An article in tomorrow's aviation daily, gives the following details on the Qantas order. I believe that Airbus gave Quantas a great deal on the A350 to offset the penalties on the late A380 order. Otherwise why order 787/A350, 777LR/A345. Why fly such a mixed fleet? I would like my fellow A-netters, to analyze the rational behind such a mixed fleet order. Please see excerpts from article below.


"Qantas is expected to announce an order for 60 to 100 aircraft next month as part of its fleet expansion and renewal program.

The new aircraft will replace 24 Boeing 767-300ERs with a mix of 787s and Airbus A350s for use on medium-haul international, trans-Tasman and domestic routes. The 787 goes into commercial service in 2008, and the A350 will make its first commercial flight in late 2010.

Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon said that in the light of escalating fuel prices it is advantageous for the airline to acquire new aircraft as soon as possible.

The older planes of Qantas's 24 747-400s will also be replaced with the ultra-long-range variants of the 777 and A340-500s to operate routes to the U.S. and Europe. This order will be carrier's first since November 2000, when it ordered 12 A380s, six 747-40ERs and 13 Airbus A330/-200/-300s.

The airline's aging fleets of 21 737-400s and 11 737-300s are also up for replacement. Qantas holds options on the 737-800 and the Airbus A320. The carrier currently operates 26 737-800s, while wholly owned subsidiary low-fare airline Jetstar operates 23 A320s. -WD"

Wow...
I'm guessing 787-3 for medium haul, A350-900 and 777-300ERs for long haul and 777-200LRs for SYD-LHR and SYD - USA routes... I doubt they will go for A340-500... Makes sense, since QF is pretty happy with their A330s as a long haul ships...

Edit: Now come to think of it... if QF goes for A350-900, watch for EK doing the same...

[Edited 2005-10-06 01:38:54]

Wow, I'm guessing this is another bogus one, as QF said recently they haven't even received all the proposals, so if they are going to decide before getting the data, why bother asking for it?  

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard...I can see the A350, but the A345 makes no sense. Why the hell would any company order a plane when they are ordering the competitor which flies more people further at a lower cost? That's not A vs B, if you're ordering 777LRs, it's common sense!

I think the 777 will look great in Quantas colours

Quoting Aa777flyer (Reply 5): Quantas

Hehehehe

Quoting AeroPiggot (Thread starter): six 747-40ERs

What the hell is a 747-40?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3): Wow, I'm guessing this is another bogus one

I think I have to agree...AeroPiggot, there IS no rationale behind that type of order. I don't care what kind of deal they got from either side, it makes no sense whatsoever to order such a mixed up fleet.

So they'll be buying just about every possible aircraft that's available.

I'd say this is nonsense.

Quoting AeroPiggot (Thread starter): An article in tomorrow's aviation daily, gives the following details on the Qantas order.

This is not the details of the order, but details of what's being considered. Please read more carefully.

The RFP was for 1) 767 replacement - 787/A350; 2) probabe ULR - 772LR/A345

While there is a chance that both the 787 and the A350 will be ordered (at this stage, the 787 would go to mainline, the A350 would go to AO or JetStar "International"), QF will not order both the 777-200LR and the A340-500. From all indications, the A340 is out of the running at QF.

Regards,

Hamlet69

Quoting AeroPiggot (Thread starter): The new aircraft will replace 24 Boeing 767-300ERs with a mix of 787s and Airbus A350s

Quoting AeroPiggot (Thread starter): 24 747-400s will also be replaced with the ultra-long-range variants of the 777 and A340-500s

I can't help thinking the article should have read " Boeing 787s or Airbus A350s" and "Boeing 777 or Airbus A340-500s"

Most of this is a direct quote from the press release of Aug.18 announcing the
RPF.

Quoting N754PR (Reply 1): Hey, another post from an American asking why anyone would ever buy Airbus... I'm shocked....

Ah yes, and we can be shocked by your post too.

That American you are referring to, simply wondered why any airline would split an order between brands to serve the exact same market.

It's a valid concern for economic and logistical reasons. A mix of 787s and Airbus A350s for use on medium-haul international doesn't make sense. It would have been smarter to go with either Airbus or Boeing, but not both.

Are you even capable of understanding that?

Surely this can only be another example of 'Do not believe anything that you read in the press.' I think we should all wait for a Qantas and/or Boeing and/or Airbus press release!

Quote: Hamlet69: This is not the details of the order, but details of what's being considered. Please read more carefully.

Hamlet, the article did say a mix of 787 and A350, which I understood to mean both, I now believe that the article could have been written poorly. But I do thrust Aviation Daily to be a very reputable publication.

Quote: SthPacific787: I can't help thinking the article should have read " Boeing 787s or Airbus A350s" and "Boeing 777 or Airbus A340-500s"

I totally agree! That makes a lot more sense to me.

Quote: PlaneDane: That American you are referring to, simply wondered why any airline would split an order between brands to serve the exact same market.

Thank you PlaneDane, I wish I had been more explicit.  

Quoting N754PR (Reply 1): Hey, another post from an American asking why anyone would ever buy Airbus... I'm shocked....

Wow.. Right when I think I've heard it all, you had to go and say this. Guess what? I'm an American and I don't care what kind of aircraft they buy personally. Also, the person you are questioning is NOT referring to "Why are they buying Airbus?".. The person explains it very well and I think your comment was out of line in all aspects. Read to comprehend, not just go over words..

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 13): That American you are referring to, simply wondered why any airline would split an order between brands to serve the exact same market. It's a valid concern for economic and logistical reasons. A mix of 787s and Airbus A350s for use on medium-haul international doesn't make sense. It would have been smarter to go with either Airbus or Boeing, but not both.

