Funny you say that.

I watched the Scoot 788 taxi past me in SYD yesterday and the same livery on the -8 made the plane look so short and box shaped compared to the -9.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
The pictured photoshop started with a 787-8. If QF orders it will be the 787-9 (and maybe some -10s?).

Time for a photoshop of a QF 789

Gemuser · Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:08 am

Quoting AirNiugini (Reply 15):
The one issue I have with this 3x3x3 ( ) chatter, is the fact that Seatguru has the QF 747 seat width as 17.5". Also BA and UA 747's are around the 17-17.5" mark as well. Never once have I seen thread started, or people carrying on about the 3x4x3 configuration on the 74's.

The thing about seat widths, on Seatguru and elsewhere is that there is no standard way to measure it!
From personal experience the seat on an EK77W is narrower than that on a QF B747 or an EK A380 for that matter. On the B77W it was extremely uncomfortable for me on SYD-BKK-DXB, where as the seat on QF's B744 on SYD-SIN-LHR was perfectly acceptable, as an economy seat.

Gemuser

Dalavia · Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:42 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 17):
From personal experience the seat on an EK77W is narrower than that on a QF B747 or an EK A380 for that matter. On the B77W it was extremely uncomfortable for me on SYD-BKK-DXB, where as the seat on QF's B744 on SYD-SIN-LHR was perfectly acceptable, as an economy seat.

I agree 100%

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 14):
The accountants love it

Accountants should be on tap, not on top.

n729pa · Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:44 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 16):
IMHO it even makes the A380 appear nice on the eye at times

I never get tired of looking at the QF A380.

On the subject of liveries, there's a model retailer here in the UK who sells QF Dreamliners in a V Jet colour scheme. It's looks unusual but is quite good on the 787.

http://www.aviationretaildirect.com/...qantas-v-jet-vh-sas-fantasy-model/

Some retro jet!

JerseyFlyer · Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:47 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 17):

I flew on a 10 abreast "BA" 772 to S t Lucia 15 years ago - I have not repeated the experience and intend never to do so!

qf340500 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:09 am

I think I need to specify my statement, re: Air Niugini: "Just you wait til you see the real thing in the flesh! It is one of the best looking livery's out there."

I do really love the QF livery, classy, elegant, unique and recognizable... I just don't think it works on the 787... -8 or -9..., I LOVE it on the A380.
Buy maybe, just maybe, it is because I don't like the 787 much

817Dreamliiner · Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:17 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 17):
The thing about seat widths, on Seatguru and elsewhere is that there is no standard way to measure it!

The standard way of doing it is in between the armrests. Airbus makes their seats "wider" by using thinner armrests.

Gemuser · Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:43 am

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 22):
The standard way of doing it is in between the armrests. Airbus makes their seats "wider" by using thinner armrests.

Who set the standard?

Gemuser

817Dreamliiner · Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:23 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 23):
Who set the standard?

Not sure, But that really is the accepted standard, otherwise we'd be saying the 787 with a 20 inch seat width (including the armrest width) at 9 abreast would be cramped and uncomfortable.

[Edited 2015-08-04 02:29:19]

RyanairGuru · Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:35 am

Regarding seat widths, this really isn't an issue in debate. Other than a handful at NH, every single 787 in the world is 9 abreast. But, I hear you cry, it is a cheap product that Jetstar uses and Qantas should differentiate themselves as a premium product! Give me a break. It's the same product that EY, QR, JL, BA, AC, UA etc etc etc use. If you don't like it fly on something else.

Dalavia · Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:46 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 25):
Regarding seat widths, this really isn't an issue in debate.

I disagree.

I predict that if QF goes with 3-3-3 layout, the 789s will quickly get a reputation for being cramped in the same way that the EK 777s now have that reputation.

The width of Australians is not getting narrower, and Australians are on average already wider than the world average. An Australian airline needs to cater for Australian passengers' characteristics, not global averages.

Cost and other factors being equal, 3-3-3 seating in a 789 will make QF a less attractive option in a crowded market compared with airlines that are flying other types such as A350s. As you rightly point out, the contrast is not with other 787 airlines.

