Qantas brings forward Boeing 787 deliveries

You do raise a very valid point in that if their future strategy is revolved around the 789s as a 330 replacement they will need to have a low J (~28-30) configuration as the market is just not there for J and W for the Asian market except a handful of destinations like HKG and HND which can add complexity to the fleet mix

@vincew:

They'll probably retire the oldest of the non-ER 744s first (possibly the recently refurbished ones with F that are currently used for charters) before retiring the 744 ERs

Yeah I know, I meant after the first 2 oldest 747 are retired. I just didn't say it. 

The Perth-Paris flights and other European destination will take off from early-mid 2019 after they have retired the 3 refurbished non ER 747s. I'm thinking BNE-LAX and SYD-SFO will be used for the second batch to replace those B747s. 

And then in 2019 more 787 will be delivered to do the

Some slight problems to work through if these planes will be used for BNE-LAX. 

I think they will cancel the LAX-JFK leg and just wait till they can serve JFK directly with A350ULR or B777-8. 

If that was the case, why not just cancel it now? 

Well because like many people have stated it is not feasible the timing of the slots and turn around time if they want to link the 787s with BNE to Perth an onwards to Europe. 

Yep, but if they were to cancel the LAX-JFK leg, why not just do it now? Probably because it is providing a return!

@hutch:

They won't cancel the JFK link I don't think - the loadings are usually pretty good and it's a popular route for Australians and Americans alike.

@ajstubbs:

@Chris2304:

very well said FLX1

It's not so much the pax on the LAX-JFK-LAX flight that keep it going,  it's the cargo down below.  You wont fit much on a US domestic carrier if they were taking up the load instead. 

@hutch:

Are you missing what "link up" means?
MEL-LAX and PER-LHR are linked as they use the same aircraft in the rotation, are timed to work together and have MEL-PER to get the aircraft to the next long haul flight. 1 787 will fly LAX-MEL-PER-LHR and return over a period of 4 days.
It has nothing to do with connections and passenger movement and everything to do with aircraft scheduling.

The LAX-JFK tag used to use the same aircraft all the way from SYD. The old QF107/108.
The 747, for most of the year, is too big an aircraft, seat wise, for the transcon sector. Which is why it was changed to the A330 when AKL-LAX went to the 332. When AKL-LAX was pulled, they only had 747s and A380s going to LAX. 1 of those had to go to JFK and it wasn't going to be a 380. BNE-LAX was the only flight that had a 747 all the time.
North America will end up becoming all 787 and A380, and they aren't going to send the 380 to JFK. It is too large.

Thanks Himeno... that's exactly what I mean! Perfectly put.

On the SFO point; the reason why I think SYD-SFO may work where BNE-LAX won't, is that SYD-SFO could do a later departure and arrival into SFO (similar to the B787 from MEL-LAX) quite easily. 

Why do they have to have PER-LHR and PER-CDG (or any other European stop) leaving PER at the same time?

The 744ERs have another 5-7 years life in them.
The first 787s will allow the 2 with the old F seats to retire, though one of those will be doing a charter before going.
The 2nd batch will see the 3 A380 seat non ERs retire.

I can't see how Perth-Paris can work if qantas wants to retire 3 B747s with the second batch of 4. 

@Chris2304:

correction

6 deliveries every year between FY2021-2025 with with the 15 options delivered by mid 2020 (2021)

@Chris2304:

It will be interesting to see if Qf options for 14 or more or so B787-10 for the  A330-300/200 (EBA, EBB, EBC, EBD) replacements for Asia. I suspect the other younger domestic A330s will be replaced Boeings brand new mid sized aircraft in the late 2020s.

@Chris2304:

what are you saying they will push the third batch out or they will order more later this year in August?

well then they must order in August

if they announce a further order of using the 15 options for delivery in 2019 and 2020 on August 24th FY release date and add 1.5 years brings you to 24th February 2019 for the next earliest approximate delivery which seems good. 

@Chris2034:

I guess when AJ says he want to see how much money they make in return. I don't think he means the economic of the actual aircraft perhaps but the seating configuration. as because since the 787 flights will have been on sale for a while by August in my option can be sure by then they can order more. He knows that they will make money. 

it was about how well can the seats sell in this new configuration. They know the economics of the aircraft, Jetstar has the 787-8 for instance. 

Options have confirmed build slots in the build queue. They just have to be firmed by a set date in order to meet that production slot. If they aren't firmed by that date, they lose the option and other airlines get a chance to bring their orders forward.
Firming up an option doesn't make them go to the end of the queue like a new order would.

*correction on August 24th FY results day

** double correction 28th August FY results day. 

@Covo95:

Can't see it as being much worse than MEL-PER-LHR for economy passengers. A stop so soon into the journey is probably not much better for economy passengers than having no stop at all. I don't think QF will continue MEL-PER-LHR once they can fly direct unless the cost is prohibitive.

@JBL:

Auckland IS a QF hub indeed. They have 8 738 aircraft based there and a sizeable crew both short and long haul. AKL crew are also very cheap and a good option to run the 787. I wouldn't discount it too highly.

My guess why Paris is so high on the priorities is that with the $50bn or so being spent on the sub's there will be a lot of business travel between Paris/Adelaide and likely the rest of Australia

I've often noticed a good number of French passengers on QF1/2 and 9/10 travelling to Australia via LHR when they could have flown from France with Emirates. Smaller planes and direct flights to continental Europe make a lot of sense and Rome should also be on the list when the aircraft are available.

