When will Qantas get its first Boeing 787 Dreamliners?

I suspect they will also get a couple of longer range HGW A380s fo Dallas and free up other A380s for  slot constrained places like Haneda and HK. I think the A380 versus 787 costs per seat km may not be as far apart as you suggest.

However, the 787 suits a lot more ports than the A380 does, particularly in Asia.

Absolutely. This is why it's important to get these things, as they have the legs to get to the United States nonstop ex-Australia. This would allow the 744s on LAX to be pulled (flights 15/16, 17/18 and 95/96). Obviously this requires increasing frequency, but it's not as bad an idea as it seems.

I haven't seen the CASM figures for the revamped and neo A330s, but those might also be very good for Asian runs.

With regard to the Asian runs, I believe this is where efficient mid-sized twins are most important. It would crucially allow retirement of the last 744s from the HKG and NRT runs. With both HKG and NRT/HND, moving from a daily 744 to double-daily 787s is probably ideal. It should also be cost-efficient enough to start opening new ports such as PEK as well as growing PVG.

Obviously this growth will need to be supported by connecting traffic, which requires partners and/or Jetstar.

There are 2 A380's sitting at TLS which were meant for Skymark. Could QF make a deal with Airbus for those?

Unlikely.  The costs per seat are similar, but only if you can fill them.  That's been the challenge with the A380 so far.  Also, there are limitations on the use of A380s at Haneda, at least during daytime hours.  As for Hong Kong, it's largely a business destination and those travellers want frequency.  That's why Cathay sends multiple A330s daily to Australia rather than a smaller number of 777s.

Unlikely.  The costs per seat are similar, but only if you can fill them.  That's been the challenge with the A380 so far.  Also, there are limitations on the use of A380s at Haneda, at least during daytime hours.  As for Hong Kong, it's largely a business destination and those travellers want frequency.  That's why Cathay sends multiple A330s daily to Australia rather than a smaller number of 777s.

And half the capacity. 787's are NOT 747 or A380 replacements.

Not to significantly less capacity and ETOPs issues, especially to JNB.

Besides 787's are not 747 or A380 replacements. Indeed the 789 is about the same size capacity wise as the A330-300, just longer legs of course.

One issue is that CASA refuses to allow higher then ETOPS 180 for Australian aircraft, which means they need to keep 4 engine aircraft on JNB, SCL and any other southern Africa/South America ports they might return to.

They can run A380s on JNB and SCL, just with lower frequency. Both are monopoly routes. If JNB was 5x weekly and SCL 3x weekly (down from daily and 4x weekly respectively) then the A380s would be flying approximately the same number of seats.

(That is, Economy would remain roughly the same, Premium Economy would go down signficantly, Business down slightly but there would now be some First.)

You mean the A330's? The A300's were introduced in 1982 by TAA!

I'm hoping that there are no A300's still flying in Australia. And the 767's are well replaced by the A330 and 737

My Mistake I am thinking in terms of both Domestic and International Capacity.

Basically, they're A330-300s that have the legs of 744ERs. So they can do everything from SYD-SIN to SYD-DFW.

Why do they need to? They were put in place by the shareholders to do a job and by the looks of it they have done what they were asked to do. Many may well not agree, but the results of the turnaround are there for all to see. And the turn around isn't because of the oil price drop, by all accounts that is only about 20% or so of the turnaround

Qantas needs to scrap Jetstar, other industries have tried the same thing and failed. They need to build the one strong brand. 

But Qantas have succeeded (out of Australia at least) and kept their main brand strong. So makes no sense to scrap it.

I would debate they have succeeded internationally when I travel overseas I don’t go directly to the Qantas website when looking for a flight. Jetstar is like a demerged part of Qantas (locally) running parallel to the parent company. As a Qantas Platinum member or even if I was a Qantas Silver member Jetstar is a let down when Qantas sticks you on a Jetstar flight. That reminds me of the British Airways passenger, 84 year old lady who brought an around the world first class ticket, Qantas stuck her in business class and then transferred her later to a Jetstar flight and she wasn’t even given a good seat let alone she had to pay for a drink of water.

Never said they succeded internationally. Though their international flights out of Australia would seem to be doing ok, flying routes that in the past Qantas may not have been able to make profitable, so not really in competition. In fact I can only really think of Honolulu and maybe some runs to NZ as the only international routes where Qantas and Jetstar compete with each other.

Within Australia they may fly some common routes but after different segments of the market. And you comment about being put on Jetstar, what would the alternative have been, a delay for the next Qantas flight? 