As QF seems to charge premium prices simply because they are QF, I can see more passengers questioning why they would pay a premium (or even pay the same price) when they can get a more comfortable ride on an alternative type of aircraft.

I know it is A.net "wisdom" that most passengers can't tell what kind of plane they are flying. I don't really accept that, but even if it is so, then I predict that if QF gets 3-3-3 configured 789s, many Australians WILL get to know what kind of plane they are booking and they will go out of their way to avoid the 789.

I know I will.

Thai77w · Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:56 am

Does everyone forget JQ used 2-4-2 on the 330s in Y? I don't think 3-3-3 is going to matter to QF.

Dalavia · Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:56 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 25):
Other than a handful at NH, every single 787 in the world is 9 abreast.

Not so.

Japan Airlines' 788s and 789s are all 8 abreast in Y.

The layout is 2-4-2. Reference: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Jap...irlines/Japan_Airlines_787-900.php

dynamicsguy · Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:06 am

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 26):
I predict that if QF goes with 3-3-3 layout, the 789s will quickly get a reputation for being cramped in the same way that the EK 777s now have that reputation.

As pointed out, why is this any different to a 3-4-3 747 which they've been flying for years without this stigma? The width of the 787 was deliberately set so that at 9 abreast it matched the seat width available in a 10 abreast 747. 10 abreast 777s have that reputation because the seats are narrower than that.

waly777 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:13 am

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 26):

Here is the thing, despite this supposed reputation of the EK 777 and 10 abreast. Their flights are still being filled to the brim with pax paying for those seats.

In Y, price is king and as long as QF prices at a point pax are willing to pay. Pax will continue to fly QF, be it a 380 or 787....it's a fact and history continues to prove that.

747m8te · Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:45 am

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 26):
many Australians WILL get to know what kind of plane they are booking and they will go out of their way to avoid the 789.

By that logic then there should be no Australian passengers flying on the likes of NZ, EK, EY, UA etc...but they still do and seem to do very well with passengers out of Australia.

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 26):
As QF seems to charge premium prices simply because they are QF

QF seem to charge a premium in the upper classes compared to some airlines (but that isn't the issue discussed here), but for the most part economy is very completive.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 25):
Regarding seat widths, this really isn't an issue in debate. Other than a handful at NH, every single 787 in the world is 9 abreast. But, I hear you cry, it is a cheap product that Jetstar uses and Qantas should differentiate themselves as a premium product! Give me a break. It's the same product that EY, QR, JL, BA, AC, UA etc etc etc use. If you don't like it fly on something else.

Yes, unfortunate as it may seem, 3x3x3 787s are the norm, not the exception, just like 3x4x3 on the 777s is the new norm.

I'd love to see 2x4x2 in Y on the 787, but the problem is Qantas would probably need to reduce legroom and add an extra row or two to compensate, which is not desirable either as reduced legroom would be more noticeable to passengers than seat width (unless you are a hobbit), but as all the other 787 operators have done bar two, it is looking more and more likely it will be 3x3x3.

The only thing I do wonder is if Qantas were to do two layouts and have mixed fleet config, say a bunch of them in 3x3x3 for the medium haul flights to Asia, and some in 2x4x2 layout for the longer flights to North America/Middle East/Europe. As the routes to DFW for example may be prone to capping seats due to range limitations (which they have done on flights with the A380 and 747 in the past), simply have aircraft with a slightly reduced seat count in a wider seat layout for the longer flights instead, which would make passengers happier on the longer flights that you need more space?

qf2220 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:55 am

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 18):
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 14):
The accountants love it

Accountants should be on tap, not on top.

They need to be on top so we don't get to where we were post Dixon/Gregg/Borghetti, not a great place.

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 26):
The width of Australians is not getting narrower, and Australians are on average already wider than the world average. An Australian airline needs to cater for Australian passengers' characteristics, not global averages.

Or Aussies should lay off the meat pies a little bit!!!!

dare100em · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:07 am

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 29):
As pointed out, why is this any different to a 3-4-3 747 which they've been flying for years without this stigma? The width of the 787 was deliberately set so that at 9 abreast it matched the seat width available in a 10 abreast 747. 10 abreast 777s have that reputation because the seats are narrower than that.