Well put..

-d

Sounds like BS to me.

The only reason I could think of buying the 787 and the 350 is Qantas might be trying to diversify its risk in either plane.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3): Wow, I'm guessing this is another bogus one, as QF said recently they haven't even received all the proposals, so if they are going to decide before getting the data, why bother asking for it?

RFP responses received last week.

Quoting Thumper3181 (Reply 19): Maybe people are wondering why they would split their order so much?

I don't see why they should be wondering anything considering no order has been made and QF hasn't even completed their evaluation process. This is a ridiculous thread arguing about speculation in a magazine.

If your interested in where QF is at with their evaluation process then this link should help.

http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,16832623-31037,00.html

As you'll see from it they are still TALKING not ordering.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18): RFP responses received last week.

Right. So if they can decide this fast, again, why bother asking for it? If they were just going to buy both from both without spending any time considering, just do it…

in other words, the article is poorly written.

Why on earth would Qantas pay twice the cost to train crews to fly the same routes with two different planes!

Pick either one, and train crews one time!

Again makes no sense to have a mixed fleet which fly identical routes!

But I've seen crazier things happen before!

Qantas's fleet is pretty much a mixed up bag at the moment and has been since they took over Trans Australian, 717/737/767/743/744/744ER/A330/A320and soon A380. If I were Mr Dixon I'd be working on getting rid of the clunkers and standardizing my fleet a little.

This is stupid why would qantas have such a broad range of a/c, this means engineers need to be trained crews need to be trained and all this is $$$$ that an airline needs.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 10): While there is a chance that both the 787 and the A350 will be ordered (at this stage, the 787 would go to mainline, the A350 would go to AO or JetStar "International"), QF will not order both the 777-200LR and the A340-500. From all indications, the A340 is out of the running at QF.

Hi Hamlet69, may I ask how you came to this conclusion? In your opinion why should we not expect the A350 in Qantas colours? Does it have anything to do you considering the A350 a second class product?

Quoting Toptravel (Reply 30): Qantas's fleet is pretty much a mixed up bag at the moment and has been since they took over Trans Australian, 717/737/767/743/744/744ER/A330/A320and soon A380. If I were Mr Dixon I'd be working on getting rid of the clunkers and standardizing my fleet a little.

Well this seems to be working for Qantas. Just take a look at their profits.

Regards,
Wings

I think they'll replace the 763s with A332s, the 747s with A346HGWs and the 737s with A32x, makes a lot of sense if you have A333s and A388s. For further expansion, I see the A350 coming.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 33): I think they'll replace the 763s with A332s, the 747s with A346HGWs and the 737s with A32x, makes a lot of sense if you have A333s and A388s. For further expansion, I see the A350 coming.

Wow Thorben, what a nice list. But do expect to see B777 order from Qantas. I too would expect a follow on order for the A330 as a stop gap measure until they start to receive their B787/A350.

As for the A320 family replacing their current B737 fleet, stranger things have happend.

Regards,
Wings

I think a combi 788+A359 could work great, just like the A332+772ER proved a winning team for many airlines.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 33): I think they'll replace the 763s with A332s, the 747s with A346HGWs and the 737s with A32x, makes a lot of sense if you have A333s and A388s. For further expansion, I see the A350 coming.

In that case we better pull the plug on a.net for 24 hrs to enable members to recover & redefine their view on the industry..  

Quoting Keesje (Reply 35):

Well said!!

I feel like I've stepped into the twilight zone.

a) The A320s that "Qantas" apparently operate, are the aircraft of a wholly owned and seperately operated subsidiary to Qantas called Jetstar.

b) The Boeing 717s that "Qantas" apparently operate, are the aircraft operated by Qantaslink, an airline within an airline, and they replace the British Aerospace 146s presently in service with that airline.

c) I will eat my hat if Qantas replaces the Boeing 737s with A320s. They are still taking delivery of new 737-800s through to December 2005!

Quoting Toptravel (Reply 30): Qantas's fleet is pretty much a mixed up bag at the moment and has been since they took over Trans Australian, 717/737/767/743/744/744ER/A330/A320and soon A380. If I were Mr Dixon I'd be working on getting rid of the clunkers and standardizing my fleet a little.

I'm sorry, but the QF fleet is actually quite well thought out. Boeing 737, 747, 767, and A330s.

As an aside, Trans Australia Airlines (TAA) became Australian Airlines, which was merged with Qantas prior to privatisation. It wasn't a take over, both airlines were government owned, one domestic and one international.

Now, to get back on topic...

You categorically will not see 787s, A350s, A340s and 777s all being purchased by Qantas. This makes absolutely no sense at all, and the airline doesn't have the money to be buying stupidly, which is what that would be.

The author of the article has got things wrong, in my opinion. It is possible that Airbus offered a better deal on A350s to offset the A380 penalties, but if it is offsetting a penalty, it's still Qantas' money.

Trent.

This article smells like deliberately leaked false information designed to negotiate prices down.

While I can understand operating the 787 and A350 side by side based solely on the fact that they are not quite in the same size category I find the idea of having A345 and 772LR in the same fleet really rather baffling. They are similar sized aeroplanes with very similar overall performance.

Quoting Geo772 (Reply 39): I find the idea of having A345 and 772LR in the same fleet really rather baffling

ETOPS issues??

BOEING TARGETS QANTAS WITH MORE FUEL EFFICIENT SALES PITCH
http://au.biz.yahoo.com/051006/17/an79.html


"One of the things we want them to think about as they evaluate different (plane) choices is the importance of fuel efficiency," said Martin Bentrott, Boeing vice president and sales marketing and in-service support of the 787 program.

