You would need several 787's operating each route when that happens, which is impossible for Qantas to acheive since its ordering only 8 787's. they would need far more.
The FAA has granted 330 ETOPS, however Australian airlines are regulated by CASA "CASA says it’s unlikely an Australian airline would ever be allowed to fly beyond the 180-minute diversion limit"
Not legal per current CASA rules. But 787 wouldn't be the only type in QF Int'l fleet 10 or even 15yrs from now, would it?
Given that a 25yrs old 744 airframe is still in active duty with QF today, easy to imagine the following types legal for JNB+SCL ops per CASA rules will stick around QF fleet well into the nex decade:
At this stage Qantas hasn't formally announced any routes for the Boeing 787. When a final decision and announcement is made we'll be sure to cover it.
Also on capacity, the 747 operates sectors the A330 can't. The 787 can be configured to have the required legs, overall providing a more efficient offering. Not to mention the frequencies outlined above
I believe I hv not. I just wanted to emphasize the fact that technically, a 'stock'(i.e. in std Boeing nominal config) 789 can already perform longer missions than a 744 or same missions as a 744ER. In other words, it already "have the required legs" regardless of which cabin config is being adopted.
"..744/ER operates certain sectors puerly because it has the range, not because they require 450+ seats..."
100% agree re QF. But I would also add op freedom outside ETOPS as another key reason thx to SCL+JNB.
"The 788 enables QF to..."
QF has no 788 in op nor on order. It only has 789 on firm order. Only JQ has 788 in op(But none on order). IMHO, QF Group won't order any more 788 in the future......it's just structurally less efficient(Older+less optimized structural designs being used making it a bit heavier for its size than necessary) than 789 or 78J.
Personally, I think we'll see some new routes, but same destinations. MEL-DFW, MEL-SFO come to mind. I agree that ORD would be an odd choice; DFW is better for reaching a lot of destinations and ORD doesn't offer all that much different than current service (though I'd take the ORD flight, as I can get a great hot dog before getting on the plane!)
Yes, it will be by QF....I est. 99% certainty. In fact, I predict within 5-10yrs, we'll see 787 pretty much everywhere across QF Int'l network possibly except JNB+SCL(Thx to CASA's rigidity re ETOPS). For QF Int'l longterm network+fleet strategy, what is most useful(i.e. widest potential applications across the entire network) for them in the future is a machine with 333 size+efficiency AND 744 range performance. And the 789 QF hv chosen ended up being the same size as the 333 but exceeds the efficieny of 333 AND range of 744. It's almost like QF's 333 and 744 decided to hv a romantic night and the 789, with the best genes fm both parents, became their perfect offspring born with attributes exceeding its parents'.
Btw, almost all flights between SYD and E.Asia are over 8hrs block time(e.g. longer than LHR-JFK) and therefore are already longhaul by common industry definition. Beyond 12hrs block time, it's in the extra/ultra longhaul category.
"...I hope not because I don't want to be stuck 9 abrest for 15 hours."
U don't need to. Just upgrade yourself to the PY or J cabin and say good bye to 9 abreast in Y.
However if staying in Y, then the future of extra/ultra longhaul /intercon air travel will look pretty bleak for U regardless of which carrier U choose worldwide(JL is the only odd-ball with 8Y on 787). All nex-gen longhaul types in commercially sustainable cabin configs routinely capable of 15hrs sectors such as 789 or 359 are AT LEAST 9 abreast in Y.
Covo95
Covo95
Member since 30 Jul 2015
Total posts 52
You would need several 787's operating each route when that happens, which is impossible for Qantas to acheive since its ordering only 8 787's. they would need far more.
moa999
moa999
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 02 Jul 2011
Total posts 835
As mentioned above its an approximate replacement for 5 747s
5 x 371 = 1855 (seats in current 747 refurb config)
8 x 235-250 = 1870-2000 (per AJ comment of 235-250 in 787)
SYD-SCL goes from 4/wk to daily
SYD-JNB goes from 6/wk to daily, maybe you add a 3/wk PER-JNB
(all assuming ETOPS approvals of course)
Covo95
Covo95
Member since 30 Jul 2015
Total posts 52
i think the required ETOPs has already been approved.
jrfsp
jrfsp
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 04 Mar 2014
Total posts 105
The FAA has granted 330 ETOPS, however Australian airlines are regulated by CASA "CASA says it’s unlikely an Australian airline would ever be allowed to fly beyond the 180-minute diversion limit"
Covo95
Covo95
Member since 30 Jul 2015
Total posts 52
that means its impossible for qantas's 787 to do flights to johannesburg and santiago.
FLX1
FLX1
Member since 31 Mar 2016
Total posts 37
Not legal per current CASA rules. But 787 wouldn't be the only type in QF Int'l fleet 10 or even 15yrs from now, would it?
