First non-stop service from Australia to UK begins

Doltanian

Qantas landed their QF9 Perth to London non-stop flight into London Heathrow this morning. It is a milestone of ultra-long haul travel, facilitated by newer more fuel efficient aircraft.

The Boeing 787-9 actually begins it momentous journey in Melbourne's Tullamarine Airport on Australia's East Coast and makes a stop-over in Perth, before continuing North across the Indian Ocean skirting the southern tip of India and Sri-Lanka before crossing the Persian Gulf and travelling north over Iran and across the Black Sea into Western Europe before finally landing in London Heathrow after a Marathon 18 hours in the Sky.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-43530332
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/flights/the-long-haul-heres-what-to-expect-on-board-australias-longest-flight/news-story/1b09b307d85bf688b0c378b44941ae07
https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/5894968/qantas-airlines-direct-flights-london-perth-australia-economy-class/

Qatar Airways Doha-Auckland service is slightly longer by 31kms but Perth to Heathrow is definitely a milestone and will be of enormous benefit to the many thousands of Irish who live and work in Western Australia in its booming economy.

murphaph

I've never been to Australia but I have flown to Asian cities like Tokyo via London. It's a very long time to be confined to the aircraft IMO. I would much prefer to go via the middle East and take a break closer to halfway and be able to stretch the legs for a short while like that. Maybe it's just me though.

AMKC

@OP Are you sure this is right? London Heathrow after a Marathon 18 hours in the Sky.

I heard it is 17 hours in the sky.

It's still great to see this progress anyway.

EchoIndia

AMKC wrote: »

@OP Are you sure this is right? London Heathrow after a Marathon 18 hours in the Sky.

I heard it is 17 hours in the sky.

It's still great to see this progress anyway.

Actual flight time will vary according to the route and winds on the day. On the inaugural the actual flight time was 17h14m.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA9

What Username Guidelines

Doltanian wrote: »

Qatar Airways Doha-Auckland service is slightly longer by 31kms but Perth to Heathrow is definitely a milestone and will be of enormous benefit to the many thousands of Irish who live and work in Western Australia in its booming economy.

I know Australia is huge but it’s mad to think the the distance from Perth to Auckland is similar to London to Doha.

Doltanian

You’d spend well over 18 hours on the plane when you factor in loading and unloading and spending half an hour taxiing in Heathrow would not be unheard of either. I’ve often been sitting in planes for ages before it gets airborne.

Flying Amsterdam to Heathrow one time saw me spend well over 2 hrs on board what is literally a 30 minute journey. The plane taxied to AMS’s far out runaway 3-4kms away and then circling over London for a slot to land in Heathrow. It’s no wonder Eurostar have recently launched London to Amsterdam via the Chunnel, when you factor in security, waiting for baggage, passport checks etc and checkin desk queues and Heathrow’s westerly location in London the train is a far more civilised less stressful approach to travel between the two cities

Peregrinus

Doltanian wrote: »

Qatar Airways Doha-Auckland service is slightly longer by 31kms but Perth to Heathrow is definitely a milestone and will be of enormous benefit to the many thousands of Irish who live and work in Western Australia in its booming economy.

Not much use to the Irish, I think. If I have to choose between transitting at Heathrow and transitting at Dubai, I'll transit at Dubai, every time, hands down, no questions asked.

This route is only of interest to people who actually want to go between Perth and London.

Doltanian

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not much use to the Irish, I think. If I have to choose between transitting at Heathrow and transitting at Dubai, I'll transit at Dubai, every time, hands down, no questions asked.

This route is only of interest to people who actually want to go between Perth and London.

Getting to Dublin Airport can be a long journey if your from Kerry or parts of Cork far from the Motorways or Train services. I’ve a cousin in Perth who’d fly home once or twice a year to Dublin via the ME3 and the one stop in London and onto Cork would suit far better than making two stops as was the scenario before to fly from Cork to any Australian destination.