Nope.

Internal fuselage with of a 747 is 20 feet, 787 is 18 feet. All things equal that would mean the 747 has 2 feet = 24 inch for 1 more seat. OFC a economoy seat is by fare not 24 inch, so it get's divided over several seats giving a 10 abreast 747 a higher compfort level than a 787.

E.g. you can make every seat from the remaining 9 seat 0.6 inch wider and still have an 18.6 inch seat left. In fact the 747 compfort-level at 10 abreast is even slightly above the A350 and only matched by the A380.

AirNiugini · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:12 am

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 31):
The only thing I do wonder is if Qantas were to do two layouts and have mixed fleet config, say a bunch of them in 3x3x3 for the medium haul flights to Asia, and some in 2x4x2 layout for the longer flights to North America/Middle East/Europe.

3x3x3 is here to stay - But they may well have a mixed fleet configuration, but I think it will be more along the lines of having a two class and a three class config with Premium Economy.

However, in the interests of fleet efficiency maybe QF will want a standard config across all 787's - Similar to what they are wanting to do with the A330's, it will be interesting to see what the future holds for the QF premium economy product beyond the A380 and B747.

Can 28 J class seats fit between Doors 1 and 2 on the 787-9 like the 333, or would they need split J cabins?

qf002 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:05 pm

Quoting AirNiugini (Reply 34):
But they may well have a mixed fleet configuration, but I think it will be more along the lines of having a two class and a three class config with Premium Economy.

This is my view as well -- I see them starting off with a three class configuration then adding a two class one down the track as an A330 replacement.

Quoting AirNiugini (Reply 34):
Can 28 J class seats fit between Doors 1 and 2 on the 787-9 like the 333, or would they need split J cabins?

28J should be possible ahead of D2, but I think it would make sense to go with more than that if they intend to fly this aircraft across the Pacific. Something like 40J/21W/200Y would roughly mirror the ratios of the 744 configuration and IMO be ideal for most of the routes QF will be looking at (BNE-LAX, third daily SYD-LAX, JFK, SFO, SCL, HND, HKG etc).

b747400erf · Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:12 pm

Didn't Qantas sell their slots to Jetstar? Very poor decision if I am remembering correctly.

RyanairGuru · Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:16 pm

Now I have actually heard it all. Qantas has no obligation whatsoever to cater for Australia's obesity problem. And passengers will not contemplate paying significantly more to fly QF than EY for the perceived luxury of 2-4-2, as otherwise Qantas are simply leaving revenue on the table.

But of course the entire point is laughable. Firstly tens of thousands of Australians every single day coerce their backsides into the 737s of QF and VA ... all of which have 17.0" seats. Moreover I would guesstimate that a majority of Australians who fly longhaul with any degree of frequency have found themselves on an EK or EY 777 at some point or another and presumably survived the experience.

Until passengers are willing to PAY for the lost revenue in higher ticket fees nothing is going to change. It is why over 90% of 777s delivered since 2010 are 10 abreast. Most people are too cheap, if you're not then feel free to vote with your wallet.

hkcanadaexpat · Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:24 pm

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 36):
Didn't Qantas sell their slots to Jetstar? Very poor decision if I am remembering correctly.

Absolutely not. All 787s are owned by Qantas. The 788s have been "allocated" or "sub leased" to Jetstar. All the purchase rights and options remain in the hands of Qantas. It is assumed that the impeding 789 order will be delivered for use by Qantas itself but this could change. If there are routes in Jetstar's network that merit the 789, we could see some go down. Same if there are routes at Qantas better served by the 788, we could see some go up. Qantas has a history of shuffle (circa the A330s).
A

allrite · Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:31 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 37):
Until passengers are willing to PAY for the lost revenue in higher ticket fees nothing is going to change. It is why over 90% of 777s delivered since 2010 are 10 abreast. Most people are too cheap, if you're not then feel free to vote with your wallet.