Good question about why someone was put on a Jetstar flight, totally unsure or can't remember. I know I hate it when I use points and it turns out to be Jetstar only, that's why Virgin is a such better option locally. Also Virgin staff let myself take 6 adults into the Virgin Lounge on Sunday. Qantas staff have a hissy fit when you try to take 1 extra person in.

Good question about why someone was put on a Jetstar flight, totally unsure or can't remember. I know I hate it when I use points and it turns out to be Jetstar only, that's why Virgin is a such better option locally. Also Virgin staff let myself take 6 adults into the Virgin Lounge on Sunday. Qantas staff have a hissy fit when you try to take 1 extra person in.

I've taken up to 8 people into QC at once and often 4 people at a time. Never once been knocked back. 

Richard one good thing about the 787 is it can do short runs as effectivly as ultra long range. Indeed when Qantas was first planning to get 787's the only time they were mentioned was in realtion to domestic flying replacing the 767's. Qantas never annouced any plans to fly them on international routes. If you recall the only annouced plan was 788's to JQ, then replaced by 789's with the 788's going to Qantas to replace 763's.

The problem with the 787 and long range flights however is its size. From memory don't think any airline has gone for anything more than two class at present. (not counting United and their economy plus, it is hardly a true 3rd class type, just economy with some extra leg room). Now no doubt if Qantas started flying 788/9 long haul people would want at a minimum business, Qantas premium economy and economy. On a 788/9 basically not much space to put them all. Why do you reckon Emirates is pusing the 787-10?

For Asian runs the 788 or 789 would be good, but as you mention the A330neo's now give the 787 a run for their money and have the advantage of comminality with Qantas' existing A330 fleet. Long range, as you say the A350 may be a much better choice for Qantas giving far greater floor space compared to the 787 which would allow a genuine 3 class layout with sufficent pax to make it worth while. And of course keeps cockpit cominality with the A330's.

The new JL 788 config has 3 classes

E01 (old) 42J/144Y

E11 (new, "SS8") 38J/35W/88Y

The main issue with Y on many in service 787s is that Boeing designed it for 8 across. Many airlines have put in 9 across.

Interesting to know, so one airline. But look at the seat count. 3 class has 158 passengers, compare that say to a 4 class Qantas A380 with 484 seats or 3 class 744 with 364 passengers. Would need a good seat burn to pay for the extra crew costs, landing and handling costs etc.

So if Qantas did as some suggest and changed A380's or 744''s for a 3 class 788 using JAL's config you would need 3 to replace an A380 and 2.3 to replace a 744. Slightly less of course if it was a 789, maybe 2.5 for an A380 and 2 for a 744.

On routes where Qantas uses their 744's and A380's capacity is more important than frequency. Indeed some routes only have a window of around 4-6 hours for flights to leave to arrive outside curfew hours. So makes no sense to change to a small aircraft.

I would not underestimate the benefit of frequency. How many QF pax are connecting at LAX? How many more itineraries with AA codeshares would be improved with a higher frequency? What about flying into PHX and connecting with US flights? More direct destinations in North America?

 LAX is one of those places where the window is limited, hence why when there are multiple flights SYD-LAX on the same day they are reasonably close together (as above said a window of 4-6 hours), same too with MEL-LAX.

 So frequency becomes less important to LAX in particular, not to mention the extra fixed costs of flying multiple aircrfat on the same route in a conga line.

LAX doesn't have a curfew, neither does MEL. Any "window" would be related to curfew limited SYD (and BNE?).

With roughly 14 hour flights, the SYD curfew would just prevent departures from LAX between 1400 and 2100 (+/- daylight saving). The only thing stopping a return of day time LAX-SYD flights (eg, LAX depart  around 1000) is the limited connections available at SYD between 2000 and 2300.

Yes, but there's also no point arriving at 3am.

The problem is essentially that there isn't much sense in arriving in Australia at any time besides the morning peak, for both connecting traffic as well as local traffic. The advantage of the westbound flights is that while they arrive early, they also go 'back' in terms of hours so if passengers can sleep, they can sleep well and arrive rested.

For around half the year, it's difficult to time a day flight back to SYD/MEL, simply because to get any meaningful connections the flight needs to land around 18:30, which isn't possible without a ridiculously early departure ex-LAX.

Compounding this, the early departure ex-LAX and late arrival into SYD mean that connections are sparse at both ends. This stands in contrast to the current setup, which has huge connection options at both ends.