Peregrinus

Doltanian wrote: »

Getting to Dublin Airport can be a long journey if your from Kerry or parts of Cork far from the Motorways or Train services. I’ve a cousin in Perth who’d fly home once or twice a year to Dublin via the ME3 and the one stop in London and onto Cork would suit far better than making two stops as was the scenario before to fly from Cork to any Australian destination.

Fair enough, yes. It does offer a one-stop rather than two-stop option from Irish regional airports.

But eighteen hours in a cattle-class seat is a hell of a price to pay for that! And you could wish that your one stop was at some airport less ghastly than Heathrow.

irishrover99

On a 787 in Economy.
No Thanks.
I wonder how much the premium economy seats costs.

smurfjed

@irishrover99

Why is the 787 economy any worse than other aircraft?

josip

Why haven't Qantas/BA launched a direct Sydney-London route?
Is the range of the 777-200LR (17,395km) the maximum range before it falls out of the sky or the maximum operational range?
The business case would be stronger with Sydney being considerably larger than Perth.

irishrover99

smurfjed wrote: »

@irishrover99

Why is the 787 economy any worse than other aircraft?

Because the legroom in the 787 in awful,even compared to the 777.
I had the middle 3 seats between me and my Son flying to Doha and it still felt smaller than 4 middle seats on the A380 that my Wife and Daughter also had to use with us.

Brennus335

irishrover99 wrote: »

Because the legroom in the 787 in awful,even compared to the 777.
I had the middle 3 seats between me and my Son flying to Doha and it still felt smaller than 4 middle seats on the A380 that my Wife and Daughter also had to use with us.

Seat width and pitch is nothing to do with the aircraft, rather the particular airlines chosen layout.

Peregrinus

irishrover99 wrote: »

Because the legroom in the 787 in awful,even compared to the 777.
I had the middle 3 seats between me and my Son flying to Doha and it still felt smaller than 4 middle seats on the A380 that my Wife and Daughter also had to use with us.

Legroom isn't fixed in the 787 (or any aircraft); the airline configures it however they want. Reportedly, on the aircraft being used on the Perth-London route the seat pitch in economy class is 32"; for Quantas's other long-haul aircraft it is 31". I don't know who you flew to Doha with, but if it was Qatar, the seat pitch in their 787s is 31". BA is the same as Qatar.

Some airlines have a 30" pitch in 787s (but possibly not for long-haul flights).

You can get a premium economy seat on the Perth-London flight with a pitch of 38". But you'll pay handsomely for it.

irishrover99

Peregrinus wrote: »

Legroom isn't fixed in the 787 (or any aircraft); the airline configures it however they want. Reportedly, on the aircraft being used on the Perth-London route the seat pitch in economy class is 32"; for Quantas's other long-haul aircraft it is 31". I don't know who you flew to Doha with, but if it was Qatar, the seat pitch in their 787s is 31". BA is the same as Qatar.

Some airlines have a 30" pitch in 787s (but possibly not for long-haul flights).

You can get a premium economy seat on the Perth-London flight with a pitch of 38". But you'll pay handsomely for it.

I know legroom is not fixed to any airline but from what i gathered, most airlines choose the same configuration on the 787 in economy.
With this Airplane i'm sure they could have changed that due to the introduction of the premium seats.

But even at 32" it still wouldn't seal the deal for me for a 17 hour flight.
The 787 has very narrow seat as well and not much room for your legs under the seat in front and then their is the IFE box which takes up more room.

Other than that, as said in a previous post on Qatar, i liked the 787.

Here is a review from ITV news

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-03-25/first-regular-non-stop-flight-between-perth-australia-and-london-heathrow-uk-touches-down/

Peregrinus

irishrover99 wrote: »

I know legroom is not fixed to any airline but from what i gathered, most airlines choose the same configuration on the 787 in economy.
With this Airplane i'm sure they could have changed that due to the introduction of the premium seats.

But even at 32" it still wouldn't seal the deal for me for a 17 hour flight.
The 787 has very narrow seat as well and not much room for your legs under the seat in front and then their is the IFE box which takes up more room.

Other than that, as said in a previous post on Qatar, i liked the 787.