Another thing to note is that Qantas will still have A380s on at least some of their major long distance routes, meaning that seat width will not be an issue there. Will their competitors likely be flying their A350s on those routes served by QF 787s? I guess SIN, HKG are possibilities and to HND/NRT the lower capacity Japanese 787s will be there... Unless they too decide to pack more in later.

qf002 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:54 pm

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 36):
Didn't Qantas sell their slots to Jetstar? Very poor decision if I am remembering correctly.

The plan was always for JQ to get the -8 first then for QF to follow once the -9 was available. QF deferred their part of the order then eventually ended up cancelling it altogether when it became clear that some major structural reform was required before the airline could start thinking about growth.

That reform is now largely complete and so now they are in a position to start spending some money and growing their business. Regardless what some shock jock style commentators might say, it was absolutely the correct decision to wait.

QF could have made the decision at any time to take those -8s instead of allocating them to JQ. From Boeing's perspective, they are QF aircraft. The slots are controlled by QF and always have been.

Stitch · Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:13 pm

Quoting qf002 (Reply 9):
QF would probably be happy to get the aircraft ASAP, but it seems a bit of a stretch to think that they could start receiving them within a year of finalising the order (which will hopefully happen this month).

QF's options do have production slots assigned to them and the agreement with Boeing on taking or leaving the first tranche of options is said to be due very soon. So if QF exercises those options, they could conceivably receive planes within 18 months of doing so.

aryonoco · Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:20 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 37):
Until passengers are willing to PAY for the lost revenue in higher ticket fees nothing is going to change.

Another way to look at it is that, considering that the economics of 787 and A350 are broadly similar, from an aircraft point of view there is no reason why an A350 ticket should be priced higher than a 787 ticket. For a 14 hours+ pacific route, as Y passenger, if I have the option of choosing between a 9-abreast 787 and a 9-abreast A350, price being equal, I will always choose the latter.

Should some of QF's competitors, say UA in future, deploy the A350 on some of the routes that QF serves with the 787, if the two are priced similarly, a lot of passengers, me included, will take the A350 option.

I'm not saying QF should have chosen the A350. All indications are that they've got 787s at a great price, and I know that there are lots of other factors in fleet selection. All I'm saying is, you cannot totally write off the issue of seat width. Sure, there is a lot more to a product, but seat width is definitely one variable.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 37):
I would guesstimate that a majority of Australians who fly longhaul with any degree of frequency have found themselves on an EK or EY 777 at some point or another and presumably survived the experience.

QF's average route distance is much longer than EK and EY's. On longer sectors, the 10-abreast 777 is absolutely not a pleasant experience, and the price of EK's 777 tickets to Australia reflect that. Sure EK can fill them, but they have to price them significantly lower than their A380 flights, and I'd guess their yields are also much lower.

Tim Clark time and time has said that even if the A380 isn't a CASM king, passengers are willing to pay more for it and so from a RASM point of view it beats any other aircraft on EK's fleet, the 777 included. Whatever QF ends up choosing, I'm sure they realise this and will take it into account.

AirNiugini · Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:33 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 33):
Nope.

Internal fuselage with of a 747 is 20 feet, 787 is 18 feet. All things equal that would mean the 747 has 2 feet = 24 inch for 1 more seat. OFC a economoy seat is by fare not 24 inch, so it get's divided over several seats giving a 10 abreast 747 a higher compfort level than a 787.

E.g. you can make every seat from the remaining 9 seat 0.6 inch wider and still have an 18.6 inch seat left. In fact the 747 compfort-level at 10 abreast is even slightly above the A350 and only matched by the A380.

But I don't think airlines are putting 18" seats into their 747's? The aisles may be wider, but the seats are not.

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 42):
Should some of QF's competitors, say UA in future, deploy the A350 on some of the routes that QF serves with the 787, if the two are priced similarly, a lot of passengers, me included, will take the A350 option.

This is where I get confused. United have a 17.5" economy seat width on their 747's, and a 17.3" economy seat on their 787's. Even if they go 3x3x3 on their A350's, it doesn't mean you will get an 18" seat.... or does it?

tortugamon · Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:35 pm

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 11):
I can't see how it overcomes the advantage that QF are buying the 787s at a knockdown price upon which Boeing will lose a fortune.