Mr Bentrott and a team of technical staff have flown in to Sydney from the US for a two day briefing with Qantas.

I think one other thing Mr Bentrott might think about is taking his customer seriously.. this is QF, not Primaris.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41): I think one other thing Mr Bentrott might think about is taking his customer seriously.. this is QF, not Primaris.

What the hell does that mean?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41): I think one other thing Mr Bentrott might think about is taking his customer seriously.. this is QF, not Primaris.

the fact that Boeing has been cleaning Airbus' clocks this year in orders certainly menas that they are taking their customers very seriously. Given Airbus' anemic response to the 787 and the A380 delays, I think Airbus has to take their customers more seriously and listen to them for a change.

Quoting N754PR (Reply 1): Hey, another post from an American asking why anyone would ever buy Airbus... I'm shocked....

Where did you get that from? Stop trying to turn every thread that mentions the names Boeing and Airbus into some kind of war. It's SO DULL.

The point is, why would Qantas order similar aircraft from both manufacturers.

I have to agree, that doesn't make much sense.

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 40): ETOPS issues??

I wouldn't think so.

Trent.

Quoting Amy (Reply 44): The point is, why would Qantas order similar aircraft from both manufacturers.

- Because a combination of different aircraft types could make the best mix to fit network requirements?
- Take the best of both worlds?
- Keep playing them out against each other (independency, dual source policy)?

My question : why would Qantas buy all aircraft from the same manufacturer?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46): Quoting Amy (Reply 44): The point is, why would Qantas order similar aircraft from both manufacturers. - Because a combination of different aircraft types could make the best mix to fit network requirements? - Take the best of both worlds? - Keep playing them out against each other (independency, dual source policy)? My question : why would Qantas buy all aircraft from the same manufacturer

Yes, you can order for example 787 and A345, or A350 and 777, or 787 and 777 or, A350 and A345. BUT NOT 787 and A350 and 777 and A345, that is what doesn't make sense.

You shouldnt have 2 planes with the same operational capabilites becouse this restricts your flexibility to move the planes around your system.

There are other airlimes that have a very diverse fleet of both Boeing and Airbus such as Air France and Tai Airways. There is probably some reason for the apparent 'method to the madness' senario which make it works for them. Maybe depending on their route structure one type makes sense over the other in some cases but not all. Could it be that Qantas is able to maintain different types efficiently because it shares maintenance resources with other carriers on the routes it flys to?? Does any one know if this is a possible reason for having a mixed fleet of competitvely close types?

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 9): Quoting N754PR (Reply 1): Hey, another post from an American asking why anyone would ever buy Airbus... I'm shocked.... I guess your just another ignorant on here who generalizes as if all Americans live on fast food and drive Hummers. Chill out and Get a life!

Are you reading my mind?!  

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46): My question : why would Qantas buy all aircraft from the same manufacturer?

Get a better deal, perhaps?   

[Edited 2005-10-06 15:58:09]

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46): My question : why would Qantas buy all aircraft from the same manufacturer?

Simple: They are not EK.

Quoting Toptravel (Reply 30): Qantas's fleet is pretty much a mixed up bag at the moment and has been since they took over Trans Australian, 717/737/767/743/744/744ER/A330/A320and soon A380. If I were Mr Dixon I'd be working on getting rid of the clunkers and standardizing my fleet a little.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 32): Well this seems to be working for Qantas. Just take a look at their profits. Regards, Wings

Qantas' profits have more to do with having little or no competition in the Australian market, then operating a diverse fleet of aircraft.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46): - Because a combination of different aircraft types could make the best mix to fit network requirements? - Take the best of both worlds? - Keep playing them out against each other (independency, dual source policy)?

1. This is correct and is why any airline has different aircraft types in their system

2. No, that's just silly. You don't buy the "best" product from each manufacturer or the newest just because it's cool.

3. Airbus and Boeing will compete against each other regardless. It's the way things are.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46): My question : why would Qantas buy all aircraft from the same manufacturer?

Why did Qantas fly an all Boeing 747 fleet from 1979 to 1985? It suited their requirements.

Looking at the past history of Qantas requirements, it is highly improbable that they would order both the 787 and the A350, or both the A345 and the 777. Dixon and his crew are a sensible team and have kept Qantas in profitability despite SARS, terrorism and September 11, and you can be rest assured that they WILL NOT order both of the competing types.

They'll order the best aircraft for them, and I am still saying it will be a 777/787 order.

Trent.

Quoting AKelley728 (Reply 51): Qantas' profits have more to do with having little or no competition in the Australian market, then operating a diverse fleet of aircraft.

Sorry for the immediate next post - but this is wrong, wrong wrong wrong.

DJ (Virgin Blue) compete with Qantas domestically and presently have 30-40% of the market share. I'd hardly call this "little or no competition".

Trent.

Meanwhile there are 10 orders for the A350 wich are unanounced. Perhaps QF did order the A350.  

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 52): it is highly improbable that they would order both the 787 and the A350

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 52): it is highly improbable that they would order both the 787 and the A350, or both the A345 and the 777.

To general IMO. The 787-3 & A359 have little overlap, same as e.g. a 200 seat A345 & a 350 seat B773ER.

We are talking a possible combination of various variants here.

Likely on the table are

- foreseen network requirements / scenarios /simulations,
- current fleet planning
- a wide range of associated HR issues / restrictions / conditions
- a variety of new fleet combinations made up of :

787-3
787-8
787-9
787-9 stretched

A332
A333
A358
A359
A388(R)
A389

B772ER
B772LR
B773ER

A345
A345HGW
A346
A346HGW

and probably both the the 737NG and A320 single aisle families.

All these type with there own characteristics / conditions.

