eamus

I am pretty sure this has been covered before, but for the sake of those who haven't heard already, Boeing is unveiling the newest long-range version 777 in Seattle today. Range is up to 11,000 miles, and London-Sydney is one of the sample suggested routes. News link is here although interestingly the tech specs on the Boeing website are only for the -300. In fact the whole website is pretty quiet on the -200LR generally. Whatever. Anyway, to open up the batting (again), who wants to sit for 20 hours in 31" of Y pitch? Better that than a longer period but with a stop in between?

mikalee

Who wants to and who will are totally different. Some punters will do it to save time, others will do it to save a dollar or two.

If these services can fly a substantially full load from LHR-SYD and vv then the premium classes will fill up and the cattle class will follow suit.

Presumably the trip will be about 3 hours shorter than the present. So that makes it *only* about 3-4 hours longer then the current SQ SIN-EWK service.

I can't see what all the fuss is about people will be happy to fly it.

sxc

Boeing has said that although LHR to SYD is definitely feasible on a full load with cargo, SYD to LHR is less likely at some times of the year due to wind.

I think if Qantas did an all premium economy plane like SQ then there would be plenty of people who would be happy to fly non-stop to London. Also by being all premium economy, the plane will be slightly lighter hence negating the wind problem.

Kiwi Flyer

If SYD-LHR route was used, would heading east be possible to take advantage of tailwinds (like the SIN-EWR have different flightpath for each direction)? I'm guessing no as its quite a lot longer.

Dave Noble

I would do it to knock a few hours off of the journey time.

Dave

NM

This is one of the aircraft QF is currently considering, and we expect an announcement sometime around May. Obviously it would give QF some options to be inovative, something they have not really been know for in the past! Some options:

PER-LHR is very achievable in both directions, and a 772 is probably about the right size for a daily service. It would even give people the option of SYD/MEL/BNE/ADL-PER-LHR instead of the stop in Asia. Probably attractove for ADL people more than SYD/MEL/BNE.

Also consider the A380 will be operating SYD-SIN-LHR, so that may make a non-stop SYD-LHR less attractive to both QF and passengers.

772 would also make some Australia-USA routes attractive instead of trunking all passengers through SYD or MEL and via LAX. Perhaps a daily non-stop BNE-LAX (QF175/176)may be better suited to 772 size aircraft, with QF25/26 continuing via AKL. Perhaps SYD-DFW comes back into play.

Other European destination other that London become attractive for a load the size of a 772-LR or 773-ER (we could see QF buying a mix), such as CDG, FCO, FRA, ATH.

But for me, I would rather take a one-stop flight via Asia rather than a non-stop to London. When making that journey, a few hours of my time are neither here not there, and I enjoy the chance for a shower and stretch, and of course the collection of DF scotch at SIN is always a benefit (see, I knew we could get this back OT).

Kiwi Flyer

Provided there's convenient connections could also be attractive from NZ. Avoids the route through US. Would need to compete with asia routes though - comfort, ease of connecting, schedule time etc.

NM

And with NZ heading down the 777 and 787 path, perhaps this might tie in with the old NZ/QF merger that seems to be revisted as part of the SQ Trans-Pac derires.

Kiwi Flyer

As I posted on the other thread - I cant see merger being reopened this year. There's an election in NZ and no way the current government will approve (or even publicly be considering) anything so unpopular with the voters.

I suspect savvy QFers know this and so can tie NZ merger with SQ market access with impunity.

NM

Impunity is a wonderful thing in the world of politics .

everywhere

I think for the South Pacific market the LR will be sold as a way for airlines avoid pax connecting through LAX in the USA. Flying a SYD - SIN - LHR service is not as bad as SYD-LAX-DFW for example.

Once one has loaded up that page, by clicking on technical specs and then characteristics in the drop down box one can access the 200LR tech specs.

The SQ Y+ and J format was installed into the A345 because the F suites would fall through the floor and the aircraft couldn't meet performance requirements in a Y/J/F config. I think SQ will be ordering some of these when they have proven performance. Once burned, twice shy.

RickyT

Which brings up the possibility that the 772LR could operate SYD/MEL - YVR non-stop, and the size of it would be ideal for it to be a 4X/5X weekly service. This would be better for pax as I would aviod LAX and will be more favourable than the AC service as it doesn't have to stop at HNL from YVR to SYD.


Ahhh well, we will have to wait till May to see what QF has in store for thier fleet plans.

wandering_fred

NM wrote
PER-LHR is very achievable in both directions, and a 772 is probably about the right size for a daily service. It would even give people the option of SYD/MEL/BNE/ADL-PER-LHR instead of the stop in Asia. Probably attractove for ADL people more than SYD/MEL/BNE.

Not being a fan of long flights in any event leaves me indifferent
UNLESS PER-LHR nonstop would allow the sale of a OWE xONE3 in
Australia

trans Pacific is the same issue but avoiding the immigration lines
in LAX would be very nice. Maybe that's why most of my RTW trips have
been in a westerly direction.

WF

NM

In my experience, INS and customs at LAX T4 have not been any problem. Since QF moved INS and Customs to T4, I have very happy to connect through LAX. Add to that the very nice QF/AA F lounge and I am even ok with the security delays at LAX T4 before getting through to the F lounge.

ozstamps

If SYD-LHR works you can bet SYD-NYC works even better.

Glen