Well, the seat width, as well as the seat pitch, is an airline choice. All that matters here is the pitch and width on the particular 787 that serves the Perth-London route; pitch and width on other 787s is irrelevant.

But, I agree, an extra inch or two of pitch, and a correspondingly slightly-greater-than-average width, is not going to clinch the deal for me. If you're paying for me to fly business class, and if business class includes a seat that folds into a flat bed, I'd consider it. Otherwise you couldn't drag me kicking and screaming onto a 17-hour flight that leads to a transit at Heathrow Airport.

Dardania

Just screwing around with a dummy booking on QF10 from London to Perth, it seems to be an additional £70 to bump to premium economy - not bad at all. Although the economy cost is £500 more than a connecting flight via Singapore for example. I wonder if they have many premium economy seats on the plane...or maybe the day I'm looking at is nearly sold out on economy seats.

basill

UK taxes make your eyes water as well especially if you turn left. Would be much cheaper for any Irish to transit through one of the ME hubs or HKG when Cathay start up. Its only of use to someone who actually wants to go to LHR.

JCX BXC

basill wrote: »

UK taxes make your eyes water as well especially if you turn left. Would be much cheaper for any Irish to transit through one of the ME hubs or HKG when Cathay start up. Its only of use to someone who actually wants to go to LHR.

£75/£150, not entirely back breaking if you consider the overall cost of a flight from LHR-PER.

irishrover99

From everything i've seen, the service on this flight was amazing and nothing was too much hassle for the cabin crew, but i'd expect this from an
inaugural flight when they would be expecting media coverage.
Soon this will become like any other flight and then we will see the proper reviews when cabin crew are missing due to illness or something else goes wrong on a flight.

Peregrinus

Dardania wrote: »

Just screwing around with a dummy booking on QF10 from London to Perth, it seems to be an additional £70 to bump to premium economy - not bad at all. Although the economy cost is £500 more than a connecting flight via Singapore for example. I wonder if they have many premium economy seats on the plane...or maybe the day I'm looking at is nearly sold out on economy seats.

That's interesting. I tried looking at the cost for a return flight on originating in Perth on a random day Wednesday in May, returning a fortnight later, taking the non-stop service in both directions. I'm getting:

Economy: $1,666, if I take the cheapest (and most inflexible) offerings in both directions

Premium Economy: $5,881 (again, if I take cheapest offerings)

Business: $13,521 (again, cheapest offerings)

Repeating the exercise for a random date in June:

Economy: $1,686

Premium economy: $5,988

Business: $9,811.

So, originating from Perth, there's a huge difference between economy and premium economy.

L1011

basill wrote: »

UK taxes make your eyes water as well especially if you turn left. Would be much cheaper for any Irish to transit through one of the ME hubs or HKG when Cathay start up. Its only of use to someone who actually wants to go to LHR.

Connecting passengers don't pay the UK APD

AMKC

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

I know Australia is huge but it’s mad to think the the distance from Perth to Auckland is similar to London to Doha.

It is a massive Continent and island. You could easily fit Europe into Australia and flying from Pert to Auckland means flying from the west coast of Australia all the way to New Zealand which is a bit further again.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not much use to the Irish, I think. If I have to choose between transitting at Heathrow and transitting at Dubai, I'll transit at Dubai, every time, hands down, no questions asked.

This route is only of interest to people who actually want to go between Perth and London.

Not much use to the Irish, I think. If I have to choose between transitting at Heathrow and transitting at Dubai, I'll transit at Dubai, every time, hands down, no questions asked.

I transitted at Heathrow and did not find it that bad and this was back in 2010. I have to experience of Dubai never been there.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fair enough, yes. It does offer a one-stop rather than two-stop option from Irish regional airports.

But eighteen hours in a cattle-class seat is a hell of a price to pay for that! And you could wish that your one stop was at some airport less ghastly than Heathrow.

Heathrow is not that bad.

I was in a 777 in economy class and had no problem with it so I think a 787 would not be to bad either. Just depends on what your used to I suppose.

smurfjed wrote: »

@irishrover99

Why is the 787 economy any worse than other aircraft?