How did you determine this? I have the projected cost to build a 789 to be $115 Million by 2020. That should be slightly higher during this earlier anticipated QF delivery window but I think there is virtually no chance that they were sold for less than that figure. 2012 delivery of 788s what were sold at early bargain rates were said to be ~$100 Million, 2017-2020 deliveries of 789s including inflation price escalators will certainly be above production costs.

Quoting AirNiugini (Reply 15):
If QF could get the A350 for the same price as the 789, then who knows what might have been... but it is not worth worrying about now.

The A350XWB did not exist when QF ordered the 787. In fact it was partially due to QF's order for the 787 that spurred Airbus to make the changes to the A350 from Mk1 to the XWB.

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 26):
I predict that if QF goes with 3-3-3 layout

Is there really any doubt on this? Is the QF Y consumer willing to pay ~11% more (1/9) on their coach seat to fly 8-abreast?

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 29):
The width of the 787 was deliberately set so that at 9 abreast it matched the seat width available in a 10 abreast 747. 10 abreast 777s have that reputation because the seats are narrower than that.

Agreed.

Quoting dare100em (Reply 33):
All things equal that would mean

They are not equal. The 747 max cabin width, like the A380, is not at arm rest level.

Once you account for the actual usable cabin width and add the extra 2" for the additional arm rest at 10-abreast we get much closer. In fact a 17.2" seat at 9-abreast, 2" arm rests, and 19" aisles is pretty standard for 787 operators and you really won't find too many 747s out there with wider seats than that. That has been the longhaul standard in Y for decades only to be reduced by 10-abreast 777s.

tortugamon

jfk777 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:50 pm

Qantas needs to order the 787-9 because its has no other realistic option and the pricing it locked with Boeing is no longer available. QF could make money by selling the slots to another airline or leasing firm. The 787 are available soon, in 18 months, the A350-900 would be 3 years. The 787 has the legs to do anything pacific for Qantas and can launch new routes too small for the A380.

qf002 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:14 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
So if QF exercises those options, they could conceivably receive planes within 18 months of doing so.

18 months seems reasonable, and lines up with the general expectation of deliveries starting in early 2017 if things are finalised soon.

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 42):
Should some of QF's competitors, say UA in future, deploy the A350 on some of the routes that QF serves with the 787, if the two are priced similarly, a lot of passengers, me included, will take the A350 option.

Didn't you literally just chose to fly a UA 787 across the Pacific last week? Then go on to pledge that UA would be your airline of choice (despite the width of the seats) due to specific elements of their service?

There is almost always something more important for people to base their decision on than seat width. For you it's internet access while for others it might be frequent flyer loyalty or schedule or catering. A tiny difference in seat width comes so far down the list of priorities that it's not going to do QF any harm to use exactly the same configuration that every airline except JL is using.

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 42):
QF's average route distance is much longer than EK and EY's. On longer sectors, the 10-abreast 777 is absolutely not a pleasant experience, and the price of EK's 777 tickets to Australia reflect that. Sure EK can fill them, but they have to price them significantly lower than their A380 flights, and I'd guess their yields are also much lower.

The 77W services from the east coast are only cheaper because they stop in SIN/BKK/KUL.

If you compare EK's PER-DXB fares you'll notice that they are fairly steady across both daily services.

Heavierthanair · Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:34 pm

G'day

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 45):
The 787 are available soon, in 18 months, the A350-900 would be 3 years.

Unless those slots that Airbus bought back from SQ might be used for a Qantas order.

Qantas likely is considered a strategic A350 customer by Airbus, so lets see

Cheers

Peter

phxa340 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:47 pm

Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 47):

Except that Joyce specifically said they looked at and passed on the A350 ....

Heavierthanair · Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:55 pm

G'day

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 48):
Except that Joyce specifically said they looked at and passed on the A350 ....

Correct, but I have seen more subtle negotiation tactics.

"Better" may well be the better overall package offered for the 787 at this stage, I do not take Joyce's statement as a decision unless an order has actually been placed which to my knowledge is not the case. Anyway, we will know soon...

Cheers

Peter

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net