Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2405109/

Topic: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Sq212
Posted 2005-10-27 06:43:09 and read 18958 times.

Will it sell?

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=2872

Cheers

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Reggaebird
Posted 2005-10-27 06:47:59 and read 18931 times.

120 seat aircraft for this route. They must be betting that only premium pax want to fly the route non-stop. They would have to charge a pretty penny for those seats!! The 777-200LR makes more sense for the ultra-super-long-haul but that is just a small percentage of QANTAS' routes. Maybe Airbus might surprise everyone and win this order.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Dalecary
Posted 2005-10-27 07:22:11 and read 18835 times.

Good Luck Leahy, because you will need a lot of it to win this one!!!

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: LordHowe
Posted 2005-10-27 07:41:22 and read 18768 times.

How long (how many hours) would the nonstop LHR-SYD flight be - and SYD-LHR?

Regards,
LordHowe

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Anxebla
Posted 2005-10-27 07:41:45 and read 18766 times.

Quoting Reggaebird (Reply 1):
The 777-200LR makes more sense for the ultra-super-long-haul

That's your opinion, but QF seems are not agree with you.

From the article this is written:

>""Both the A340-500 and the 777-200LR can perform the London-Sydney leg with a good payload --240 passengers for the 777-200LR-- but Qantas apparently is not keen on a one-stop or one-way service""<


I wonder if a PER-LHR non-stop flight could be successful

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: PlaneDane
Posted 2005-10-27 07:52:17 and read 18726 times.

Quoting Sq212 (Thread starter):
Will it sell?

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=2872

Cheers

This was a very strangely written article that should have received more critical review prior to publishment, in my opinion.

It really comes off as an editorial more than anything else informative. Essentially, advice is being given to Qantas to just accept a technical stop as the best solution. Unamed "analysts" are given credit for this supposedly useful bit of guidance.

These so-called sources then go on to advise Qantas on joining Oneworld alliance because seemingly Qantas is being unrealistic to expect profitable non-stop service capabilities from Sydney to London.

No mention of whether the 777LR will be capable of meeting Qantas' requirements is made, which would make the premise of this article a moot point.

Who really wrote this thing anyway?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Dalecary
Posted 2005-10-27 07:53:41 and read 18721 times.

it is a given that QF will not order the A345 or A346 or A346HGW or any version of the A340 for that matter.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-27 08:02:08 and read 18690 times.

Sadly, the article doesn't indicate what modification would be made to the A340-500 to give it the needed range boost. Presumably, it would be an application of A350 developments and updated engines.

Quoting Anxebla (Reply 4):
I wonder if a PER-LHR non-stop flight could be successful

Technically, yes, of course, PER-LHR would be successful. Economically, the market is dubious. PER-LHR is mostly a leisure market.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Mariner
Posted 2005-10-27 08:04:57 and read 18669 times.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 6):
it is a given that QF will not order the A345 or A346 or A346HGW or any version of the A340 for that matter.

That may be true, but are you suggesting that Airbus should not even try?

cheers

mariner

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: SthPacific787
Posted 2005-10-27 08:09:40 and read 18648 times.

How about that Leahy huh? Must be spending a lot of time, pulling his hair out and running around chasing Boeing's initiatives and coming up with half baked alternatives.

I liked Airbus better when they were the innovators but the A380 has seemingly rendered them infertile... much the same as Boeing was not that long ago.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Anxebla
Posted 2005-10-27 08:14:33 and read 18631 times.

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 5):
Essentially, advice is being given to Qantas to just accept a technical stop as the best solution

QF wants to make the SYD-LHR-SYD non stop. Period!!!

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
PER-LHR is mostly a leisure market

Agree, but it seems the best solution to link UK with Australia in a non-stop flight and with a decent pay load; only 120 pax could be a joke unless they be top premium pax.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Solnabo
Posted 2005-10-27 08:18:04 and read 18614 times.

If QF´s to buy all 777/787 what about the 747ADV?

Curius.

Micke//SE  Confused

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: RedChili
Posted 2005-10-27 08:32:43 and read 18574 times.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 2):
Good Luck Leahy, because you will need a lot of it to win this one!!!

Or an extremely good price, like 50 million dollars per plane! One possibility is that Airbus is doing this only to try to pressure Boeing into lower its price in this deal.

Another possibility, which is also important to take into account, is that QF might be interested in buying an airplane mainly for flights to South America and South Africa. With ETOPS possibly being an issue on such flights, QF might decide to buy a plane which will enable them to both fly on these routes as well as to North America.

If QF decides that the 772 anyway doesn't have the range to do SYD-LHR nonstop, then they could possibly agree to get the A345, if the price is significantly lower.

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 5):
Unamed "analysts" are given credit

Maybe some of those "analysts" are comments taken from a.net forums???

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 5):
These so-called sources then go on to advise Qantas on joining Oneworld alliance because seemingly Qantas is being unrealistic to expect profitable non-stop service capabilities from Sydney to London.

??? Qantas is already in Oneworld!

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Sydscott
Posted 2005-10-27 08:35:53 and read 18560 times.

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 5):
It really comes off as an editorial more than anything else informative. Essentially, advice is being given to Qantas to just accept a technical stop as the best solution. Unamed "analysts" are given credit for this supposedly useful bit of guidance.

These so-called sources then go on to advise Qantas on joining Oneworld alliance because seemingly Qantas is being unrealistic to expect profitable non-stop service capabilities from Sydney to London.

I'd actually gathered it was an Airbus "analyst" who gave this to who-ever wrote the article as it has been their consistent line throughout this aircraft competition that Qantas would have to settle for one-stop service due to winds on one of the legs. Boeing effectively eliminated Airbus from the ULR aircraft part of the order by promising non-stop service on both legs.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 8):
That may be true, but are you suggesting that Airbus should not even try?

They may as well just concede and focus on selling A350's and A320's to Qantas. The A350/787 decision will most likely be the biggest part of the order in any case and a large A350 order would do wonders for Airbus at the moment given the 787's momentum in the market.

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 11):
If QF´s to buy all 777/787 what about the 747ADV?


With 12 A380's coming on board I don't think QF will be a 747ADV customer for quite some time. Not unless the A380 turns out to be a spectacular failure in any case but I can't see that happening.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Mariner
Posted 2005-10-27 08:43:22 and read 18515 times.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 13):
They may as well just concede and focus on selling A350's and A320's to Qantas.

Why?

Since neither plane - A345 or 777LR - is dead set capable of doing what Qantas supposedly wants, it is all fair game.

I assume the order will go to Boeing, but I don't sneer at Airbus for trying.

cheers

mariner

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Monteycarlos
Posted 2005-10-27 08:43:47 and read 18513 times.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 6):
it is a given that QF will not order the A345 or A346 or A346HGW or any version of the A340 for that matter.

Why?

Are you Geoff Dixon?

Incidently Qantas had a press release the other day, AND two months ago AND late last year stating they were evaluating both the 777 and A340 variants.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: 'Longreach'
Posted 2005-10-27 09:40:44 and read 18389 times.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 6):
it is a given that QF will not order the A345 or A346 or A346HGW or any version of the A340 for that matter.

I have been reading your posts for the last few years, and the 777 love affair is becoming increasingly more obvious in your postings, you used to hide it well  Smile

If QF for some reason do not order the 777, I fear what actions you might take  Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: LordHowe
Posted 2005-10-27 09:48:27 and read 18343 times.

Quoting LordHowe (Reply 3):
How long (how many hours) would the nonstop LHR-SYD flight be - and SYD-LHR?

Doesn't anybody know - or is this a stupid question? Sorry if that is the case ...

LordHowe

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: FCKC
Posted 2005-10-27 10:38:31 and read 18182 times.