Quoting Manni (Reply 54): Meanwhile there are 10 orders for the A350 wich are unanounced. Perhaps QF did order the A350.

That I doubt. There are plenty of airlines around the world who could take 10 A350s.

"There are plenty of airlines around the world who could take 10 A350s."

Absolutely truth Ikramerica. Good, you finally see the light.  

And indeed, 10 seams a bit less for the airline QANTAS is.

Quoting Geo772 (Reply 39): I find the idea of having A345 and 772LR in the same fleet really rather baffling.

Maybe Boeing can't deliver enough 777s in time? Sometimes you need to go with second best.

Firstly, Qantas is technically privatised but still has to liaise very closely with government. If they were influenced not to place all their orders with an American manufacturer, to the detriment of relations with the UK/Europe, it probably wouldn't be the first time. When they ordered their A380s they also placed some orders with Boeing.

Secondly, they have a low-cost carrier, Jetstar, and are planning to expand it into the international holiday traffic field. It could make sense to equip them with some Airbuses (especially since Airbus may offer some pretty keen prices, to offset the compensation which one expects will otherwise be payable on the A380).

Thirdly, I believe that they have a fair few ageing shorter-ranged 747s - the A346 could make a sensible replacement for some of those, if the price is right.

Nevertheless, I would expect the bulk of the orders to consist of 787s and 777s. I would not expect them to commit to any A350s this far out from any definite performance data and delivery dates. And if they buy a ULH aircraft, I reckon it will definitely be the 772LR rather than the A345.

Quoting Slarty (Reply 59): Maybe Boeing can't deliver enough 777s in time? Sometimes you need to go with second best.

The point of which is "best" and "second best" can be argued, but this is the reason behind many A320 series orders.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 61): The point of which is "best" and "second best" can be argued, but this is the reason behind many A320 series orders.

You got to be jocking?

Regards,
Wings

Quoting WINGS (Reply 62): You got to be jocking?

Not really. I should have explained myself better. There were many operators that were leaning towards the 737, but could not because Boeing did not have production capacity. easyJet and Virgin America are the two that come to mind.

Maybe QFA001 can give us some direction as to the above mentioned proposed purchase is the one that QF has in mind. To me it doesn't make sense to have both the 772LR and A345 for example. QF certainly won't do anything stupid like that.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 57): There are plenty of airlines around the world who could take 10 A350s.

Maybe this is the US order that they bought.   

and I found it interesting that no one else picked up on this in that yahoo finance article that was linked in one of the posts:

Quote: Boeing says the 787 is more fuel efficient for its size and capable of non-stop flying between Sydney and London.

Is it just a stupid mistake, or did we miss something?   

Quoting N328KF (Reply 63): easyJet and Virgin America are the two that come to mind.

As for Easyjet they got one hell of a price tag on those birds. Airbus at the time was trying to get into the LCC segment. Easyjet along with AirBerlin and AirAsia were major victories for Airbus.

While Virgin America has not even got of the ground. I dont see whey they were in a hurry.

Regards,
Wings

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 60): (especially since Airbus may offer some pretty keen prices

I'm not saying Boeing has been buying market share recently. But the AI (no need for competition), AC (Miltons best deal ever, US Gov im/export bank), NWA (starts paying a few years later), ELAL (40%) and other deals seem to be pretty "aggresively" priced / financed / organized.

Airbus winning because of low price IMO is a 2001-2004 feel-good-story few here have repeated lately..

[Edited 2005-10-06 18:09:51]

QF seems to be a smart well run airline, and what has been said here, it doesn't make sense for the to be ordering all these similar aircraft from different manufactors. It just doesn't. It's not economically correct. It's one of the other.

Do we have any QF insiders who can gives us a better idea on the philosophy of QF?

LACA773

Quoting Keesje (Reply 67): I'm saying Boeing has been buying market share recently

You should also consider the approximate 15% depreciation in the US $ over the Euro in the last couple of years ...

Quoting Aa777jr (Reply 69): All this is hearsay until we all read the offical press release on their order...

I'd laugh my arse off if they decided to not order at this time  

Trent.

Does anyone know when they'll make a decision and an announcement? I keep hearing the middle of this month but any insiders out there who can give us a little bit more info would be appreciated on this forum!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 67): I'm saying Boeing has been buying market share recently.

Unlike Airbus paying for US Air to order the A350?  

Quoting WINGS (Reply 32): Hi Hamlet69, may I ask how you came to this conclusion? In your opinion why should we not expect the A350 in Qantas colours? Does it have anything to do you considering the A350 a second class product?

Not at all! IMO, the A330 is the best product Airbus produces, and by producing a more efficient derivative of it, the A350 should be a very well-designed aircraft.

I don't believe we will see the A350 in QF colors because I have both read and been told by a few QF insiders that QF does not see the A350 as a 767-replacement, which is their primary focus on this RFP. From all indications at this point in time, QF is leaning toward the 787 as a 767 (and eventually A330) replacement, and the 772LR as their ULR of choice (I have been told specifically by several people that the A340 is not in contention anymore at QF).

Just to put your mind at ease, however, it has also been suggested to me by a VERY knowledgable QF insider that, even though the 787 will be ordered, the A350 is not out of the running. With QF looking to expand JetStar internationally, they are considering the A350 for this role, should Airbus price it right.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 33): the 747s with A346HGWs

Once again, all indications are the A340 is no longer even in the running.


Regards,

Hamlet69

I edited my post into "i'm not saying" as originally intended   but you got the draft.

Quoting GARPD (Reply 73): Unlike Airbus paying for US Air to order the A350?

I dont see USairways complaining.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 74): Not at all! IMO, the A330 is the best product Airbus produces, and by producing a more efficient derivative of it, the A350 should be a very well-designed aircraft.

