They have a total of 50 across firm orders, options and rights, all at the super cheap prices they got for signing on early. Any new orders other then those 50 will likely be at higher (but still lower then list) prices, so they are going to keep pulling from those options and rights as the deadlines for firming up arrive.
The first batch will most likely be used on current 747 routes to SFO, YVR and Asia. This would allow 747ERs to cover A380s through part of 2018 for a cabin refresh program before retiring the last 2 4 class 747s.
As for where they go on a long term basis, that depends on how long they keep the 9 A380 fitted 747s, if they take the final 8 A380s on order or any possible 777X order.
There were possible routes presented when the order was first made, such as ICN, and other suggestions, such as PER-LHR or SYD-ORD that aren't presented as anything serious, just as examples of what the aircraft are, in theory, capable of. eg, the JQ 787-8s are, on paper, able to do SYD-SEA. However, due to the fitout of the aircraft, they can't actually do so.
I agree with you for the most part, but why would QF use a 787 on an Asian route that's currently serviced by a 747?
Look at HKG; Qantas is slot-restricted there and can only increase capacity through using bigger jets. Then there's Haneda; a route that commands a premium so they're going to want to have a bigger aircraft on that route.
I think the first 787s will probably be used on SFO (moving to a daily service, at the cost of a slight capacity reduction) and also running Vancouver on a daily basis (I think QF have stated that the daily service is possible with Dreamliners but I can't be sure). CASA's ETOPS restrictions are going to be annoying for QF but assuming those restrictions get liberalized somewhat, JNB and SCL would be moved to a daily Dreamliner (rather than the current 3-to-4-times-per-week 747).
BNE - LAX - JFK perhaps may go Dreamliner too, but that would result in a reduction of capacity to the US and I don't think QF would like that. If BNE - LAX - JFK goes Dreamliner, I'd suspect QF may want to start another service to the US in its stead... perhaps BNE - DFW?
They won't get rid of the 747 on Hong Kong and Japan. I think the SYD-JNB should be handed over to PER, so other cities, eg. MEL, ADE and BNE. The SYD-JNB should also be handed over to MEL because Sydney have LAN flight.
<<...why would QF use a 787 on an Asian route that's currently serviced by a 747?>>
Why not?
For 1 thing, some 744 frames @ QF are very old and approaching their nex mandatory D-check(In case U're unaware of the tech details, it's essentially disassembling the whole thing, inspect each part pc by pc, parts replacement and finally put them all back together) which is a super-costly exercise and will become more frequent as the frames aged further.
<<Look at HKG...>>
HKG is my current home port and it is indeed difficult to find vacant slots there these days. However, it's not impossible especially for special cases like QF which has been effectively leaving some wkly slots allocated/grand-fathered to it as dormant almost yr-round(Some of these slots hv been temporarily assigned to other operators but possible to be returned to QF with advance notice). Also if U compare the usual total wkly frequency done by QF vs CX on say HKG-SYD, it's 11x vs 28x....the HKG authority may try its best to help QF to find slots to reduce such glaring frequency gap in the spirit of the bilateral. I can easily see QF moving to 14x wkly as they transition fm current plan A) 744 x4 wkly to future plan B) 789 x7 wkly on that route....in similar cabin density/config, total seat supply+frequency improvement of plan B) easily beats plan A).
<<Then there's Haneda...>>
why <<commands a premium>> must be connected to <<want to have a bigger aircraft>>?
If that's the econ logic, NH would hv deployed its 77W(They've plenty with even more joining soon) on HND-SYD, not a 789 which is the reality. And I don't fully buy the argument that QF can pull significantly more traffic to fill larger type than NH because it has been in the SYD-Tokyo mkt for yrs and can hub @ both ends(Thx to partner JL). NH is no slouch for domestic hubbing @ HND and does hv new buddy VA(i.e. the unofficial *A local partner in Australia) to help hubbing @ SYD.
Bottomline: Fare will stay premium if SYD-HND is considered a premium route+cabin product std is appropriate regardless of whether it's operated by a 744, 789 or whatever. However, yield(Or unit op profit margin in layman terms) will change due to diff op cost per seat 744 vs 789....and that's where a 789 shines much brighter than a 744 fm an operator perspective.