I feel the huge wide body QF order will go to the Boeing basket.
What Leahy says , is the very last try for Airbus to be the winner........but surely they will not be.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: GARPD
Posted 2005-10-27 10:49:36 and read 18144 times.

Quoting Anxebla (Reply 10):
Agree, but it seems the best solution to link UK with Australia in a non-stop flight and with a decent pay load; only 120 pax could be a joke unless they be top premium pax.

So what your saying is the 772LR is the best option then?
For it will carry 240 pax on the Kangaroo route, as opposed to the A345's 120?

Quoting FCKC (Reply 18):
I feel the huge wide body QF order will go to the Boeing basket.
What Leahy says , is the very last try for Airbus to be the winner........but surely they will not be.

For efficiency the 772LR is by far the best option when pitched against the A345.

The only thing I see that could swing this order towards the Airbus is QF's stance on ETOPS. Does anyone know what QF's current policy is on ETOPS?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Glareskin
Posted 2005-10-27 10:57:23 and read 18104 times.

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 15):
Quoting Dalecary (Reply 6):
it is a given that QF will not order the A345 or A346 or A346HGW or any version of the A340 for that matter.
Why?
Are you Geoff Dixon?

You've beat me with this question Monteycarlos. That is a very ignorant statement Dalecary!

Leahy's suggestion isn't that stupid. Obviously QF is not impressed by the current capabilities of both 777LR and A345. If Airbus could do the non-stop flight in both directions this would make the difference. And don't forget that flights this long will not be sold as Economy class anyway so this Business and First only concept is probably feasible.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Sq212
Posted 2005-10-27 11:05:03 and read 18054 times.

Quoting LordHowe (Reply 17):
Doesn't anybody know - or is this a stupid question? Sorry if that is the case ...

LordHowe

As much as I would like to know the numbers myself, unfortunately nobody has yet step forward for an answer. AFIK, Singapore Airlines still hold the record of 18+ hours non-stop flight time on a A340-500. my guess is LHR-SYD flight time will be more than 18 hours. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: AirxLiban
Posted 2005-10-27 11:32:42 and read 17949 times.

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 5):
Who really wrote this thing anyway?

Geoff Thomas...ATW editor who I have met personally. I didn't think it was slanted but clearly the 772LR is the aircraft with the better performance for the super long haul routes.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Dutchjet
Posted 2005-10-27 12:04:38 and read 17850 times.

Odd article - firstly, I thought that QF had advised Airbus that it was not interested in the A340, wasnt there just a thread about that here a couple of days ago? It seems that in the ULR category, QF will go with the 777LR, but a lot still depends on doing the LHR-SYD route.

The techincial stop issue is nonstarter: QF wants an aircraft that can do LHR-SYD in both directions year round with a reasonable payload.....QF may or may not opt for a lower density F/J class service to get the route launched....that is still unclear. The A345, clearly is not going to make this goal.....now we have to see if the 777LR will be capable, thus far Boeing is not committing and QF is not making a final decision.

As for LHR-PER - we have discussed that so many times here, its not going to happen......this is all about the ability to operate nonstop flights between LHR and SYD/MEL, the routes where there is premium demand, business demand and some money to be made. LHR-PER does not have demand or premium traffic - and QF is not going to invest hundred of millions in a new type to launch this at-best marginal route. The next point is that someone will say why not LHR-PER-SYD.....answer: there is little to no benefit of flying that route over the existing LHR-SIN-SYD services.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Jasond
Posted 2005-10-27 13:05:35 and read 17679 times.

Quoting Anxebla (Reply 4):

I wonder if a PER-LHR non-stop flight could be successful

Oooohhh, I hope so, be nice to see more heavies in Perth!!!

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2005-10-27 13:11:13 and read 17620 times.

Quoting Sq212 (Reply 21):
Quoting LordHowe (Reply 17):
Doesn't anybody know - or is this a stupid question? Sorry if that is the case ...

LordHowe

As much as I would like to know the numbers myself, unfortunately nobody has yet step forward for an answer. AFIK, Singapore Airlines still hold the record of 18+ hours non-stop flight time on a A340-500. my guess is LHR-SYD flight time will be more than 18 hours. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers.

Re: flight time LHR-SYD / SYD-LHR, there is a lot of data on the other QF order threads, so see there. From memory the non-stop can be done in roughly 20hrs, less in the W-E direction, more on return....

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Manni
Posted 2005-10-27 13:33:09 and read 17405 times.

Boeing is proposing the 777ULR with 240 seats, obviously that's not going to be an all Business configuration. Anyone knows how many F/C/Y seats they are proposing?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Jasond
Posted 2005-10-27 13:33:50 and read 17405 times.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 23):
As for LHR-PER - we have discussed that so many times here, its not going to happen......this is all about the ability to operate nonstop flights between LHR and SYD/MEL, the routes where there is premium demand, business demand and some money to be made. LHR-PER does not have demand or premium traffic - and QF is not going to invest hundred of millions in a new type to launch this at-best marginal route. The next point is that someone will say why not LHR-PER-SYD.....answer: there is little to no benefit of flying that route over the existing LHR-SIN-SYD services.

Whoa, hold up there DutchJet, I know PER can be a sleepy town but every international heavy out of here (MAL, SIA, QF, SAA, THAI, EK) every day is packed. At worst you can't get a flight out for days except if you can plead exceptional circumstances (like a family loss etc). Even Jetstar don't fly here because QF domestic load factors are so high. I hate to disagree but I reckon PER - LHR is a very real scenario.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Lufthansa
Posted 2005-10-27 13:48:37 and read 17266 times.

I don't!

PER-LHR is full of tourists... backpackers and wealthy babyboomers. The babyboomers are up the front, the 20 and 30 somethings up the back.... and since this is their own money both the front and the back are more price sensative. Hence why thai Airways $5000 business class tickets will do well.... but how many $13000 First or $10 000 business class tickets are you going to sell? Not enough!

Syd on the other hand is a global financial centre, and to a lesser but not insignificant extent, so is Melbourne. It is no accident Emirates stuck that amazing first class on this route, to ZRH and to JFK..... but nowhere else.

If there is going to a non-stop that makes money in the form of 777LR or A345, it MUST be from the East coast, as it MUST suck up almost the entire premium cabin market to make it work.

As for the idea... the A380 from DRW to FRA may be your saving grace. If it was outfitted in high density (hell maybe Jetstar International?) and it was basically surving northern european backbackers who wanna see the outback, that may work. Other than that...forget it... the Singapore Changi hub allows too many possibilities that make money.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Keesje
Posted 2005-10-27 13:48:50 and read 17258 times.

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 22):
I didn't think it was slanted but clearly the 772LR is the aircraft with the better performance for the super long haul routes.

One would almost forget Boeing has been trying to sell the 772LR for 5 years now and Airbus has since then become a clear market leader.

Don't some of you guys have somewhere an little uncomfortable feeling some crusial info in the endlessly repeated a.net 777 superiority over 340 truth is missing?

 shy 

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Joshdean
Posted 2005-10-27 14:18:57 and read 16963 times.

I wouldn't want to be in the air for 18 hours or more. A stop over is a welcome break to most people, especially for me (and I'm guessing most us on a.net) as an aviation enthusiast.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Gemuser
Posted 2005-10-27 14:43:53 and read 16721 times.

Quoting LordHowe (Reply 17):
Quoting LordHowe (Reply 3):
How long (how many hours) would the nonstop LHR-SYD flight be - and SYD-LHR?

Doesn't anybody know - or is this a stupid question? Sorry if that is the case ...

LordHowe

Nobody really knows, yet. The proposed aircraft the B777-200ULR does not even exist, yet. The QF advance planning group probabley has a pretty fair idea, but AFAIK Boeing has yet to give range guarentees.