I totally agree with you on that one.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 74): I don't believe we will see the A350 in QF colors because I have both read and been told by a few QF insiders that QF does not see the A350 as a 767-replacement, which is their primary focus on this RFP. From all indications at this point in time, QF is leaning toward the 787 as a 767 (and eventually A330) replacement, and the 772LR as their ULR of choice (I have been told specifically by several people that the A340 is not in contention anymore at QF).

Thanks for the explanation Hamlet. Until this order is signed anything can happen. Remember Qatar? Eveyone was saying that the B787 order was in the bag. This is one major order that both Boeing and Airbus do not want to miss out on.

Regards,
Wings

Quoting WINGS (Reply 67): Remember Qatar? Eveyone was saying that the B787 order was in the bag.

For good reason. QR was one of the airlines that had paid Boeing 'refundable deposits' for 10 delivery positions on the 787, starting in 2008. From what I understand, that money is now being put toward the 777 order.

Regards,

Hamlet69

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36): My question : why would Qantas buy all aircraft from the same manufacturer?

Good question. I was thinking that when Thorben suggested that QF had a strategy to get rid of all their Boeings and replace them with 'buses.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 23): think they'll replace the 763s with A332s, the 747s with A346HGWs and the 737s with A32x, makes a lot of sense if you have A333s and A388s. For further expansion, I see the A350 coming.

I've just logged on to a what seems like a "European Landslide" of pro Airbus support on this thread. It's quite overwhelming. While down here we don't seem to be pro US (Boeing) or pro European (Airbus), this kind of thread leans me to Boeing for sure.

Quoting Thorben above, the Aussies have a saying "you're dreaming"

All this is hearsay until we all read the offical press release on their order...

Regards.

The article didn't mention anything regarding a B 747 replacement. Guess the B 747-300/400 will stay for sometime to come..... Not sure about the B 747 Advanced either.

My bet:

They will order the B 787 to replace the B 767. They might even replace the A 330s as well, though they are still very new.

Also they will order some B 777-200LR for ultra long haul routes like SYD-LHR, SYD-ORD nonstop etc.

My 2 cents

If QF wants to fly to SouthAmerica, they would probably buy the A345 because B772LR can't make it and I don't see them flying with B744 or A380.

Quoting NASOCEANA (Reply 19): Why on earth would Qantas pay twice the cost to train crews to fly the same routes with two different planes!

QF has some union issues and there has been talk of expanding the jetstar brand to include some kind of long haul travel. From a marketing perspective, the jetstar brand is probably better known in Australia than Australian Airlines etc, and there is the union issue. Another new type (and hence new crew rates not competing with QF mainline pilots etc) may be the real interest for a second aircraft type in the same category.

As for all of the 737s going... not for quite some time! They go if QF mainline stops flying their particular routes with them and goes to jetstar.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 71): As for all of the 737s going... not for quite some time! They go if QF mainline stops flying their particular routes with them and goes to jetstar.

Think QF have 60 A320s orders and options, enough to replace the whole 737 fleet in Australia and NZ. Think QF will always do the citiflyer routes, so thats where I see the 738 remaining.

And after months of A vs. B speculation and heresay from both sides, we've announced our decision. Drumroll please................We are happy to say that we will be ordering................both. (Awkward moment of silence *chirp chirp*) Yes that's right, we are ordering both.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 17): As you'll see from it they are still TALKING not ordering.

Any confirm, first I had heard of that ?

Here's my opinion on this order.

They are going to order:

787-3 to replace the B767
A350 instead of B777-200ER
A340-600HGW to replace some B747-300's and -400's

There will be in my opinion NO ULR aircrafts ordered.

Drew

What about giving QF proper the 787s and maybe Australian Airlines gets the A350?

I still think this rumor is BS, but I'm just throwing that out there...

Quoting KL808 (Reply 75):

Well, considering they made a specific bid solicitation for ULR offers and NOT for 747 replacements, that is a bold statement...  

Quoting IB787 (Reply 70): If QF wants to fly to SouthAmerica, they would probably buy the A345 because B772LR can't make it and I don't see them flying with B744 or A380.

I have news for you.
If the 772LR can't make it, neither can the A345 as if you hadn't realised till now, the 772LR will have more range than its competitor.

[Edited 2005-10-07 08:43:32]

Quoting GARPD (Reply 78): If the 772LR can't make it, neither can the A345

Um - it may have something to do with ETOPS, and not just the range of the plane.

To my knowledge, no airline flies a twin between Australia/New Zealand and South America.

cheers

mariner

Quoting Mariner (Reply 79): Um - it may have something to do with ETOPS, and not just the range of the plane.

Then perhaps the original poster should be a little clearer. To my mind he was attempting to show the A345 could fly further.

Quoting Glom (Reply 66): Good question. I was thinking that when Thorben suggested that QF had a strategy to get rid of all their Boeings and replace them with 'buses.

Quoting SthPacific787 (Reply 67): Quoting Thorben above, the Aussies have a saying "you're dreaming"

OK. I never meant that they would replace their 738s with A32x, that wouldn't make too much sense. I only thought about the 734s.

Buying from only one manufacturer? I guess not, because big airlines often don't want to be dependent on one. If Qantas really orders 100 planes, they'll split it.

Without going back to previous discussion..

It seems like the A359 will have a clear operational cost advantage over the 772 with about the same capabilities.



So for an operator not yet operating the 777, it seems a not so strange idea to have a good look at the A359. Especially if already a A330/380 operator.



Airbus gets go-ahead to take on 787

Forgeard, known for his provocative wit, came out with his own version of history of the rivalry with Boeing. He expressed annoyance with the conventional wisdom that the A350 is Airbus' reaction to the 787's success.