In a nutshell & assuming full pax on SYD-HND route today, a QF 744 is earning Rev$ fm about 360seats while a hypothetical QF 789 in similar cabin density will earn Rev$ fm about 250seats(Using UA as a benchmark as it has the closest J design specs to QF's 744)....about 31% drop in Rev$ transitioning fm 744 to 789. However, trip fuel cost of a 744 nearly double that of a 789 on routes of 8hrs or longer....I est. @ least 45% drop in fuel cost transitioning fm 744 to 789. If your cost drops much faster than your Rev$ when U change something, your profit margin has improved due to such change. I believe most listed corps like QF are profit-driven(As long as AJ is around to call the shots) rather than Rev$ or mkt share driven these days. And we've not even accounted for the higher Rev$ belly cargo opportunity:
789=LD3 x36 vs 744=LD3 x32(But more of these must be reserved for baggages due to higher pax count unlike on a 789).
The econ equation for QF is actually pretty lop-sided in favor of 789 over 744 on most E.Asian routes.
<<first 787s will probably be used on SFO...>>
Probably. QF+OW is weaker to pull traffic in SFO but must match UA frequency to hv a fighting chance.
<<Vancouver>>
Frankly a long shot as traffic demand is dismal during off-season. Much smaller mkt than SFO overall but with the same alliance limit.
<<BNE - LAX - JFK....but that would result in a reduction of capacity to the US..>>
The conclusion assumes:
a) No frequency increase for BNE-LAX (VA would cheer as they won't be able to match QF without moving mountains in 77W rotation schedule...)
b) LAX-JFK cannot be decoupled fm BNE-LAX (With daily 380 x2 @ LAX fm MEL & SYD? Comon...U are joking)
c) All of the above.
Each of the above assumptions is shaky @ best.
<<..perhaps BNE - DFW?>>
Technically doable since it'll be slightly shorter than SFO-SIN which is scheduled to start 2.5mths fm now by UA's 789. IMHO, BNE-DFW by 789 will be the nex <killer app> for QF in its Trans-Pcf war with VA+*A....
Think we will see them on new routes to India and south America. Qantas have been very kjeen to get back to India, just needed right equipment. Think they would love to return to Buenos Aires and Rio (subject to etops approval).Adelaide and Brisbane to Dubai is a strong possibility. May also see flights ex Canberra to new Zealand, lax and Singapore. Would love to see flights ex Hobart and Darwin.
Yeah I think that we will have new flight a from Melbourne and adeliade and perth. You can't fly a 747/380 on a route from Perth, so I think the 787 will be perfect for perth.
We are unlikely to see new routes opened, without cutting somewhere else, until a 2nd batch of 787s arrives.
They need the first batch to replace 747s and cover A380s during a likely mid life cabin refresh program.
By the time the 8 firm 787s arrive, they'll need them to service the routes currently operated by 747s that are getting retired by 2018.
There are 3 groups of 747: 2x 4 class - will be retired by mid 2018 3x A380 cabin 747-400 - stated to be retired with 787-9 arrival. May hang around until 2021/22. 6x 747-400ER - will need to be replaced in mid 2020s.
The first 8 787-9s are very likely to be used on routes that 747s currently operate that don't require ETOPS above 180.
Kitch
Kitch
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 10 Jun 2015
Total posts 72
What routes would qantas have for the 787 and do you think they will order more then 8?
David
David
Member since 24 Oct 2010
Total posts 1,016
No Boeing 787 routes have yet been announced although some indicators have been made, see:
Note that course most of the early routes will be replacing current Boeing 747 routes.
As to ordering more than eight, absolutely Qantas will, it's more a question of 'when' rather than 'if'.
Kitch
Kitch
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 10 Jun 2015
Total posts 72
Wow sydney to Chicago? Thought that might be 777-8 route.