It would be nice to see a day flight return anyway, though, for O&D traffic. On a 744, no way. On a 789? Might work.

Good point about the O&D traffic. This is what the 787 was designed for. Agreed that the current bank is the best single slot to maximise connections at both ends but there is a tradeoff here. If you arrive early at LAX then you get lots of connections but some of those include miserably long layovers. Or an additional connecton at another hub.

I would guess that the % of connecting traffic on the Aus end is much less than the US end. A later arrival into LAX (or earlier departure on the way back) could provide some better itineraries. For example, you could fly out of NYC early in the morning, connect at LAX and then land in SYD at 11pm or so and still get to your bed that night. That would be a pretty attractive itinerary to me. And QF could also reduce ground time for a/c at LAX.

Then of course there is the potential to fly into other ports such as PHX. Maybe one day with the 787 we would see a SYD - LAS direct, although that one is probably more a Jetstar route :)

Indeed. For SYD-LAX, you could have the A380 do the 06:30 arrival with 787s doing the late morning and late afternoon arrivals. The A380 would need to do the big overnight flight back getting in around 07:00, so that would have a 787 on the other overnight as well as the daylight.

I would not underestimate the benefit of frequency. How many QF pax are connecting at LAX? How many more itineraries with AA codeshares would be improved with a higher frequency? What about flying into PHX and connecting with US flights? More direct destinations in North America?

Not just one airline.  Air Canada has a true Premium Economy cabin on their 788s and upcoming 789s, while Etihad's new 789 has F/J/Y.

Richard one good thing about the 787 is it can do short runs as effectivly as ultra long range. Indeed when Qantas was first planning to get 787's the only time they were mentioned was in realtion to domestic flying replacing the 767's. Qantas never annouced any plans to fly them on international routes. If you recall the only annouced plan was 788's to JQ, then replaced by 789's with the 788's going to Qantas to replace 763's.

The problem with the 787 and long range flights however is its size. From memory don't think any airline has gone for anything more than two class at present. (not counting United and their economy plus, it is hardly a true 3rd class type, just economy with some extra leg room). Now no doubt if Qantas started flying 788/9 long haul people would want at a minimum business, Qantas premium economy and economy. On a 788/9 basically not much space to put them all. Why do you reckon Emirates is pusing the 787-10?

For Asian runs the 788 or 789 would be good, but as you mention the A330neo's now give the 787 a run for their money and have the advantage of comminality with Qantas' existing A330 fleet. Long range, as you say the A350 may be a much better choice for Qantas giving far greater floor space compared to the 787 which would allow a genuine 3 class layout with sufficent pax to make it worth while. And of course keeps cockpit cominality with the A330's.

They don't even need A330neos for the Australia to Asia runs. They just need the existing model in the 242t MTOW version that's just been released. With 6,100nm range, it should even be able to reach New Delhi.

I think the A330 fleet is in for the long haul, what with thirty frames and the BNE facility. Perhaps a dozen or so 789 options could be exercised and the rest allowed to lapse.

QF are getting rid of 2 A330s. They'll only have 28 once the new seat roll out is complete.

28 is still substantial!

They will still then have another 10 years life left in them. They are not spending money doing them up only to get rid of them. So yeah 28, which as someone said is quite substantial will be around for a while yet.

Now before someone says they spent money doing up 767's, do remember that it was a minor refurb to specifically to extend life by a few years and the costly items such as the IFE server hardware can and is being used elsewhere, like on the older 737's.

Agree actually, but if they were to expand services they would need new aircraft and you would order the NEO if expanding. The fuel burn saving on the NEO's as I said give the 787's a run for their money.

The 787 isn't as good on short flights as it is on ultra long-haul.  In fact, one of the biggest complaints from airline customers is that the plane was over-engineered to suit the ultra long-haul needs of the Middle Eastern carriers rather than the mid- to long-haul needs of the North American and European airlines.  A plane can't be optimized to do all sector lengths equally well.

This isn't to say the 787 performs poorly on shorter segments, just that the performance gets better the farther you fly.  As I understand it, most of the efficiency gains with newer planes are derived from the cruise portion of the flight, so the longer the cruise the greater the benefit.  That's why Airbus can toss some new engines on an old A330 frame and get similar performance to the 787 on trans-Atlantic routes, for example.  On short-haul routes like SYD-MEL, the advantage of a 787 or A350 over a 737 or A320 is negligible and outweighed by the greater up-front costs.