"You couldn't say anything that irritates me more," he said. "We owned the market of 250 to 300 seats. That had destroyed the career of the 767.

"So the 787 has been a reaction of Boeing to this kind of dominant position we have."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aerospace/2002545081_boeing07.html

[Edited 2005-10-07 10:34:52]

Quoting Mariner (Reply 79): To my knowledge, no airline flies a twin between Australia/New Zealand and South America.

It's not really an issue though, because QF don't fly there in their own right. They code share with LAN.

Trent.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 82): Forgeard, known for his provocative wit, came out with his own version of history of the rivalry with Boeing. He expressed annoyance with the conventional wisdom that the A350 is Airbus' reaction to the 787's success. "You couldn't say anything that irritates me more," he said. "We owned the market of 250 to 300 seats. That had destroyed the career of the 767.

Well that is his version of history. The 767 didn't operate in that market, at least not until very late in its life when the 764 came out. But by that time the 767 had largely saturated its primary market in the 200-250 seat market, the one where it outcompeted the A300.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 79): Um - it may have something to do with ETOPS, and not just the range of the plane. To my knowledge, no airline flies a twin between Australia/New Zealand and South America.

if (a big if here) certification can be for ETOPS 330, then there wouldn't be an ETOPS problem.........but thats well into the future

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 85): if (a big if here) certification can be for ETOPS 330, then there wouldn't be an ETOPS problem.

The point is moot because there is an ETOPS issue now and for the foreseeable future, and it is unlikely - I think - that Qantas will order any variant of the A340.

Both Qantas and Air NZ seem happy to cede South American traffic to the the South Americans airlines.

I am sure this thrills your heart with your love of the 777, but it is a bummer for those of us who live in this part of the world.

cheers

mariner

Jacobin777,

Not even ETOPS 330 works especially well for Antarctica. You could make a case that it greatly helps on the current routes from Santiago and Buenos Aires to Auckland, until you examined the coditions that would apply to reaching the alternates. If you work on the assumption that non-stop to either Sydney or Melbourne is what the operators would like, then it would be a very brave or foolish operator who ran a 14-16 hour flight which doesn't fly anywhere near a fully equipped 24 hour 365 days a year airport. In fact there are no airports capable of handling an emergency diversion by any Boeing or Airbus aircraft anywhere on the ice continent.

So for the forseeable future, the flights will continue to done with A340s and 744s flying well to the north of Antarctica proper on flights to Sydney via Auckland.

It is a very challenging environment. I've done some of the Qantas charters that flirt with the edges of the continent and the flight crew in conversation are adamant that the days of any type of passenger jet being able to safely make such flights between Australia and South America are some way off.

Antares

Quoting Antares (Reply 87): Not even ETOPS 330 works especially well for Antarctica. You could make a case that it greatly helps on the current routes from Santiago and Buenos Aires to Auckland, until you examined the coditions that would apply to reaching the alternates

My understanding is that QF will not flight plan further south than 65S latitude for schedule flights. They do to occasional 747 charter flights that plan to leave and return to Australia via Antarctica.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 79): Um - it may have something to do with ETOPS, and not just the range of the plane. To my knowledge, no airline flies a twin between Australia/New Zealand and South America.

Nobody wisely flies over antarctica as there is no place to land in an emergency, ETOPS or no.

The 772LR can do South America from Australia with ETOPS 207! It has the range for it. The flight path takes you just south of Papeete and then on to EZE or GRU/GIG. The problem is not range, but wasted fuel, as you are going a bit out of the way, on the order of 25%. The 345 could cut some of that penalty off, but not all of it, as it is foolish to fly much further south with only deadly cold below and no airports, even with a quad.

If it were only about these routes, the 345 would be a better choice, but if it is about all sorts of routes with these routes a possible future expansion, then the 772LR is a better choice.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 86): The point is moot because there is an ETOPS issue now and for the foreseeable future, and it is unlikely - I think - that Qantas will order any variant of the A340.

it was only a "technical" response...it doesn't really make a difference for practical purposes!

Quoting Mariner (Reply 86): I am sure this thrills your heart with your love of the 777, but it is a bummer for those of us who live in this part of the world.

couldn't agree more....but it really shouldn't make a difference as its not completely difficult to make it to South America from New Zealand, but of course..i can see why its a bummer for you considering that part of the "experience" is the flight(s) itself.. 

Quoting Antares (Reply 87): Not even ETOPS 330 works especially well for Antarctica. You could make a case that it greatly helps on the current routes from Santiago and Buenos Aires to Auckland, until you examined the coditions that would apply to reaching the alternates. If you work on the assumption that non-stop to either Sydney or Melbourne is what the operators would like, then it would be a very brave or foolish operator who ran a 14-16 hour flight which doesn't fly anywhere near a fully equipped 24 hour 365 days a year airport. In fact there are no airports capable of handling an emergency diversion by any Boeing or Airbus aircraft anywhere on the ice continent.

Antares, you are correct, I was only making a technical comment regarding ETOPS.....I'm not too sure if its bright for any air carrier/manufacturer to make a go at it....

While I don't see a problem with pax sitting on a plane for 20 hours for a nonstop SYD-LHR flight, I wouldn't see too many pax going out of their way to fly to South America via the Antarctic region.....

Anyone hear of another annoucement due soon to expand on Geoff Dixons comments last week in New York ?

Quoting AeroPiggot (Thread starter): Quantas a great deal on the A350 to offset the penalties on the late A380 order. Otherwise why order 787/A350,

Maybe it's just that the A350 better fit some routes...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91): Anyone hear of another annoucement due soon to expand on Geoff Dixons comments last week in New York ?