The best estimate I can give is somewhere between 18 and 22 hours, with the 19-20 range best guess. This is based on:
The current flight time is 22 hours (23.5 hrs total time) so it wont be longer than that.
Time is saved by not having to get down from FL390, then back to it.
Assuming a close to GC route it will go more or less, overhead HKG, so by passing the nightly prade out of SE/S Asia for Europe, but of course will have to deal with the nightly prade out of HKG to Europe, but it will be well above the traffic for a substaintal period of time. So this route should save SOME time, how much? Don't know.

Guess we just have to wait until the schedule is released!

Gemuser

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: DAYflyer
Posted 2005-10-27 14:45:35 and read 16697 times.

Quoting SthPacific787 (Reply 9):
How about that Leahy huh? Must be spending a lot of time, pulling his hair out and running around chasing Boeing's initiatives and coming up with half baked alternatives.

I liked Airbus better when they were the innovators but the A380 has seemingly rendered them infertile... much the same as Boeing was not that long ago.

Agreed. Right now he appears to have the "hampster-syndrome"; running around without really going anywhere. And the A-380 is a time consuming item. But in all fairness, the A-350 and 787 will both be time consuming as well.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: N79969
Posted 2005-10-27 15:04:39 and read 16500 times.

It is an odd article but it makes sense that Airbus would keep trying if for nothing else to squeeze Boeing on it pricing.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
One would almost forget Boeing has been trying to sell the 772LR for 5 years now and Airbus has since then become a clear market leader.

How deluded can you be. The situation you cite is like claiming to win a game before your opponent even shows up to the court.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Keesje
Posted 2005-10-27 15:38:41 and read 16190 times.

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 32):
Right now he appears to have the "hampster-syndrome"; running around without really going anywhere



Quoting SthPacific787 (Reply 9):
pulling his hair out and running around chasing Boeing's initiatives

Back to earth:
- A has the biggest back log (& the number of aircraft is only half the story..)
- A upped its forecast to 360 aircraft deliveries this year, probably >400 next year
- A is at the start of the A380 era,
- A has a hot selling narrowbody product
- A owns the medium 250 seat market segment for itself 2002-2008
- A launched the A350 with already 140 orders after 2010 in the pocket.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Keesje
Posted 2005-10-27 15:50:29 and read 16062 times.

Quoting N79969 (Reply 33):
The situation you cite is like claiming to win a game before your opponent even shows up to the court.

The easiest forgotten piece of boeing 777-200LR history on a.net.

Farnborough International 2000, Day 2

Boeing celebrated the launch of the longer range 777 program with a signing ceremony and champagne toast to its launch customers. All Nippon Airlines today also placed an order for the 777LR, and Emirates ordered the long range twinjet.
http://www.aeroworldnet.com/fi200025.htm
http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Aircraft/777X-5.html

& now forget ASAP again..

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Glareskin
Posted 2005-10-27 15:57:12 and read 15992 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 35):
& now forget ASAP again..

Interesting research Keesje!

How many were sold after these initial orders? And how many A345 in the same period? This would give a more accurate picture of the situation..

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: EI747SYDNEY
Posted 2005-10-27 16:04:14 and read 15915 times.

Hi all.....If there was a non stop from SYD-LHR. How much time would the pax actually save? also would the existing seat pitch used on most carriers 31'' to 34'' in economy grow because of the long flight duration.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: N79969
Posted 2005-10-27 16:05:31 and read 15902 times.

Keesje,

If you would bother to read your own "sources" you would clearly and easily see that aeroworldnet use "777LR" for both the -300ER/200LR. ANA and Emirates have taken delivery of the 300ER as the article indicates. Only EVA has wavered and even they are receiving 300R. Read it again.

Also, airtransportbiz is an amateur run website (albeit interesting and informative) and is not an actual news source.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: ClassicLover
Posted 2005-10-27 16:18:02 and read 15748 times.

Quoting EI747SYDNEY (Reply 37):
Hi all.....If there was a non stop from SYD-LHR. How much time would the pax actually save? also would the existing seat pitch used on most carriers 31'' to 34'' in economy grow because of the long flight duration.

The delivery flight of the first Qantas Boeing 747-400, which had 30 people on board and no luggage had a flight duration LHR-SYD non-stop of 17 hours and 45 minutes.

This compares to the current 22 hours or so.

You won't see your normal Economy class seating on a flight of this duration, or at least, I'd hope not!

Trent.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: NAV20
Posted 2005-10-27 16:18:05 and read 15747 times.

On another thread Astuteman said that he had heard from a friend in Airbus that they are planning a quick weight-saving upgrade of the A340 - and, in the longer term (i.e. by say 2011), thinking about 'A350-ising' it with composite wings, wider lighter fuselage etc. I expect that the first idea is what Leahy wanted to talk to Geoff Dixon about.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eneral_aviation/read.main/2403640/

There does seem to be a pattern developing here. First Airbus de-bunked the 787 ("No problem, we can already compete with it"), and are now having to come from behind with the A350.

Then it was, "The 772LR won't sell, the ULH market's too small." Now they're having to play 'catch up' again by hastily planning A340 makeovers.

Sounding confident and putting the best face on things from a PR viewpoint is one thing - every commercial company has to do that at times. But believing your own propaganda, and shutting your eyes to the real potential of the other guy's new products until it's too late, is quite another.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: EI747SYDNEY
Posted 2005-10-27 16:24:02 and read 15671 times.

Thanks for the reply ClassicLover. But if the 777LR was aquired by Qantas how would this be operated.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: ClassicLover
Posted 2005-10-27 16:26:43 and read 15629 times.

Quoting EI747SYDNEY (Reply 41):
Thanks for the reply ClassicLover. But if the 777LR was aquired by Qantas how would this be operated.

Do you mean from a configuation standpoint or what? From what I've heard on here (always reliable - err - hehe!) it'll be 200 odd passengers as a premium service.

Trent.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Rj111
Posted 2005-10-27 16:28:16 and read 15611 times.

Whilst i realise that the LHR-SYD attempt would only be 120 seats, are Airbus planning on doing anything to increase the range of the A345 at normal payloads? So that it can complete NYC and DFW with full pax?

If so - and QF are not satisfied with either planes ability to fly SYD-LHR-SYD then - Airbus may have a slight chance. Otherwise the 772LR is a given.

Bear in mind though it is more complicated as the demand is for 2 types of aircraft (777vs A340 and 787 vs A350), and i'd imagine only a small amount of those planes would be for ULR applications. Thus the final selection of manufacturor could be more weighted on the abilities of the A350 and 787.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Startknob
Posted 2005-10-27 16:30:28 and read 15583 times.

Let's face it: Qantas wants SYD-LHR and back. The 772LR can do that better than the A345 (both todays versions). All rumors about an improved A345 or an less weight A340 or an A350ied A340 are rumors. Perhpas Airbus has something in the pipeline but at the moment they fall short of having an ULR that can beat the 772LR. So IMHO Qantas has the choice to take the 772LR or to nail down Airbus on specs and delivery dates for an real competitive AC that is paperware at the moment. So it's not too hard to guess what Qantas will do in this situation...

Regards,
Startknob

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: CRJ900
Posted 2005-10-27 16:33:58 and read 15542 times.

Why can't QF just accept that SYD-LHR are half a world away from each other and just continue with one-stop services... they are making money on them, for heavens sake.

I lived in Sydney for four years when studying at uni, and flew Europe-Asia-SYD many times in Y class. I found the one-stop services from many airlines, incl QF, to be very quick and efficient and it was nice to be able to stretch my legs and take a breath of "fresh airport-terminal air"... (beats the fart-filled air in the plane after 12 hours easily...  Smile )

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Glareskin
Posted 2005-10-27 16:34:11 and read 15541 times.