Exactly. I say it's grand just some people want or expect more.

LiamaDelta

Dardania wrote: »

Just screwing around with a dummy booking on QF10 from London to Perth, it seems to be an additional £70 to bump to premium economy - not bad at all. Although the economy cost is £500 more than a connecting flight via Singapore for example. I wonder if they have many premium economy seats on the plane...or maybe the day I'm looking at is nearly sold out on economy seats.

Not sure where you're getting this £70 from, in all the bookings I've looked at it's about £500 more for PE over Economy? Were you looking at the difference between saver and flex?

Idbatterim

I've never been to Australia but I have flown to Asian cities like Tokyo via London. It's a very long time to be confined to the aircraft IMO. I would much prefer to go via the middle East and take a break closer to halfway and be able to stretch the legs for a short while like that. Maybe it's just me though.

totally agree with this. I absolutely prefer direct, maybe up to 12 hours at an absolute push. Like Dublin to San Fran, but further than that, Id prefer to break up the journey, ideally somewhere around the half way mark...

smurfjed

Because the legroom in the 787 in awful,even compared to the 777.

Actually it's not, the Layout Passenger Accommodation (LOPA) is an airline choice where the only aircraft limitation is the emergency door exits, as in trying to get all the first class seats installed before the 2nd door, and the business before the 3rd door etc.

In the case of the 787, Qantas used 32 inches for economy and 17.2 width, Qatar use 31 in and 17.2. My employer uses 32-33 and 17.8-18.3 (24/274) for the 787-9.

Qatar use 31-33 and 17 for the 777-300ER, and 32/18.5 for the A380. Strangely enough the A350 XTRA WIDE BODY only offers 31-32/18.

I was disappointed when the 777's started going to 10 abreast rather than 9, and also disappointed that no airline took the 787 with8 abreast seating, but unfortunately we all want to fly cheaply and putting that extra line of seats in the aircraft is relatively free for the airline.

The Airbus aircraft do appear to offer a little bit more width in the seats, but the pitch for nearly all airlines is very similar.

Have a look at seatguru.com prior to your next flight, it gives seating information for most airlines.

I've had the pleasure of doing a 16 hour flight in a First Class suite, tonnes of room, awesome food and entertainment, even then it was a total bitch and I would dread having to do it in economy.

irishrover99

smurfjed wrote: »

Actually it's not, the Layout Passenger Accommodation (LOPA) is an airline choice where the only aircraft limitation is the emergency door exits, as in trying to get all the first class seats installed before the 2nd door, and the business before the 3rd door etc.

In the case of the 787, Qantas used 32 inches for economy and 17.2 width, Qatar use 31 in and 17.2. My employer uses 32-33 and 17.8-18.3 (24/274) for the 787-9.

Qatar use 31-33 and 17 for the 777-300ER, and 32/18.5 for the A380. Strangely enough the A350 XTRA WIDE BODY only offers 31-32/18.

I was disappointed when the 777's started going to 10 abreast rather than 9, and also disappointed that no airline took the 787 with8 abreast seating, but unfortunately we all want to fly cheaply and putting that extra line of seats in the aircraft is relatively free for the airline.

The Airbus aircraft do appear to offer a little bit more width in the seats, but the pitch for nearly all airlines is very similar.

Have a look at seatguru.com prior to your next flight, it gives seating information for most airlines.

I've had the pleasure of doing a 16 hour flight in a First Class suite, tonnes of room, awesome food and entertainment, even then it was a total bitch and I would dread having to do it in economy.

I know what seatguru is.
My post was in relation to flying 17 hours on the 787 in economy and that my experience of flying the 787 was with my kids which i found very cramped. Travelling alone could easily be a different.
I would use Qatar out of Dublin again as their prices are very good and overall i find them the best option and overall experience for getting me from A to B out of the 3 ME airlines that we have.

Marcusm

basill wrote: »

UK taxes make your eyes water as well especially if you turn left. Would be much cheaper for any Irish to transit through one of the ME hubs or HKG when Cathay start up. Its only of use to someone who actually wants to go to LHR.