Thanks for that
Himeno
Himeno
Member since 12 Dec 2012
Total posts 295
They have a total of 50 across firm orders, options and rights, all at the super cheap prices they got for signing on early. Any new orders other then those 50 will likely be at higher (but still lower then list) prices, so they are going to keep pulling from those options and rights as the deadlines for firming up arrive.
The first batch will most likely be used on current 747 routes to SFO, YVR and Asia. This would allow 747ERs to cover A380s through part of 2018 for a cabin refresh program before retiring the last 2 4 class 747s.
As for where they go on a long term basis, that depends on how long they keep the 9 A380 fitted 747s, if they take the final 8 A380s on order or any possible 777X order.
There were possible routes presented when the order was first made, such as ICN, and other suggestions, such as PER-LHR or SYD-ORD that aren't presented as anything serious, just as examples of what the aircraft are, in theory, capable of. eg, the JQ 787-8s are, on paper, able to do SYD-SEA. However, due to the fitout of the aircraft, they can't actually do so.
StudiodeKadent
StudiodeKadent
Member since 20 May 2015
Total posts 109
I agree with you for the most part, but why would QF use a 787 on an Asian route that's currently serviced by a 747?
Look at HKG; Qantas is slot-restricted there and can only increase capacity through using bigger jets. Then there's Haneda; a route that commands a premium so they're going to want to have a bigger aircraft on that route.
I think the first 787s will probably be used on SFO (moving to a daily service, at the cost of a slight capacity reduction) and also running Vancouver on a daily basis (I think QF have stated that the daily service is possible with Dreamliners but I can't be sure). CASA's ETOPS restrictions are going to be annoying for QF but assuming those restrictions get liberalized somewhat, JNB and SCL would be moved to a daily Dreamliner (rather than the current 3-to-4-times-per-week 747).
BNE - LAX - JFK perhaps may go Dreamliner too, but that would result in a reduction of capacity to the US and I don't think QF would like that. If BNE - LAX - JFK goes Dreamliner, I'd suspect QF may want to start another service to the US in its stead... perhaps BNE - DFW?
Kitch
Kitch
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 10 Jun 2015
Total posts 72
They won't get rid of the 747 on Hong Kong and Japan. I think the SYD-JNB should be handed over to PER, so other cities, eg. MEL, ADE and BNE. The SYD-JNB should also be handed over to MEL because Sydney have LAN flight.
FLX
FLX
Member since 10 Dec 2015
Total posts 14
<<They won't get rid of the 747 on Hong Kong and Japan.>>
Why?
FLX
FLX
Member since 10 Dec 2015
Total posts 14
<<...why would QF use a 787 on an Asian route that's currently serviced by a 747?>>
Why not?
For 1 thing, some 744 frames @ QF are very old and approaching their nex mandatory D-check(In case U're unaware of the tech details, it's essentially disassembling the whole thing, inspect each part pc by pc, parts replacement and finally put them all back together) which is a super-costly exercise and will become more frequent as the frames aged further.
<<Look at HKG...>>
HKG is my current home port and it is indeed difficult to find vacant slots there these days. However, it's not impossible especially for special cases like QF which has been effectively leaving some wkly slots allocated/grand-fathered to it as dormant almost yr-round(Some of these slots hv been temporarily assigned to other operators but possible to be returned to QF with advance notice). Also if U compare the usual total wkly frequency done by QF vs CX on say HKG-SYD, it's 11x vs 28x....the HKG authority may try its best to help QF to find slots to reduce such glaring frequency gap in the spirit of the bilateral. I can easily see QF moving to 14x wkly as they transition fm current plan A) 744 x4 wkly to future plan B) 789 x7 wkly on that route....in similar cabin density/config, total seat supply+frequency improvement of plan B) easily beats plan A).
<<Then there's Haneda...>>
why <<commands a premium>> must be connected to <<want to have a bigger aircraft>>?
If that's the econ logic, NH would hv deployed its 77W(They've plenty with even more joining soon) on HND-SYD, not a 789 which is the reality. And I don't fully buy the argument that QF can pull significantly more traffic to fill larger type than NH because it has been in the SYD-Tokyo mkt for yrs and can hub @ both ends(Thx to partner JL). NH is no slouch for domestic hubbing @ HND and does hv new buddy VA(i.e. the unofficial *A local partner in Australia) to help hubbing @ SYD.