Quoting Startknob (Reply 44):
The 772LR can do that better than the A345 (both todays versions).

That's nonsense! The 772LR cannot do it both directions. So, please explain what's better about that...  

Edit: typo

[Edited 2005-10-27 16:40:02]

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: NAV20
Posted 2005-10-27 16:36:46 and read 15511 times.

E1747SYDNEY, the route that is getting the press attention is SYD-LHR nonstop. But my guess is that Qantas are also considering nonstops to Dallas and/or O'Hare as well. Even New York, although I don't think the 772LR (or the A340) can do that at the moment (adverse winds again).

It looks as if any LHR service will be all-business class for the moment. Getting the passengers doesn't look like being a problem, I expect that they'll be able to poach any amount of business clients from their competitors on the LHR routes, who will presumably be stuck with one-stop.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: MEA
Posted 2005-10-27 16:39:29 and read 15478 times.

Isn't Geoffrey Thomas, the journalist who wrote the atwonline article a pro-Boeing journalist anyway?

Most of his articles in the Australian newspaper are regarding Boeing and I can't remember the last time he wrote an article regarding an Airbus product.

It's not a very good article, looks like a space filler. I think he could have provided more details about the performance of the B777LR and A345 and how they relats to QFs plans.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: EI747SYDNEY
Posted 2005-10-27 16:41:29 and read 15443 times.

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 42):
Do you mean from a configuation standpoint or what? From what I've heard on here (always reliable - err - hehe!) it'll be 200 odd passengers as a premium service.

Trent.

yes basically if I was to book a flight with Qantas from Sydney if they aqquire the 777LR Would I have to pay the equivalent of a biz class fare? Thanks

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: RedFlyer
Posted 2005-10-27 16:43:40 and read 15417 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 40):
On another thread Astuteman said that he had heard from a friend in Airbus that they are planning a quick weight-saving upgrade of the A340 - and, in the longer term (i.e. by say 2011), thinking about 'A350-ising' it with composite wings, wider lighter fuselage etc. I expect that the first idea is what Leahy wanted to talk to Geoff Dixon about.

Assuming the source is in fact reliable, I thought Airbus had all but conceeded that "4 engines 4 long-haul" was all but dead given the advent of the 350. Wouldn't it make more sense for Airbus to "787-ise" the 350 (go to an all-composite construction, bleedless engines, etc.) to get the needed range rather than "350-ise" a model that would never be as efficient or reliable as a 2-holer?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: ClassicLover
Posted 2005-10-27 16:45:57 and read 15392 times.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 45):
Why can't QF just accept that SYD-LHR are half a world away from each other and just continue with one-stop services... they are making money on them, for heavens sake

... and they'll continue to do so. There is a market for a non-stop service between the two cities, and if they can make money off that too, then why not provide the service?

Trent.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: YULWinterSkies
Posted 2005-10-27 16:49:24 and read 15346 times.

Quoting GARPD (Reply 19):
So what your saying is the 772LR is the best option then?
For it will carry 240 pax on the Kangaroo route, as opposed to the A345's 120?

Come on!!! A 772LR is NOT an A380. With the same seating configuration as a 120-seat 345, it will seat barely 130 pax. And this is the configuration that one needs on a 772LR on that route, since a 772LR with standard 3-class configuration (250-300 seats) CANNOT make SYD-LHR-SYD.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Glareskin
Posted 2005-10-27 16:53:03 and read 15300 times.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 50):
Wouldn't it make more sense for Airbus to "787-ise" the 350

This is taking a long time. Too long for QF anyway. Further, is the 787 capable of doing LHR - SYD non-stop both directions? I don't think so...

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 50):
get the needed range rather than "350-ise" a model that would never be as efficient or reliable as a 2-holer?

Maybe it's easier, cheaper and above all faster to do it like this. And don't forget that the A345 is doing a pretty long range as it is. A350-ising would probably do the job.

Back to the original topic: 'Would QF be interested in an aircraft that could do the SYD-LHR non-stop, two directions'. Yes, I certainly believe they will!

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: NAV20
Posted 2005-10-27 16:53:32 and read 15294 times.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 50):
Wouldn't it make more sense for Airbus to "787-ise" the 350 (go to an all-composite construction, bleedless engines, etc.) to get the needed range rather than "350-ise" a model that would never be as efficient or reliable as a 2-holer?

Of course I agree entirely, Redflyer - but they should have started on that three or four years ago. Now the only available options are half-measures. Knock up some derivative aeroplanes that are 'nearly as good' and offer them cheap........

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Airbazar
Posted 2005-10-27 16:55:56 and read 15257 times.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 6):
it is a given that QF will not order the A345 or A346 or A346HGW or any version of the A340 for that matter.

I heard the same before they bought the A330. In fact, given that QF already operates the A330, I'd give the A340 a slight advantage over the 777. But in the end, non of the aircraft currently can do what QF wants it to do so we're really just speculating about nothing  Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Boeing767-300
Posted 2005-10-27 17:07:47 and read 15129 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
Sadly, the article doesn't indicate what modification would be made to the A340-500 to give it the needed range boost. Presumably, it would be an application of A350 developments and updated engines

Only 120 passengers (240 for 777LR) and this if AFTER improvements. The A345 is VERY sad in comparison with 777LR and the only contest it has won with the 777LR is getting to the market first!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 40):
There does seem to be a pattern developing here. First Airbus de-bunked the 787 ("No problem, we can already compete with it"), and are now having to come from behind with the A350.

Then it was, "The 772LR won't sell, the ULH market's too small." Now they're having to play 'catch up' again by hastily planning A340 makeovers.

Sounding confident and putting the best face on things from a PR viewpoint is one thing - every commercial company has to do that at times. But believing your own propaganda, and shutting your eyes to the real potential of the other guy's new products until it's too late, is quite another.

NAV20 this is probly the best post I have seen. It eloquently describes Leahy rubbishing the oposition product and then being caught with his pants down. Cool

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: PHXinterrupted
Posted 2005-10-27 17:09:04 and read 15111 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
One would almost forget Boeing has been trying to sell the 772LR for 5 years now and Airbus has since then become a clear market leader.

Wrong again, Keesje. The program was put on hold after 9/11.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: LordHowe
Posted 2005-10-27 17:27:51 and read 14911 times.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 31):
The best estimate I can give is somewhere between 18 and 22 hours, with the 19-20 range best guess. This is based on:

Who the hell wants to stay onboard an aircraft that long?!!! - Even if they could offer the best seats in the whole world. Anything over 12 hours is too much. Besides it is absolutely inhumane for the crew to have to work that long - and it can't be safe either.

I couldn't agree with you more CRJ 900:

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 45):
Why can't QF just accept that SYD-LHR are half a world away from each other and just continue with one-stop services... they are making money on them, for heavens sake.

Its a long way to go far away ...

Regards,
LordHowe

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: RedChili
Posted 2005-10-27 17:32:22 and read 14844 times.

Quoting N79969 (Reply 38):
If you would bother to read your own "sources" you would clearly and easily see that aeroworldnet use "777LR" for both the -300ER/200LR.

And what's wrong with that? Even Boeing does the same: "Launched in February 2000, the new longer-range 777-200 and 777-300 airplanes bring the comfort and economic advantages of the Boeing 777 to non-stop routes that have never before been possible."

Quote from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/background.html

Read also http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/longer_range/index.html where Boeing clearly calls the 772LR and 773ER for "Boeing Longer-Range 777s."