Given that a 25yrs old 744 airframe is still in active duty with QF today, easy to imagine the following types legal for JNB+SCL ops per CASA rules will stick around QF fleet well into the nex decade:
744ER x6=Oldest airframe today is below 14yrs old
388 x12=Oldest airframe today is below 8yrs old
Himeno
Himeno
Member since 12 Dec 2012
Total posts 295
The 787 has type approval from FAA and EASA for ETOPS 330+. That means nothing to CASA.
For QF to use 787s on routes needing more then ETOPS 180, CASA needs to give both type and operator approval. Which, to date, they refuse to do.
FLX1
FLX1
Member since 31 Mar 2016
Total posts 37
"..impossible for Qantas to achieve since its ordering only 8 787's."
Why impossible? QF will only retire 744 x5 per current plan as 789 x8 enter its fleet.
"...they would need far more."
What else do U think the 789 options x15 + purchase rights x30 on their Boeing 787 contract and sitting on QF's books are for?
Chris C.
Chris C.
Member since 24 Apr 2012
Total posts 1,116
At this stage Qantas hasn't formally announced any routes for the Boeing 787. When a final decision and announcement is made we'll be sure to cover it.
riley
riley
Virgin Australia - Velocity Rewards
Member since 19 Mar 2014
Total posts 358
Also on capacity, the 747 operates sectors the A330 can't. The 787 can be configured to have the required legs, overall providing a more efficient offering. Not to mention the frequencies outlined above
FLX1
FLX1
Member since 31 Mar 2016
Total posts 37
Actually, in equivalent cabin config/seat density, a 789 has far more range than a 744....@ least 1,000km further.
riley
riley
Virgin Australia - Velocity Rewards
Member since 19 Mar 2014
Total posts 358
I think you misunderstood my point above.
The 744/ER operates certain sectors puerly because it has the range, not becuase they require 450+ seats on said sectors. (long + thin.)
The 788 enables QF to operate the sectors more efficiently (i.e a full plane) and that is where it becomes a "replacement" for a 744.
FLX1
FLX1
Member since 31 Mar 2016
Total posts 37
"I think you misunderstood..."
I believe I hv not. I just wanted to emphasize the fact that technically, a 'stock'(i.e. in std Boeing nominal config) 789 can already perform longer missions than a 744 or same missions as a 744ER. In other words, it already "have the required legs" regardless of which cabin config is being adopted.
"..744/ER operates certain sectors puerly because it has the range, not because they require 450+ seats..."
100% agree re QF. But I would also add op freedom outside ETOPS as another key reason thx to SCL+JNB.
"The 788 enables QF to..."
QF has no 788 in op nor on order. It only has 789 on firm order. Only JQ has 788 in op(But none on order). IMHO, QF Group won't order any more 788 in the future......it's just structurally less efficient(Older+less optimized structural designs being used making it a bit heavier for its size than necessary) than 789 or 78J.
travs
travs
Member since 21 Oct 2015
Total posts 8
Personally, I think we'll see some new routes, but same destinations. MEL-DFW, MEL-SFO come to mind. I agree that ORD would be an odd choice; DFW is better for reaching a lot of destinations and ORD doesn't offer all that much different than current service (though I'd take the ORD flight, as I can get a great hot dog before getting on the plane!)
FLX1
FLX1
Member since 31 Mar 2016
Total posts 37
"...Or will it be used for long haul flights..."
Yes, it will be by QF....I est. 99% certainty. In fact, I predict within 5-10yrs, we'll see 787 pretty much everywhere across QF Int'l network possibly except JNB+SCL(Thx to CASA's rigidity re ETOPS). For QF Int'l longterm network+fleet strategy, what is most useful(i.e. widest potential applications across the entire network) for them in the future is a machine with 333 size+efficiency AND 744 range performance. And the 789 QF hv chosen ended up being the same size as the 333 but exceeds the efficieny of 333 AND range of 744. It's almost like QF's 333 and 744 decided to hv a romantic night and the 789, with the best genes fm both parents, became their perfect offspring born with attributes exceeding its parents'.
Btw, almost all flights between SYD and E.Asia are over 8hrs block time(e.g. longer than LHR-JFK) and therefore are already longhaul by common industry definition. Beyond 12hrs block time, it's in the extra/ultra longhaul category.
"...I hope not because I don't want to be stuck 9 abrest for 15 hours."
U don't need to. Just upgrade yourself to the PY or J cabin and say good bye to 9 abreast in Y.
However if staying in Y, then the future of extra/ultra longhaul /intercon air travel will look pretty bleak for U regardless of which carrier U choose worldwide(JL is the only odd-ball with 8Y on 787). All nex-gen longhaul types in commercially sustainable cabin configs routinely capable of 15hrs sectors such as 789 or 359 are AT LEAST 9 abreast in Y.