No?

I know his comments last week were about Jetstar expanding internationally as a two class leisure carrier...

Is the rumour that they'll fold Australian Airlines into Jetstar or what? Tell!

Trent.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 50): The point of which is "best" and "second best" can be argued, but this is the reason behind many A320 series orders.

Good joke.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 52): There were many operators that were leaning towards the 737, but could not because Boeing did not have production capacity. easyJet and Virgin America are the two that come to mind.

Prove it.

Quoting GARPD (Reply 61): Unlike Airbus paying for US Air to order the A350?

US Air once ordered A350? They must have had a vision...  


Regards,
JM

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 89): If it were only about these routes, the 345 would be a better choice, but if it is about all sorts of routes with these routes a possible future expansion, then the 772LR is a better choice.

Um - I am aware of that argument.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 90): as its not completely difficult to make it to South America from New Zealand, but of course..i can see why its a bummer for you considering that part of the "experience" is the flight(s) itself.

This is fine, I have flown both Lan Chile and Aerolineas Argentinas and the experience was excellent.

I would prefer the choice of being able to fly Qantas or Air New Zealand, and I can't really see why everywhere has to be sacrificed to the bragging rights of non-stop SYD/LHR or SYD/JFK - neither of which are journeys I would ever undertake.

But I am a realist. if that is what it is, that is what it is.

However, I am puzzled by the second part of your statement. You don't have favorite airlines? You don't think that 12 to 20 hours of your life is an experience over which you should have some choice?

cheers

mariner

Quoting Mariner (Reply 95): I would prefer the choice of being able to fly Qantas or Air New Zealand, and I can't really see why everywhere has to be sacrificed to the bragging rights of non-stop SYD/LHR or SYD/JFK - neither of which are journeys I would ever undertake.

technically, you would be able to fly "1/2" the route withNZ or QF via LAX...

Quoting Mariner (Reply 95): However, I am puzzled by the second part of your statement. You don't have favorite airlines? You don't think that 12 to 20 hours of your life is an experience over which you should have some choice?

yes, I do have some air carriers which I prefer to travel on.......however, sometimes we don't have a choice........for example, I would love to fly on SQ from SFO to Pakistan, but they no longer fly to Pakistan as of 2001 (or maybe 2002), thus, for me, I have to use an alternative air carrier..and there aren't any European Carriers (besides TK) which fly to the city I want to fly to...... I do fly on EK quite a bit, and they are a very good air carrier, but I prefer flying on other carriers..

[Edited 2005-10-07 21:17:20]

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 96): echnically, you would be able to fly "1/2" the route via NZ or QF via LAX...

Which is what I do now, and will always do, what I have always done.

My "natural head turn" from here is to California, not to New York. So while the 772LR may be a fantastic machine, it doesn't impinge on my life - except to limit my choices to South America.

Equally, I cannot imagine that I will ever fly non-stop from Singapore to New York on the A345.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 96): yes, I do have some air carriers which I prefer to travel on.......however, sometimes we don't have a choice

I do not expect every airline that I like to fly everywhere I want to go. I doubt that I will ever be able to fly Frontier across the Pacific.

But if Qantas is going to make a choice between serving South America or non-stops to Europe, I put my hand in the air for the former.

It is only my choice. I do not claim to be the majority. But it gets tedious on this board when everything is perceived from a northern hemisphere perspective. Especially when even some folk down here do that.

And I am enchanted by all those who have never been to this part of the world insisting that this plane or that plane is the right plane for Qantas or Air NZ.

I had one American friend who believed that the Sydney Harbor Bridge connected Australia with New Zealand.

 

cheers

Quoting Keesje (Reply 82): It seems like the A359 will have a clear operational cost advantage over the 772 with about the same capabilities.

I don't trust either Airbus' or Boeing's claims regarding seating. Could someone please post the cabin floor areas of the B787-9, A350-900, and B777-200ER?

Also, while I believe that at design payload the A350-900 will have lower operating costs than the B777-200ER, that's not quite fair because the latter has a much higher max payload capacity.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 97): My "natural head turn" from here is to California, not to New York. So while the 772LR may be a fantastic machine, it doesn't impinge on my life - except to limit my choices to South America.

I think it will be interesting to fly on a -200LR, as I certainly plan on flying on PK's IAH-ISB-KHI route sometime next year  

Quoting Mariner (Reply 97): I do not expect every airline that I like to fly everywhere I want to go. I doubt that I will ever be able to fly Frontier across the Pacific.

unless Frontier decide to go with some long-haul aircraft, I think you are correct, and I'm not sure about F9 trying to fly accross the Pacific with some of their A319's   

Quoting Mariner (Reply 97): But if Qantas is going to make a choice between serving South America or non-stops to Europe, I put my hand in the air for the former.

yes..I think that is why they might go with the -200LR for a SYD-LHR route, as there is more profit than South America (ie.-good asset/money allocation)

Quoting Mariner (Reply 97): It is only my choice. I do not claim to be the majority. But it gets tedious on this board when everything is perceived from a northern hemisphere perspective. Especially when even some folk down here do that.

I can't comment on that........I haven't been to the South Pacific yet...maybe that is where the "bulk" of the flights are...north of the Equator..

Quoting Mariner (Reply 97): And I am enchanted by all those who have never been to this part of the world insisting that this plane or that plane is the right plane for Qantas or Air NZ.

hopefully soon I'll be ending that problem for my self personally, as I plan on flying to SYD

Quoting Mariner (Reply 97): I had one American friend who believed that the Sydney Harbor Bridge connected Australia with New Zealand.

Scary thought......oddly enough, for an "educated country" like the United States, there sure are a lot of ignorant people.