Quoting N79969 (Reply 38):
Also, airtransportbiz is an amateur run website (albeit interesting and informative) and is not an actual news source.

That is irrelevant. The fact is that even Boeing admits on the link I provided above that the 772LR was launched in February 2000.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: NAV20
Posted 2005-10-27 17:34:44 and read 14815 times.

Odd how these ULH threads always seem to come down to large numbers of Australians saying that they can't wait for nonstop services, and almost equal numbers of Europeans telling them that they're wrong......

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2005-10-27 17:35:22 and read 14815 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
One would almost forget Boeing has been trying to sell the 772LR for 5 years now and Airbus has since then become a clear market leader.

right, but at the time, the full picture of the 777-200LR wasn't around and air carriers were waiting to see how it can perform.. now that it ahs been peforming as good, if not better than specs, 777-200LR recent sales are beating that of the A345..

widebodyphotog did some excellent analysis on the comparisons between the B777-200LR and Airbus A345....it wasn't even close (how you choose to interpret his data is up to you, but he made it clear)

Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
Don't some of you guys have somewhere an little uncomfortable feeling some crusial info in the endlessly repeated a.net 777 superiority over 340 truth is missing?

care to explain why 777 sales have been CRUSHING A340 sales this year? In fact, SA in their report stated that the A346 is better because of INITIAL cost (i.e purchase price).and that over a longer period of time, the 777-300ER will save more money....with a new Boeing sales team, which is more aggressive in pricing, the market is seeing the value of each plane

i'm not saying that the A345 or A346 are bad planes, they are certainly good planes and good carriers such as LH, VS, IB, SA, etc. are making money with them....but recent sales point a different picture as to what planes most ( but not all) carriers want...

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 30):
I wouldn't want to be in the air for 18 hours or more. A stop over is a welcome break to most people, especially for me (and I'm guessing most us on a.net) as an aviation enthusiast.

actually, LAX-MEL/SYD SFO/SYD (soon to be with QF), JFK-DXB are 14-15 hour flights..another couple of extra hours isn't really going to do too much, especially if the seats are ultra comfortable..not to mention, SQ is already doing an 18 hour jaunt with its SIN-EWR route... yes 

Quoting N79969 (Reply 33):
It is an odd article but it makes sense that Airbus would keep trying if for nothing else to squeeze Boeing on it pricing.

 thumbsup ...good business sense if anything!

Quoting N79969 (Reply 33):
How deluded can you be. The situation you cite is like claiming to win a game before your opponent even shows up to the court.

 thumbsup  again!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 35):
Farnborough International 2000, Day 2

Boeing celebrated the launch of the longer range 777 program with a signing ceremony and champagne toast to its launch customers. All Nippon Airlines today also placed an order for the 777LR, and Emirates ordered the long range twinjet.
http://www.aeroworldnet.com/fi200025.htm
http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Aircraft/777X-5.html

& now forget ASAP again..

once again..recent sales with a new Boeing sales team has been pointing a different picture....

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 36):
How many were sold after these initial orders? And how many A345 in the same period? This would give a more accurate picture of the situation..

look at recent sales........more accurate picture....and the same could be said of that between the B787 and A350

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Keesje
Posted 2005-10-27 17:45:53 and read 14683 times.

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 36):
And how many A345 in the same period? This would give a more accurate picture of the situation..



Quoting N79969 (Reply 38):



Quoting PHXinterrupted (Reply 57):
Wrong again, Keesje. The program was put on hold after 9/11.

A: an aircraft type isn't sold because it isn't available
B: an aircraft type isn't made available because there's no taker.

The 777-200X/LR has definately been a cat B for years.


A revamped offering

A major defeat in the battle against Airbus occurred in May 1998, when key prospect Singapore Airlines placed an order for ten A340-500s and five options. While both the 777-200X and A340-500 were able to match the required performance for non-stop transpacific flights, Airbus had come up with a better pricing for its four-holers. Boeing, however, was still confident it could produce a more appealing airplane and carried on with the 777X development.

http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Aircraft/777X-5.html

and the same goes for the uprated GE90 versions:

In late 1997, after losing all the market to the R-R and P&W powerplants, GE dropped its GE90-98B engine as an option on the -300, and continued to struggle to find a market for the GE90 on the new higher MTOW X derivatives – including any -200ERX growth version.


BTW I don't think a non stop Syd/MEL-Europeservice is a good idea.

It will be hard to compete against:

- more luxerious,
- higher frequency,
- cheaper

1 stop flights with time for
- streching your legs,
- buying a newspaper/ magazine
- taking a shower/shave in a lounge,
- getting some fresh wok food &
- bit of shopping at a hub.

e.g. I really like KUL hub & lounges.



In practice you have to calculate a extra day off for such a trip anyway, so a few less travel hours for (much) more money will probably be not to tempting for me.



[Edited 2005-10-27 17:49:16]

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: ClassicLover
Posted 2005-10-27 17:48:55 and read 14637 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 62):
BTW I don't think a non stop Syd/MEL-Europeservice is a good idea.

It will be hard to compete against
- more luxerious,
- higher frequency,
- cheaper
1 stop flights with time for
- streching your legs,
- buying a newspaper/ magazine
- taking a shower/shave in a lounge,
- getting some fresh wok food &
- bit of shopping at a hub.

Have you ever had to travel from Australia to Europe? After 8 or 9 hours to HKG or SIN, you get off the plane, wait an hour or so (often at stupid hours, like midnight), with the knowledge that you still have over 13 hours of flying still to do.

Quite frankly, getting on the plane knowing that when it lands you're at your destination is a lot better than the one-stop alternative.

Get back to me when you've done the one-stop, and we'll talk.

Trent.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: B2707SST
Posted 2005-10-27 17:53:24 and read 14575 times.

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 46):
That's nonsense! The 772LR cannot do it both directions. So, please explain what's better about that...

Boeing is reportedly offering QF a 777-200ULR with additional belly fuel tanks and a lightened interior that can do SYD-LHR both ways non-stop. The current 777-200LR is fuel-constrained -- with a standard payload and 9,420 nm range, the aircraft is actually below MTOW -- so the extra tanks will do a lot to increase range.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=2572

--B2707SST

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Keesje
Posted 2005-10-27 17:59:23 and read 14502 times.

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 63):
Get back to me when you've done the one-stop, and we'll talk.

Trent.

Then I've to make an extra transfer at LHR.. a less convenient hub  Wink
Alternative: non-stop AMS-SYD.. 2018 (?), doubt w'll still be on a.net

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: N79969
Posted 2005-10-27 18:01:10 and read 14476 times.

RedChili,

I did not say anything was wrong with the first article. Rather I stated that Keesje did not even understand what he was using as a reference.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Glareskin
Posted 2005-10-27 18:31:19 and read 14177 times.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 64):
Boeing is reportedly offering QF a 777-200ULR with additional belly fuel tanks

The article is stating 'close to finalizing' which is not the same...

Besides, why is QF not satisfied with capabilities of both 772LR and A345? If you are correct Boeing already offered exactly what they want..

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Sq212
Posted 2005-10-27 18:32:18 and read 14164 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 62):
1 stop flights with time for
- streching your legs,
- buying a newspaper/ magazine
- taking a shower/shave in a lounge,
- getting some fresh wok food &
- bit of shopping at a hub.

I like that. But one thing I hated most is delay due to waiting passengers from other flights.

Cheers

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: BoogyJay
Posted 2005-10-27 18:54:21 and read 13971 times.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 45):
(beats the fart-filled air in the plane after 12 hours easily... Smile )

ROFL  rotfl  You made my day CRJ900! Thanks for that.

It reminded me of a FRA-CDG I flew on SQ back in the days. When I entered the cabin, it was smelling like hell!

