Qantas orders six more Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners

Helpful comment and really adds such value. Thanks...

Crew are not there to ‘serve’ passengers. They are there to provide a service. There is a difference.

Service, the service on QF is declining so fast soon we will not need FAs

Oh come on that's just ridiculous. I've done Qantas business class on international flights and the service is perfectly acceptable and competitive. The food is a bit better than Cathay for one (Tosca is a great restaurant but the Tosca-branded Octopus Terrine that Cathay served me on a flight from HK was basically the food equivalent of the Necronomicon, and had sufficient tentacles to live up to that reputation), and they have pajamas on night flights from Asia which is pretty rare. The booze is absolutely at the Business Class standard and the newer lounges are very nice and competitive.

Well perhaps you should explore a few more forums. Try QF FB and have a nice long read through there and see the Neli Perry food reviews and perhaps have a look at some of the photos of what people have been served or nor served on Dom and Inter.

I don't need to explore a few more forums. I've eaten quite a bit of Qantas food. Is it "truffles and foie gras", no of course not, but Neil Perry's food is perfectly good. Modern Australian is a nice cuisine. Would I prefer classic French bistro? In some cases yes. But Qantas is not the flag carrier of France, and Neil's food is perfectly nice.

Just type in "Qantas food Tripadvisor" and select the bad food reviews section.

I'll take my experience over random trip adviser reviews. Qantas is perfectly acceptable food in J. Better than BA, CX, AA, LATAM, IB. Perhaps there is better around but its only airline food its never going to be that good.

Same here here I will take my experience as well. All I am saying is that in my recent experience and opinion the quality has declined. You are fortunate that you may had hit a good day which can happen on any airline.

Wow! I must be hitting jackpot then with my 15+ annual flights in First and Business on QF when I get served food that is definitely worthy of and competitive with other carriers respective class of travel. I've been eating meals at the front end on QF, SQ, CX, JL, EK, EY, QR, BA, IB, LH, AF, AA, DL and others for many years and with such butt-numbing regularity that I feel confident in saying I have not seen a deterioration in the standards of QF meals.

"Perfectly acceptable." Damned by faint praise.

You can type that in for any product or service on trip advisor and there will always be someone’s negative comments and review.

They are not flight attendants (FA), they are cabin crew and their primary function is for your safety, as is the flight crew and ground crew. The way they provide in flight service is secondary and QF is pretty awesome at both. In the early days QF cabin crew had to be qualified nurses

I have had great service on qantas flights - but sometimes it’s hit and miss have had some grumpy ones too! And they weren’t that old...however the best service for me has always been competitor airlines VA, SQ and EY. Always consistent

Interesting attitude...

I just meant that treating crew with respect and as the professionals they are is better than expecting to be served. I find that good customer service is as much about the way I treat staff as it is the other way around.

Not a well informed comment. Qantas Fleet is actually quite new, what distorts the average aircraft age is the fleet of 20 717’s they operate which are suited for there purpose.

Actually, it appears your comment is the not well informed one. Qantas excludes its regional aircraft from its fleet age calculation.

Quite right, the avaergae age is 10.6 years which is made worse by the 747’s which average 17 years.

That’s exactly right, Qantas does exclude the 717, but claims of the fleet being old like above are being incorrectly made such as a recent S&P report was found to include the 717 in there calculations which distorts the fleet age. An average fleet age of 10.6 with the aging 747’s about to be retired is not an a bad spot to be in.

It's stated in the S&P report that they calculate fleet age as per each carrier's measure of age....so they calculate age the way Qantas has.

Speaking of the 717, when and what will replace them? More Q400's? or the C series?

That of course is the million dollar question. But whilst these aircraft are cheap to own and to operate and that there is no real equivalent replacement, I think you will find them around for some years to come.

As the CEO of Hawaiian airlines said in a recent article their is not a plane for sale now or on the drawing board to replace the 717 which by plane standards has a very robust frame Hawaiian do upto 18 cycles a day and that is what deternands a planes life cycle

Traveller and which of those including QF is most profitable CX and SQ are both in quite deep holes. Not sure about the others but I am sure they are not right up there.

A key difference though is that CX and SQ do not have domestic routes as such. I accept that CX is operating from SAR to mainland China, so some may regard that as 'domestic' but it's not like what in recent months has settled down to become a more cosy duopoly in Australia (bearing in mind that the LCcs are subsidiaries of QF and VA.)