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 94): Quoting N328KF (Reply 52): There were many operators that were leaning towards the 737, but could not because Boeing did not have production capacity. easyJet and Virgin America are the two that come to mind. Prove it.

Didn't Easy jet go airbus because of a cheaper deal?

Quoting Aa777flyer (Reply 4): I think the 777 will look great in Quantas colours

lol, shame on you!

Anyway, I saw a receipt from Fraport check in for rebooking of a customer and the receipt showed "Quantas" again. I couldn't resist and show this receipt to QF Germany office

The old joke here used to be, "QANTAS stands for 'Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Service', and TAA stands for 'Try Another Airline.'

Quoting Mariner (Reply 97): And I am enchanted by all those who have never been to this part of the world insisting that this plane or that plane is the right plane for Qantas or Air NZ.

What about those of us who have been to your neck of the woods, and who pointed out, but you MISSED, that the 772LR CAN fly to South America without ETOPS restrictions, and thus even if it is purchased for other purposes, it is suitable for the route. The only issue is that it would need to go around some dead airspace to do it, but it is in range DOING THAT. The 345 cuts it off a little, but I don't think so much that it improves economics enough for QF to buy them just for that. They'd be better off misusing the 772LR.

Check out great circle mapper and use PPT as an intermediate location for routing purposes, and you'll see much of South America opened up to you either with the 772LR or the 345.

Whether it is COST effective to fly these routes with any plane (since the best way would be over antarctica, which is not a great idea), that's another story.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 103): What about those of us who have been to your neck of the woods, and who pointed out, but you MISSED, that the 772LR CAN fly to South America without ETOPS restrictions,

I didn't MISS it at all. I read your post #89.

It seemed to be at variance with what everyone else was saying, but hey, I rely on others for technical stuff.

What I do know - because I wrote and asked them and they replied and told me - is that it is extremely unlikely that Qantas would fly to South America (from Australia or New Zealand) with a twin.

It was a very nice letter - although I accept it was probably written by someone very junior - and mentioned both the economics of it and ETOPS issues.

Which is why I used the word "may" in my first post about it:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 79): Um - it may have something to do with ETOPS, and not just the range of the plane.

And please note that I indicated the range might not be the problem.

If the 777 is capable of it - great. If there are no ETOPS issues - great.

Does that stop me being sad that Qantas to South America it isn't going to happen?

You guess.

cheers

mariner

Don't cry for Argentina, or Chile. If the route grows I'm sure Qantas will do it with the youngest of its 744s, which would be the -ERs, around about 2012, via Auckland, and if passenger numbers double by 2020, which is the unanimous view of the Airbus and Boeing market forecasts (if not more than double) they'll be using A380s at around 70-75% load factors and quite possibly going non-stop in improved versions of the big bustard.

Antares

Quoting Antares (Reply 105): around about 2012, via Auckland

My time frame is not so long as yours. One day, eventually, Frontier might also fly the Atlantic.

The question is - will I still be around to enjoy it?  

cheers

mariner

Mariner,

Well, so long in the tooth I remember when 707s started (fitfully) on the route. Qantas flew a 707-338 non-stop from Sydney to Chile on a demo flight, then LAN Chile started regular 707 flights but I'm sure they were via Papeete and Easter Island, and then Aerolineas Argentinas came along, and for a while had 747-200s which refuelled near the tip of Argentina and did on occasions actually cut across the Antarctic continent to avoid headwinds before turning north to Auckland.

Qantas also flew that route for a while, and later, even did it with 744s, via Auckland right up until some time in the late 90s before giving up. Poor payloads and low demand and even lower yields.

Since then the route has been A340-200 and A340-300 territory, although for a while LAN-Chile was also running a 767 from Auckland to Papeete, then Eastern Island, then Chile, and may even have run it all the way to Sydney, making it a hell of an epic.

The data on the DOTARS site (before they stuffed the stats) implied there were around 150 passengers per flight on average until about the middle of last year for both SA carriers.

If it does grow even modestly over the next seven years the return of the 744s on a more viable basis is nothing to be surprised about, and a further 8 years of growth brings you into the larger aircraft territory.

However, we all must note that linear projections like this are 'blind' to future events that might depress or maybe accelerate growth.

Antares

Antares:

Interesting stuff - I suppose the South American flights are filed in the back of my mind somewhere, but lurk in the shadow of the Fiesta route - AKL/PPT/ACA/MEX/NAS/LHR.

I've never quite understood why one of them (Qantas or Air New Zealand) doesn't bring Mexico back - a great jumping off point for both the US and Europe. It would also be an interesting alternative to, say, Bali, if problems persist for tourists on that island.

I know that coming back to New Zealand to live, I have been surprised by the dramatic cultural changes that have taken place here, and the perceivable effect of the South American flights on the (inner city) community.

I'm also surprised that Air NZ doesn't fly at least once a week to South Africa - Albany, just north of Auckland, could well qualify as Little Jo'Burg.

All of these things may come at some point i the future, of course, and both airlines must fly where they make the most money.

But it would be nice to see a little more adventure in what they do - presently they both seem re-active instaead of pro-active.

cheers

mariner

Quoting 777ER (Reply 100): Quoting JetMaster (Reply 94): Quoting N328KF (Reply 52): There were many operators that were leaning towards the 737, but could not because Boeing did not have production capacity. easyJet and Virgin America are the two that come to mind. Prove it. Didn't Easy jet go airbus because of a cheaper deal?

Yep! easyJet drove the salesguys from Airbus and Boeing nuts by playing them out on each other. In the end the deal went to Airbus because of the lower price, not because Boeing wasn't able to produce the 737's fast enough.

Cheers!