People were putting their sock-less feet on the seats in front of them. FAs were sweating all their remaining body water (aureoles of sweatings under arms  yuck  ), rubbish everywhere of course.

When you haven't gotten used to the smell as time goes, you end up suffocating.

Anyway, I was upgraded to Biz because of a full Y-cabin, so it wasn't so bad in the end  bigthumbsup .


BACK To Topic:

The B772LR is clearly the leader but as other have stated:

- SYD-LHR is not the only route where QF wants to put a ULR plane
- the ULR aircraft is only a rather 'small' part of the RFP

If Airbus can prove QF could make some money out of SYD-LHR with the A345 (though probably less than with a B772LR), QF will consider the A345.

It's not as easy as some here might want to think. SA Czech Airlines">OK, the B772LR is -technically- a better aircraft than the A345.
But QF will take 100s of parameters into account.
- the price will really matter, as Jacobin explained to us:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 61):
In fact, SA in their report stated that the A346 is better because of INITIAL cost (i.e purchase price)

Then we might think "But Boeing is now very aggressive when it comes to pricing".
SA Czech Airlines">OK, we might also not forget that Airbus might adjust themselves and get even more aggressive.

- the A330 already in the fleet counts as well. Maybe only marginally. But still.

Anyway, all of that is pure speculation as noone knows what's going on. Even if someone has both Boeing's and Airbus' proposals, he/she is not in Dixon's mind  Wink

I just want people to moderate their opinion as it's not always as obvious as we would lazily want it to be (i.e. the B772LR is better hence QF will buy it).  Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: TEAtheB
Posted 2005-10-27 18:55:27 and read 13955 times.

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 56):
Only 120 passengers (240 for 777LR) and this if AFTER improvements. The A345 is VERY sad in comparison with 777LR and the only contest it has won with the 777LR is getting to the market first!



Quoting GARPD (Reply 19):
So what your saying is the 772LR is the best option then?
For it will carry 240 pax on the Kangaroo route, as opposed to the A345's 120?

No no no. That's not what the article is saying.

Both the 772LR and the A345 can operate LHR to SYD in that direction with an payload that justifies operating the service (240 in the 772LR's case). Neither can do SYD to LHR unless the number of passengers is reduced. Leahy reckons the A345 can operate the route with 120 px, and we don't know what the 772LR might achieve if the same strategy were applied, but it would obviously be less than 240.

The article gives the impression that this A345 service would be for first class and business class passengers only. Maybe they would be prepared to pay a premium for the A345's advantages (like a quieter cabin and the perceived extra safety of the 4 engines), so Airbus might have a chance after all, even though it seems daft at first.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Karan69
Posted 2005-10-27 18:59:08 and read 13922 times.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 50):
I thought Airbus had all but conceeded that "4 engines 4 long-haul" was all but dead given the advent of the 350.

that is Virgin Atlantics logo and not Airuses.


As much as i hate to admit it, it does seem like Boeing are favourites for the order, however i am expecting many of those 380 options to be converted into firm orders.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2005-10-27 19:14:08 and read 13789 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 54):
Knock up some derivative aeroplanes that are 'nearly as good' and offer them cheap........

Try 737NG. A warmed-over product, that sold... how many frames???
Seriously, people thinking that a warmed-over A330 might not perform might need a reality check. The plane hasn't even been built and every Boeing cheerleader is writing it off... forgetting that it's not even in direct competition with 787-8!! By the same token one could say that 777-200LR and 777-300ER are warmed over -200ER and -300 respectively...

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: B2707SST
Posted 2005-10-27 19:25:41 and read 13653 times.

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 67):
The article is stating 'close to finalizing' which is not the same...

Besides, why is QF not satisfied with capabilities of both 772LR and A345? If you are correct Boeing already offered exactly what they want..

Clearly, QF is not satisfied with the current 772LR or the A345 because they cannot do SYD-LHR both ways non-stop year-round. The 772LR is closer than the A345, but still not good enough.

Whether Boeing has technically "offered" the 772ULR to QF -- that is, literally put the aircraft on paper and asked QF to sign on the dotted line -- is unknown at present, but we do know that serious discussions are ongoing.

The changes to the 772LR are likely to be minimal: additional auxiliary tanks, a lighter interior that will probably benefit all other 777 family members, possibly GE90-115Bs in place of the -110B1s, and maybe a modest boost in takeoff weight up to the 773ER's 775,000 lbs., if CoG constraints will allow it.

Considering the QF ULR order in isolation, the cost/benefit of building an even longer-ranged 777 is probably questionable, but if the 772ULR helps Boeing land big QF orders for the 787 and other 777 variants while thwarting the A340 and A350, it should pay off in the long run. BA and ANZ, among others, may also be interested in this aircraft.

--B2707SST

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zeke
Posted 2005-10-27 19:38:20 and read 13535 times.

How would QF bypass the current CASA rules preventing flights being rostered over 16 hours in turbojet aircraft ?

Quote:
3.5 An operator shall not roster a pilot for a tour of duty in excess of:
(a) 16 hours for turbo-jet type aircraft; and
(b) 18 hours in other types of aircraft, except where specifically varied by CASA.
3.6 An operator shall not roster a pilot in excess of a total of 14 hours of active duty in any tour of duty.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Hamlet69
Posted 2005-10-27 19:44:13 and read 13475 times.

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 20):
That is a very ignorant statement Dalecary!

Glareskin, before you shout out the ignorance of someone else, I suggest you check your own in at the door.  bigmouth 

In fact, that would apply to everyone on here who thinks that the only reason some members are claiming that QF have discounted the A340 (any series) is because those members are simply "Boeing cheerleaders" or "777 fanatics."  hypnotized 

The truth of the matter is the A340 is too narrow to take the new seats QF is putting into the A380, and which they want to make standard across their entire long-range fleet. SQ is doing exactly the same thing. It is this reason primarily (although not solely) that QF have eliminated the A340 from contention. Whether you want to face it or not, the battle going on at QF is between the A350 and 787, and whether the airline can make the 777-200LR work. That's it (beyond the inevitable A380 option conversions).

Now, for those who would like to continue in their ignorance, please disregard this post.  weeping  I'm sure you'll find some way of deluding yourself anyway. . .  sarcastic 

Regards,

Hamlet69

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Atmx2000
Posted 2005-10-27 19:54:00 and read 13372 times.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 75):
The truth of the matter is the A340 is too narrow to take the new seats QF is putting into the A380, and which they want to make standard across their entire long-range fleet. SQ is doing exactly the same thing. It is this reason primarily (although not solely) that QF have eliminated the A340 from contention. Whether you want to face it or not, the battle going on at QF is between the A350 and 787, and whether the airline can make the 777-200LR work. That's it (beyond the inevitable A380 option conversions).

If it is too narrow on the A340, would it fit in the A350 with whatever interior wall modifications that have been made?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Glareskin
Posted 2005-10-27 20:02:11 and read 13287 times.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 75):
I suggest you check your own in at the door.

Hamlet69 I'm not perfect, I'm biased, and sometimes I'm telling things as a fact that are not checked or not partly or completely true. point  I'll take the blame for that. But someone who's telling us what an airline is going to decide I dare calling ignorant.
And even if all the signs point at Boeing and all your facts are correct there is no truth about what QF is going to do. Either you want to chat about it or you don't!  ziplip 

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: TEAtheB
Posted 2005-10-27 20:04:04 and read 13262 times.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 75):

The truth of the matter is the A340 is too narrow to take the new seats QF is putting into the A380

Even an A345 with only 120 seats?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: M27
Posted 2005-10-27 20:04:16 and read 13257 times.