Connecting flights from outside the UK do to attract significant UK APD so I'm not sure you mean taxes.

sandbelter

Why is the 787 economy any worse than other aircraft?

Exactly. I say it's grand just some people want or expect more.

Seat sizes... if you anything other than 88kg is starts becoming a squeeze. 

Personally, I've been travelling to Australia biannually since 1998, and find flying from Australia in daylight as much as you ... I now I fly arriving in the gulf at midnight, overnight in a hotel, fly daylight into DUB the next day.....reduces jetlag and thus overall journey time.   The thing to remember to Australia is your journey time is not just flight time but flight time + jet lag time.   Everyone forgets jet lag until it costs them their job. 

I haven't suffered jetlag for 10 years doing this...but back to Australia is an entirely different matter and you have to arrive in the evening.

Re QF to PER, no one is talking about jet lag at the moment but flying Y is hell to Australia, but jetlag is even worse can take a week to get over and a cramped and crap long flight only makes it worse.   I find the key is always to arrive in the evening and keep the windows open in the aircraft when its daylight (which also why I avoid the B787) , so arriving in london at 5am after a full day in Australia, a largely sleepless 17 hour stretch from PER and then trying to keep awake until 9pm London time when you can't get into you hotel room until 2pm, and we're not even talking kids here...why would you?   The photos in the sun speak volumes.

My view is do it once to say you've done it, unless it gets much faster (I mean sub 14 hours from PER and 17 from the east coast) then the benefit of the nonstop will be offset by worse jetlag.

Dardania

LiamaDelta wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

Just screwing around with a dummy booking on QF10 from London to Perth, it seems to be an additional £70 to bump to premium economy - not bad at all. Although the economy cost is £500 more than a connecting flight via Singapore for example. I wonder if they have many premium economy seats on the plane...or maybe the day I'm looking at is nearly sold out on economy seats.

Not sure where you're getting this £70 from, in all the bookings I've looked at it's about £500 more for PE over Economy? Were you looking at the difference between saver and flex?

Quite possibly - I've never booked with them before so could have screwed it up...

Gael23

It’s a great step forward in travel but I couldn’t endure a 17 hour flight. I would have to break it up so via Dubai would be my preferred route.

youreadthat

I’ve done 12.5 and 14.5 hours in 787 economy and tbh after about 5 hours it all feels the same. Another 3 hours wouldn’t have been a big deal. You just get into your own way of stretching when you need to. Nice opportunity to catch up with a few new films that have slipped through the net and get a couple of hours kip. Not connecting is a great time saver and a lot of stress with timings and luggage removed.

Noxegon

youreadthat wrote: »

I’ve done 12.5 and 14.5 hours in 787 economy and tbh after about 5 hours it all feels the same.

I disagree.

I'm a very frequent long haul traveller (~300 hours in planes last year) and my experience is that after ten or so hours in cattle class everything starts to hurt. I try to avoid anything over eight hours nowadays.

Most of my flights layover in DXB – where I can enjoy a walk, a decent meal, and a shower that puts me in a much better state for the balance of the journey.

LiamaDelta

Noxegon wrote: »

I disagree.

I'm a very frequent long haul traveller (~300 hours in planes last year) and my experience is that after ten or so hours in cattle class everything starts to hurt. I try to avoid anything over eight hours nowadays.

Most of my flights layover in DXB – where I can enjoy a walk, a decent meal, and a shower that puts me in a much better state for the balance of the journey.

Same here. Not a hope I'd spend longer than 10 hours on a plane unless it's in Business, where you have space and decent (relatively) food. 17 hours in Economy, particularly on a 787, which I'm not particularly impressed with, sounds like torture. New seats on these planes are so thin that you feel like you're sitting on a barstool after a few hours.

California Dreamer

LiamaDelta wrote: »

New seats on these planes are so thin that you feel like you're sitting on a barstool after a few hours.

And still people will use these airlines and their services when it becomes faster to go from point a to point b and for as cheap as possible.

youreadthat

Noxegon wrote: »

I disagree.