Bottomline: Fare will stay premium if SYD-HND is considered a premium route+cabin product std is appropriate regardless of whether it's operated by a 744, 789 or whatever. However, yield(Or unit op profit margin in layman terms) will change due to diff op cost per seat 744 vs 789....and that's where a 789 shines much brighter than a 744 fm an operator perspective.
In a nutshell & assuming full pax on SYD-HND route today, a QF 744 is earning Rev$ fm about 360seats while a hypothetical QF 789 in similar cabin density will earn Rev$ fm about 250seats(Using UA as a benchmark as it has the closest J design specs to QF's 744)....about 31% drop in Rev$ transitioning fm 744 to 789. However, trip fuel cost of a 744 nearly double that of a 789 on routes of 8hrs or longer....I est. @ least 45% drop in fuel cost transitioning fm 744 to 789. If your cost drops much faster than your Rev$ when U change something, your profit margin has improved due to such change. I believe most listed corps like QF are profit-driven(As long as AJ is around to call the shots) rather than Rev$ or mkt share driven these days. And we've not even accounted for the higher Rev$ belly cargo opportunity:
789=LD3 x36 vs 744=LD3 x32(But more of these must be reserved for baggages due to higher pax count unlike on a 789).
The econ equation for QF is actually pretty lop-sided in favor of 789 over 744 on most E.Asian routes.
<<first 787s will probably be used on SFO...>>
Probably. QF+OW is weaker to pull traffic in SFO but must match UA frequency to hv a fighting chance.
<<Vancouver>>
Frankly a long shot as traffic demand is dismal during off-season. Much smaller mkt than SFO overall but with the same alliance limit.
<<BNE - LAX - JFK....but that would result in a reduction of capacity to the US..>>
The conclusion assumes:
a) No frequency increase for BNE-LAX (VA would cheer as they won't be able to match QF without moving mountains in 77W rotation schedule...)
b) LAX-JFK cannot be decoupled fm BNE-LAX (With daily 380 x2 @ LAX fm MEL & SYD? Comon...U are joking)
c) All of the above.
Each of the above assumptions is shaky @ best.
<<..perhaps BNE - DFW?>>
Technically doable since it'll be slightly shorter than SFO-SIN which is scheduled to start 2.5mths fm now by UA's 789. IMHO, BNE-DFW by 789 will be the nex <killer app> for QF in its Trans-Pcf war with VA+*A....
aniljak
aniljak
Member since 15 Sep 2012
Total posts 98
Think we will see them on new routes to India and south America. Qantas have been very kjeen to get back to India, just needed right equipment. Think they would love to return to Buenos Aires and Rio (subject to etops approval).Adelaide and Brisbane to Dubai is a strong possibility. May also see flights ex Canberra to new Zealand, lax and Singapore. Would love to see flights ex Hobart and Darwin.
Kitch
Kitch
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 10 Jun 2015
Total posts 72
Yeah I think that we will have new flight a from Melbourne and adeliade and perth. You can't fly a 747/380 on a route from Perth, so I think the 787 will be perfect for perth.
Himeno
Himeno
Member since 12 Dec 2012
Total posts 295
We are unlikely to see new routes opened, without cutting somewhere else, until a 2nd batch of 787s arrives.
They need the first batch to replace 747s and cover A380s during a likely mid life cabin refresh program.
By the time the 8 firm 787s arrive, they'll need them to service the routes currently operated by 747s that are getting retired by 2018.
There are 3 groups of 747:
2x 4 class - will be retired by mid 2018
3x A380 cabin 747-400 - stated to be retired with 787-9 arrival. May hang around until 2021/22.
6x 747-400ER - will need to be replaced in mid 2020s.
The first 8 787-9s are very likely to be used on routes that 747s currently operate that don't require ETOPS above 180.
DOPEFRESHNATION
DOPEFRESHNATION
Member since 09 Mar 2015
Total posts 17
yes, i believe that they would be ordering more. They wouldn't hire an extra 170 pilots for nothing