Not to hijack the thread, but has anyone heard(Hamlet maybe) anything about the record flight Boeing planned with the 200LR? Is that still in the planning?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Hamlet69
Posted 2005-10-27 20:04:57 and read 13254 times.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 76):
If it is too narrow on the A340, would it fit in the A350 with whatever interior wall modifications that have been made?

I don't believe so, but QFA001 can correct me if I'm wrong. Then again, I don't know if they are planning on putting these seats into the 787/A350 fleet. AFAIK, the current seat plan is for A380, 744 and possibly the 777.

BTW - reliable indications are both the 787 and the A350 might be ordered. The former for mainline, and the latter for JetStar Int'l. If true, the JetStar Int'l will certainly have a different product, and the width issue would be moot for that aircraft.

Regards,

Hamlet69

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: N79969
Posted 2005-10-27 20:05:23 and read 13253 times.

Assuming that Hamlet69 speaks the truth (which I do assume), this is a last minute shot from half court and also a way to pressure Boeing's pricing.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: RedChili
Posted 2005-10-27 20:11:07 and read 13187 times.

Quoting N79969 (Reply 66):
I did not say anything was wrong with the first article. Rather I stated that Keesje did not even understand what he was using as a reference.

Roger.

Quoting BoogyJay (Reply 69):
I just want people to moderate their opinion as it's not always as obvious as we would lazily want it to be (i.e. the B772LR is better hence QF will buy it).

A sensible post, BoogyJay. Personally, I give Boeing an 80 percent chance of winning this battle, but I would not rule out totally an Airbus order.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 75):
The truth of the matter is the A340 is too narrow to take the new seats QF is putting into the A380, and which they want to make standard across their entire long-range fleet. SQ is doing exactly the same thing. It is this reason primarily (although not solely) that QF have eliminated the A340 from contention.

If this is true, then it's very interesting. Where did you get this information?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-27 20:13:33 and read 13162 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 65):
non-stop AMS-SYD.. 2018 (?)



Quoting B2707SST (Reply 73):
The changes to the 772LR are likely to be minimal: additional auxiliary tanks, a lighter interior that will probably benefit all other 777 family members, possibly GE90-115Bs in place of the -110B1s, and maybe a modest boost in takeoff weight up to the 773ER's 775,000 lbs., if CoG constraints will allow it.

How would increasing the MTOW help (especially in combination with a reduced OEW)? The B777-200LR is fuel limited, not weight limited. Even with the rumored fourth belly tank, it will still be fuel limited, not weight limited.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: TEAtheB
Posted 2005-10-27 20:15:49 and read 13136 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 83):
The B777-200LR is fuel limited, not weight limited.

What do you mean by "fuel limited, not weight limited".

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Hamlet69
Posted 2005-10-27 20:23:10 and read 13063 times.

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 77):
I'll take the blame for that.

Thank you. To be honest, my pet-peeve is not someone who is mis-informed, because that can be corrected. My biggest pet-peeve is someone who loudly and rudely denounces someone else's (correct) information in favor of their own (in-correct) information. When Dalecary stated that the A340 was no longer being considered by QF, all it would have taken would be asking him "Why?" instead of immediately lam-basting him with false accusations. As it happens, I know Dalecary to be privy to the same knowledge I have.

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 77):
But someone who's telling us what an airline is going to decide I dare calling ignorant.

There is no guarantee in the airline business, that is no secret. Tomorrow, could QF change their mind and decide to install different seats in their various long-range aircraft? Sure. It'd cost them, but they could do it. However, the liklihood for this type of decision is remote.

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 77):
Either you want to chat about it or you don't!

Sir, I am more than willing to "chat." I love commercial avaition, and have followed it religiously for over a decade.  cheerful 

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 78):
Even an A345 with only 120 seats?

Changing the number of seats in the aircraft doesn't change it's width. Could QF put their new seats in? Sure. But the configuration would create a lot of unused (wasted) space in the aircraft.  banghead 

Quoting M27 (Reply 79):
but has anyone heard(Hamlet maybe) anything about the record flight Boeing planned with the 200LR?

Have not heard anything recently, but I'll check on it.

Regards,

Hamlet69

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: TEAtheB
Posted 2005-10-27 20:34:45 and read 12949 times.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 85):
Changing the number of seats in the aircraft doesn't change it's width.

True, but if you have less seats to fit in the same width, they can be bigger.

Can they be big enough?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Glareskin
Posted 2005-10-27 20:38:11 and read 12926 times.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 85):
Sir, I am more than willing to "chat."

Thank you! Btw, there is no need to Sir, you can call me Glare  Wink

OK, I'm not such an insider to know that you and your friend have this kind of inside info. So, I'll take it from you that it is likely. And next time I'll try to say it more moderate. 'A bold statement' is less lam-basting to you?

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 85):
There is no guarantee in the airline business, that is no secret.

Correct, let's be honest about that. Even if Airbus was ruled out but Leahy made a fantastic offer, which includes a solution for their interior etceteras... They'll forget about the rule-out and do the business. There is no such ban like AA has, is there?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: N60659
Posted 2005-10-27 20:50:22 and read 12796 times.

Zvezda, hope you don't me fielding this one.

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 84):
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 83):
The B777-200LR is fuel limited, not weight limited.

What do you mean by "fuel limited, not weight limited".

I can attempt to answer this, but I think you would benefit more by reading this thread:

RE: QF Moving Toward 787/777 Buy (by Widebodyphotog Oct 3 2005 in Civil Aviation)

To answer your question specifically (reply 130 by Widebodyphotog on this thread):

"Actually it is on a slight curve in a geometric sense. In a mathematic sense it is a steep logrithmic decay for each takeoff weight value. What is happening is that as ZFW declines range extends to the point where ZFW at max fuel occurs. After that the slope of the tangent line changes because no more fuel can be added and as ZFW declines so does takeoff weight for maximum range. This occurs in the 777-200LR and 777-300ER because they are fuel limited aircraft, meaning that at design payload the TOW is defined by the maximum fuel weight. On the other hand the A340-500/600 are weight limited aircraft, meaning that at the design payload the fuel that can be loaded is limited by the structural MTOW and is not maximum tankage."

The analysis by Widebodyphotog on this thread is very interesting.

-N60659

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Hamlet69
Posted 2005-10-27 20:51:15 and read 12786 times.

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 86):
True, but if you have less seats to fit in the same width, they can be bigger.

True, but as I said before, it creates unused space that, in a competitive aircraft, can be used for revenue generation.


Regards,

Hamlet69

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Sabenapilot
Posted 2005-10-27 20:51:30 and read 12792 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 40):
But believing your own propaganda, and shutting your eyes to the real potential of the other guy's new products until it's too late, is quite another.

Which is exactly what AIRBUS did not do...

-) within about a year of the 787 launch, they responded with the A350; a plane which was laughed with at first (you see, it's not only Airbus who falls in that trap), but which more and more now start to see as a serious competitor of the high end of the 787 market (and a real killer of the lower echelons of the 777 segment).

The manufacturer's name you describe there starts with a B....:

-) how long did they hold up the idea the 737SecondGeneration was not in need of a serious upgrade, despite the A320 sweeping them off the tarmac allover the world???

-) how many years did it take them to come with a serious answer to the A330 (i.e the 787)????

-) how much longer will they insist there is still a lot of live left in the 747 (20+ years?! That's what they seem to count on when they want to launch a kind of 747NG called the 747adv....come on!!!!)

Anyway, back to topic:
I'd be very surprised to see QF order the A340-500 for the best of reasons stated above.... Leahy is just doing his best to offer QF something in this segment. Hey, he's a SALESMAN. Wouldn't he look silly if he didn't???
However, if Airbus can pitch QF a bunch of A350s for Jetstar and more importantly see A380 options converted in orders, (2 very plausible things) I don't suppose Leahy will let much sleep over it; in a duopoly, most of the orders are evenly split over time....