I'm a very frequent long haul traveller (~300 hours in planes last year) and my experience is that after ten or so hours in cattle class everything starts to hurt. I try to avoid anything over eight hours nowadays.

Most of my flights layover in DXB – where I can enjoy a walk, a decent meal, and a shower that puts me in a much better state for the balance of the journey.

Yes, it gets uncomfortable but it’s not like you need a 3k walk to get back to a 7/10 state. A few tactical stretches, even a short walk to the toilet and a quick drink or bite to eat does the world of good. I’m going to London tomorrow direct from Santiago, the best feeling is knowing for an extra 2 hours flight I get to avoid being misled by info screens and line up again and scanned for ages in the supposedly amazing Madrid T4 with another 2.5 hours of a319 cramped misery to go when I’m drained

LiamaDelta

California Dreamer wrote: »

And still people will use these airlines and their services when it becomes faster to go from point a to point b and for as cheap as possible.

Obviously. The service wouldn't be there if people didn't use them.

rightyabe

When it first came out I was skeptical about it, 17 hours flying is a lot. However the flight from Perth to the Middle East is easy 11-12 hours so 5 or so hours more is not much more. It also saves having to go thru security again and floating around the airports/animal marts with a bunch of loud,obnoxious and rude locals:)

trellheim

17 hours is subjective really. If you havent chosen a seat, are in economy , get a middle, are 6' plus and so are your neighbours, you will not have a nice time, especially when the baby that cant relieve its ears starts up for 16 hours and 50 minutes, noise cancelling headphones or no.

Especially when the IFE is on the blink and your laptop gives up the ghost

rightyabe

Yeah that would be the ultimate flight from hell but on a flight that length you’d be sure to book a seat and have a few things on your iPhone/iPad as backup for entertainment.

mx5ire

Having just done Dub - BKK return with Qatar on a mix of 787 (the dub-doha return), A380 and 777, i can definitely say that the A380 is the most pleasant, by a margin. We got the little economy section upstairs at the back and it was really comfortable. I fly regularly in Business to the US with EI, and i was amazed just how comfy the A380 was in that upstairs economy section.

The 787 was comfortable and smooth, but on the much busier return from Doha the IFE box was irritating and i definitely found the seat width a little cramped after climbing out of a 777. Hard to quantify, but it just felt tighter, and Qatars seat back pocket is really annoying, it holds nothing. Oh and my backside was very numb on the 787 - i don't think i would like much more than 10 hours on one unless up the front.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

California Dreamer

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then at the end of it you are still only in Perth which is mostly a FIFO city for the mines.

rightyabe

California Dreamer wrote: »

Then at the end of it you are still only in Perth which is mostly a FIFO city for the mines.

Oh really? So Western Australia is just a large departures lounge you reckon?

Doltanian

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Any upsurge in oil prices or downturn in the Australian economy will surely kill it off. Ultra Long Haul flights suffered huge cutbacks when Oil prices surged several years ago and those high oil prices effectively killed off the Airbus A340 series with the A340-500 effectively becoming extinct. The A340-500 operated on the Singapore-Newark route for Singapore Airlines in what was the worlds longest ever non-stop flight, it used to run in an all business and first class layout with only like 100-150 pax onboard as far as I remember.

L1011

Better aircraft mean that that route is resuming, probably late this year. A350-900ULRs. Should give better payload and significantly lower fuel consumption. I think the onboard morgue lockers may still be needed...

plodder

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-10/sleeping-on-the-fly-airbus-to-offer-naps-in-the-cargo-hold

Airbus offering modular sleeping berths that fit in the cargo hold. I suppose a 17 hour flight might be just about bearable if you could fit a 7 hour sleep in the middle of it.

josip

...Holds have in the past been designed as cabin crew rest areas and for religious facilities....

Anyone know more about these?

plodder

josip wrote: »

Anyone know more about these?

The A380 currently has a crew rest area in part of the hold. That's a permanent fixture afaik,

https://www.ausbt.com.au/photos-the-airbus-a380-s-secret-hangout-zone-for-cabin-crew

josip

Sorry, it was the "religious facilities" that piqued my curiosity.