Makes a big difference when your biggest source of revenue is a domestic market where you own 65% market share and 90% of profits. South East Asia has become one of the most cutthroat intense markets to compete and the fact that SQ is still able to make more profit than the other carriers in the region (even more than QF international) with a higher cost base than their competitors shows that they are doing extremely well considering the circumstances.

I agree with the nightmare liner title but of course no different to almost all 787 operators.

Easy to solve, Qantas, drop a seat in each row and go back to original seating config of 2-4-2. Then it will become Dreamliner again.

and go broke

I'm not usually a fan of such terms but it was a simple way to refer to the very narrow seats in Y that are found on almost all airlines with this aircraft. Unlike JL, QF has chosen not to be more generous in seat width in Y to passengers.

Spot on. I've worked in technology my whole career. Almost every company I know - large and small, mandate economy right up to director level. In the multi-nationals, VPs get business.
I can assure any airline that even though my PA books my flights with AMEX.... I scan the schdedules, airlines and aircraft and make the selections.
Plus your long serving economy customer today will be your business customer in the future (hopefully :) )

Traveller12: we're well aware that many business travellers fly economy, however for several reasons (including positioning and differentiating the AusBT brand) our primary focus remains on premium cabins, centred on business class and extending up to first class and down to premium economy.

I'm sure they know what they're doing

does no one remember this is the same airline that cancelled, delayed it's opening orders of 787s and then slung the ones they had to take across to Jetstar? or the fact they abandoned Perth for many years in becoming the "east coast airline"

All exceptionally good business decisions by Joyce that has Qantas ready to post a billion plus dollars in profit. Very few airlines can say the same.

Not all Boeing 747s will be swapped out for Boeing 787s, and the replacement for the Airbus A380 is more likely to be the likes of the Boeing 777X.

Some routes the 747 flies on are well within the range of an A330. Indeed some routes have both 747 and A330 on them at the moment depending on where the demand is. Those routes will likely switch to A330 only.

This means a full switch of the A330s from domestic as there are only so many to go around.

Joyce has recently made noises about the 332s being too much plane for domestic hops. I would expect to see more of them to move to international.

There wont be 10 747s by the time these additional 6 787-9s arrive. Most likely 6, however even 6 787-9s for 6 747s is a large reduction in seat count. Further how can they be 747 replacements and support new route development at the same time ?

QF are chasing yield over market share, so a net reduction in seat count isn't a huge problem for them. In addition, they can upgauge through frequency... SYD - SCL/JNB/YVR are likely to become more frequent, even daily services rather than the 3-times-weekly or seasonal services currently operated... and this in turn helps boost yield since business travelers like daily-or-greater frequencies.

Agree Gregxl. I can see Qantas yields increasing in this configuration

It isn't 6 to replace 10, it's 6 to replace 6. The first 8 787s are meant to bring the 747 fleet down to the 6 ERs.

Can you read 14 787s to replace 10 747s

787 engine issue only related to 787 that is fitted with Trent 1000 engine. QF 787-9 and Jetstar 787-8 both uses GENx engine. So they are not effect with ETOPS rating.

That is completely incorrect. Yes, FAA has reduced ETOPS on Trent1000 engines. However CASA does not allow ETOPS above 180, which seriously hinders 787 operations for Australian carriers to Africa and South America. The 787 is rated for ETOPS 330

With LATAM and others flying >ETOPS180 into Australia, I suspect if nothing changes here soon, Qantas will lobby the government and CASA will be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age

AUSBT just announced QF to fly A330 on PER-JNB in Dec 2018. Soo the EDTO/ETOPS must be approved.

Sydney to Johannesburg tracks significantly more south than from Perth, often skating along Antarctica. When Virgin flew from Melbourne, they had to add around 2-3hours to the journey due to ETOPS 180 restrictions and flying further north.

Qantas has yet to announce that route.
The information about it has came, first from a test entry in the GDS, then from an internal QF source AusBT has.

There is reportedly an debate happening between PER airport and QF about which terminal the proposed PER-JNB flight will use. QF wants it with their other flights, using the new international wing QF9/10 uses. The airport wants it on the other side of the airfield with all the other non QF international flights.

West coast routing to JNB dips slightly into 330 areas, no where near as much as the east coast routes do. It would add about 10-15 minutes flight time to stay within ETOPS240 and around 60 minutes to stay within ETOPS180.