@Les White:

well the B777X has a wider cabin than the A350

That's not the sole consideration though. Boeing would need to be sure they transfer all the cabin pressure and hydration comforts of the B787 to properly compete.

@ajstubbs:

777x is 10 across

it is indeed but the 777x has 18inch economy seating

I will believe it when it comes out of assembly. It has the same fusalage diameter as 77W and we all know how 10 across fare on that model.

I understand how ever Boeing has increased the width of the cabin a combination of re-sculpting the sidewalls around the passenger seat area and moving to more modern and thinner insulation blankets.

so you can have 18inch and 10 abreast seating

Yes. But its essentially a paper airplane now, even if they do manage to carve out 7 inched like they promised, i wonder what they might compromise. 77w isn't exactly a 787 in terms of quietness...

@downdata:

"350-900ULR is currently in development and won't be certified with firm performance specs until 2018 yet U hv no problem believing it'll hv comparable payload/range performance as the 778 to perform ULR missions such as SYD-LHR/JFK for QF's consideration to buy......amazing."

In case you've forgotten, the B777X is also still under development and won't be certified with firm performance specs until late 2019/2020, yet you have no problem believing it will perform with the preliminary payload/range performance parameters that Boeing provided when they launched the B777X years ago. Is this bias I'm sniffing? Case in point - Boeing reduced the performance parameters for the B787 when it came out - typical range for 280 seats dropped to 14100km from 15400km. 

@Jedinak K:

@downdata:

The 777X may be wider, but if we are talking about the Y cabin, most A350s will be 3-3-3, while the 777X is being designed for 3-4-3. 

but will have a narrower seat due to 10 across seating as opposed to 9 across on the 350

@tallinnman:

@Joe:

At the end of the day, the bean counter perspective is the only one that matters.

Well, given that 9 across is the industry standard, and those who went with 8 and now regret it are retrofitting with 9, I think you will be waiting a very long time.

The 787 was designed for 8 across. The first 2 airlines to get it, NH and JL, did put in 8 across. Every other airline to get it has used 9 across, and NH has refit to match. JL hasn't.

@grahama:

just 2 A380s which were previously operating QF9/10, not through any orders. 

They could avoid changing existing schedules and open up new North American routes as add-ons to the Perth-Europe flights. Something like Brisbane-Vancouver would also take the fight to Air Canada.

You're missing the point. The 2nd batch needs to replace 3 747s. To do that, they need to be put on existing 747 routes, which after the changes from the 1st batch will be HND, SFO, YVR (seasonal), BNE-LAX-JFK, JNB and SCL.

The 787s can't be used on JNB and SCL while CASA continues to insist on no better then ETOPS180.
Doing the same with the 2nd batch that they did with the 1st, replacing a US 747 route and new EU route, will only replace 2 747s and use all 4 787s. Also, doing that will require pushing the US route departure time into the evening, which would then prevent a JFK tag if used for LAX (not being able to do the ~11 hour LAX-JFK-LAX turn in ~3 hours).

The HND, SFO and LAX routes use 2 aircraft each. YVR uses 1, but is seasonal. HND can be retimed to use 1, but the slot limits at HND (HND flights to/from AU can only land/depart between 10pm and 6am) and QF's desire to have SYD-TYO overnight in both directions would cause problems.

Using the 4 aircraft from the 2nd batch on SFO and BNE-LAX-JFK would allow 3 747s to retire and put some slack into the 6 aircraft 747 fleet for maintenance, increased frequency, etc. eg, they could make SYD-HKG A380 3 weekly, 747 4 weekly and change the Tuesday QF11/12 back to A380.

CASA issued a EDTO>180 standard based on ICAO Annex 6  effective July 2015. Probably no carrier has applied yet for twins because quads are still being used on affected routes of SYD-SCL/JNB. The quads are  covered by the same dispatch rules as the twins but the time between EDTO entry and exit points is calculated differently.

@Joe:

Again, pairing up any of the 2 aircraft 747 routes with any PER-EU route will use all 4 787s in the batch and only replace 2 747s. It will not meet the aim of replacing 3 747. Thus the 2nd batch of 787s will not open new routes without cutting frequency or another route entirely.

There is talk of a crew base in Brisbane that is why it seems to be LA-Brisbane-Perth-Paris. It could be quite different times to the other 787 as it does not have to hub with the other 787, just flight from other cities.

Very true! But that does hold back the PER hub factor... particularly for MEL customers. 

Most major EU airports have overnight curfews. It is possible they would not be able to operate to CDG late night/early morning.

Last time i checked there is more than one flight a day MEL-PER.... maybe think first 

OEB and OJM will retire first

yes, OJS, OJT, JU were delivered between September 1999 and January 2000. 

one will be used to start the A380 refurb which will be announced later this year. and the other will be moving around SYD/MEL-HKG/SIN. 

3 A380s are used to operate QF1/2 and 2 747s are used to operate QF73/74.

SYD-LHR is a premium route which sells well. It doesn't have the low periods that MEL-LHR does (which has lead to MEL-LHR being scheduled less during certain parts of the year) They aren't going to cut the SYD-LHR capaity by 262 seats (14F/36J/7W/205Y).

Also, only 3 Asian routes currently use 747s, MEL and SYD-HKG and SYD-HND.
The 747s to HKG have already been covered by the MEL-LHR changes. HND has restrictions on the use of A380s.

@Himeno: