First non-stop service from Australia to UK begins

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 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

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

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 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/

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.