The VA MEL-JNB flight had to add upwards of 3 hours.

The 787 and A330 have ETOPS type ratings of 330 and 240. CASA also needs to give Qantas an operator rating, CASA won't approve more then 180. Thus, even though QF has aircraft that can be used up to ETOPS330, they can't use that capabity because CASA won't let them.

The Southern Ocean routes need at least ETOPS240 to be viable.

Himeno I can see South Africa going via Perth on a A332 maybe twice a day on some days and South America maybe dropped unless there is enough demand for a A380. All due to ETOPS.

Can’t see a double daily - but makes more sense to fly South Africa from

QF load factors to and from Chile were very good in February 2018. Don't know about yields, though.

I’ve flown Santiago a

South America has been getting very high loads and from what I heard, decent yields as well. There is talk of additional destinations in South America so I don't think we will see the axing of SCL, but instead CASA having a change in policy.

If CASA do loosen the restrictions, maybe we might get direct flights to Rio with the 787.

Sorry but this is incorrect. CASA updated the EDTO rules in January 2015 - CAAP 82-1 allows EDTO operations above 180 minute diversion time.

Brisbane will actually have increased capacity across the Pacific once the 747 is changed to the 787 double-daily flights. Also, I now won’t have to get the crazy early 5:50 am flight from North QLD to connect in Brisbane.

Not quite double daily reno but 11 times per week with all 787s from December.

Not quite two daily. With the next batch of 787s there will be two BNE-LAX on 4 days of the week.

At least until they decide on other routes to North America, pending the joint venture with AA getting approved.

No, I’m not nuts. You’re rude...

11 a week - is still better than once a day and having to get the really early connection.

They are comfy and big but really noisy

The 787 was designed for 8 across. Adding a 9th seat to each row narrows the seats and reduces possible range.

Both ANA and JAL, the first airlines to get 787s, installed 8 across. Every other airline has gone with 9 across.
ANA has converted theirs to 9 across, JAL hasn't.

Passengers don't like 9 across 787s because it causes the economy seats to be narrower then the seats on simliar sized aircraft.

It is just like the 777 it was design for the 3-3-3 configuration. Far bit of airline now are re-configuring their airline to 3-4-3.

Normal A330 has a 2-4-2 configuration some of the major low cost airline in Asia now have them configured in a 3-3-3.

There been rumors of A380 going from a 3-4-3 to a 3-5-3.

Would be interesting to see if QF9/QF10 are load restricted, like the QF7/8 A380 to dallas and back. If so would be more wiser to put in 2-4-2 and have nicer looking load factors.

Still 8 A380s on order and 4 options. Very unlikely to be delivered. Likely to be converted to A320NEOs (which when combined with existing Qantas Group A320 orders could replace all the narrow bodies in use by QF and JQ), or some form of A350 (should QF deem it better then the 777X for Project Sunrise).

Himeno, do you mean 'A320neos' or larger 'A321neos?' Is there any reason apart from cost and lack of demand that they wouldn't increase capacity by ordering the A321s not just A320s?

Whilst A320 is a specific aircraft it is also the name for a family of aircraft and is often used interchangeably.

Firming up more 787 orders isn't a surprise. That was quite expected.

Getting rid of the 747ERs in 2020 is quite surprising. They were expected to still be around at least until 2022, if not through 2025.
Still, they could always change their minds about that again.

Is that economy only or would not care if it was business?

There are many reports of those already have flown inside them, even on short haul, who say that economy is very uncomfortable, but this aside, there are other reasons I will not fly inside a 787, no matter what cabin class selected.

The latest 3-4-3 in Y that many are doing is also pretty crap

Over 100 comments on this announcement and this is first mention of the PE lack of leg room! I recently flew MEL-PER in PE on a domestic 787-9 service. I was impressed by everything about the PE product, with the exception that for me at 6ft 5inches tall it seemed about as cramped as a generous Y seat when seats were reclined. I won’t be considering it for future long haul travel unless it is improved.

Wow amazed that you didn't get howled down here for those comments but IMHO tend to agree with what you have said as its been my personal experience also with inconsistent service. 50% SR not good.

How was the Neil Perry inspired food.

That could depend on Project Sunrise, in that an A350 ULR choice could result in wider use of the A350. Presumably some of the 787 options can be taken as 10s, so this would seem likely to be the best deal for QF.

Whole idea of a 787 sized aircraft is to fly point to point, not point to hub.