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 56):
NAV20 this is probly the best post I have seen. It eloquently describes Leahy rubbishing the oposition product and then being caught with his pants down.

Replace Airbus by Boeing and 787 by an Airbus plane of your choice (A320, A330, A380, ...) and you have a very good resume of how Boeing has reacted to inovations from Airbus too.. Not for a few months like Airbus did, but for DECADES.... I feel it is greater fun when you do that actually... you have the undies down too then... Big grin

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: RedFlyer
Posted 2005-10-27 21:00:18 and read 12694 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 62):
It will be hard to compete against:

- more luxerious,
- higher frequency,
- cheaper

1 stop flights with time for
- streching your legs,
- buying a newspaper/ magazine
- taking a shower/shave in a lounge,
- getting some fresh wok food &
- bit of shopping at a hub.

e.g. I really like KUL hub & lounges.

Keesje, have you ever flown really long-haul? I do a few times a year. And I've flown the same routes with one-stop and non-stop (e.g., SQ's LAX-SIN). I guarantee you, it is much more convenient and COMFORTABLE to do it non-stop. I don't know why a lot of people make the stop, wherever it is, sound so glamorous and desireable. All you end up doing during that stop, which usually isn't more than a couple of hours, is going through security and then waiting back at the gate in a mass of people waiting to re-board. It's not as if you're going to take a leisurely stroll through the airport taking tourist pictures. Even if you did, is that something desireable to do? And who wants to get off a plane just to eat airport food? During the layovers I've had, I couldn't wait to re-board and be on my way again.

I'm not passing judgment on you since I don't know your past travel experience; however, I have found that in general the most vociferous opponents of long-haul flights are those who have never been on one. They seem to think that you just sit in an airplane seat for 14+ hours with nothing to do and therefore would find it quite desireable to have a layover somewhere. Fact of the matter is, there's plenty to do with sleep consumming at least half that time. The rest of the time can be spent reading, working (on a laptop), or watching IFE. If none of those are suitable for you then simply come better prepared (e.g., bring your own DVD's to watch). Need to stretch your legs? Get up and walk around the aisles. Trust me: if you show up for a long-haul flight unprepared you WILL have a miserable time. But most people are smart enough to plan for it in advance and will look forward to arriving at their final destination and not at the layover.

Unless you're planning to exit the airport at the layover stop and get in a day or two of sightseeing at the layover country, the 2 or 3 hour layover stop is a total waste of time from a traveler's perspective.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: OldAeroGuy
Posted 2005-10-27 21:24:22 and read 12490 times.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 74):
How would QF bypass the current CASA rules preventing flights being rostered over 16 hours in turbojet aircraft ?

Carry two flight crews? Seems to work for SQ on the SIN-EWR route.

Do you really think this will be an issue if adequate crew rest facilities are provided? I know Qantas has been an active participant in the international human factors studies that have been conducted on crewing requirments for ULR flights. I don't think they are going to consider this type of operation if a potential solution doen't exist.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-27 21:43:33 and read 12322 times.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 91):
Keesje, have you ever flown really long-haul?

RedFlyer, whatever do you mean? Long-haul? Remember, some people have never flown at all. I'm sure there are some people who have never seen an airplane except perhaps in photographs. Judging by some of the posts here, I think we've got a few non-flyers here on A.net.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: TEAtheB
Posted 2005-10-27 21:53:07 and read 12225 times.

Quoting N60659 (Reply 88):
The analysis by Widebodyphotog on this thread is very interesting.

Thanks for that. Please clarify this though:

Is Widebodyphotog saying that the range of the 772LR cannot be increased because no more fuel can fit in the tanks (i.e. it's a volume issue, not a weight issue, because the existing engines could get more fuel of the ground if only there was somewhere to put it)?

If so, why not add another fuel tank? Is there no where it could go? Furthermore, why didn't they design the thing with bigger fuel tanks in the first place? Have they missed a trick? Or have I misunderstood the situation completely?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: B2707SST
Posted 2005-10-27 21:58:56 and read 12183 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 83):
How would increasing the MTOW help (especially in combination with a reduced OEW)? The B777-200LR is fuel limited, not weight limited. Even with the rumored fourth belly tank, it will still be fuel limited, not weight limited.

The articles I've seen mentioned up to six belly tanks, which might shift the MTOW portion of the payload-range curve out enough that it begins to matter, especially on ULR routes shorter than SYD-LHR. It would also enhance the aircraft's value to customers who don't plan on adding as many auxiliary tanks; the 777F comes immediately to mind. A higher MTOW along with a reduced OEW obviously allow more payload to be carried on non-fuel-constrained missions.

--B2707SST

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: N79969
Posted 2005-10-27 22:08:43 and read 12091 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 62):
more luxerious,
- higher frequency,
- cheaper

1 stop flights with time for
- streching your legs,
- buying a newspaper/ magazine
- taking a shower/shave in a lounge,
- getting some fresh wok food &
- bit of shopping at a hub.

I guess travelers were distraught when they lost the opportunity to enjoy the high life at airports in the middle of the night in such places like Gander, Tehran, Karachi, Anchorage, and the Canary Islands with the advent of long-range airplanes. In fact, I hear other passeners wax nostalgic about those days every time I fly overseas.

I still have a hard time getting over the fact I could not buy the latest Wild Turkey gift set when I flew overflew Anchorage knowing it was on a store shelf only 5 miles below for $19.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-27 22:08:51 and read 12084 times.

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 94):
Is Widebodyphotog saying that the range of the 772LR cannot be increased because no more fuel can fit in the tanks (i.e. it's a volume issue, not a weight issue, because the existing engines could get more fuel of the ground if only there was somewhere to put it)?

Yes.

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 94):

If so, why not add another fuel tank? Is there no where it could go? Furthermore, why didn't they design the thing with bigger fuel tanks in the first place? Have they missed a trick? Or have I misunderstood the situation completely?

Where would one put an additional tank? The B777-200LR is already offered with up to 3 supplemental belly tanks. Boeing is reportedly considering adding a 4th. There are some rumors of up to 6 but, according to Widebodyphotog, a 5th would cause serious weight and balance problems and block the aft cargo door.

Boeing looked into putting a fuel tank in the tail surfaces, but the weight of the tank, plumbing, pumps, etc. cost as much range as the addtional fuel provided. The only only way to add signficantly more fuel is with an all-new wing. At that point, it's better to start with a clean sheet of paper and a composite fuselage. That's Y3. Until then, OEW can be reduced, aerodynamics tweaked, and SFC reduced.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: B2707SST
Posted 2005-10-27 22:11:07 and read 12068 times.

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 94):
Is Widebodyphotog saying that the range of the 772LR cannot be increased because no more fuel can fit in the tanks (i.e. it's a volume issue, not a weight issue, because the existing engines could get more fuel of the ground if only there was somewhere to put it)?

If so, why not add another fuel tank? Is there no where it could go? Furthermore, why didn't they design the thing with bigger fuel tanks in the first place? Have they missed a trick? Or have I misunderstood the situation completely?

Yes. At its design payload and range (300 pax, 9,420 nm), the 777-200LR's tanks are completely full, including three auxiliary tanks in the cargo holds. There is literally nowhere else in the airframe to store fuel. Since the tanks are full, the only way to further increase range is to lighten the aircraft by taking off payload. Hence, the 777-200LR's OEW + full fuel + payload add up to less tham MTOW for Boeing's 9,420 nm reference mission.

Boeing did envision very long range 777 variants at the outset, but I doubt very much they ever seriously contemplated flying large payloads on routes like LHR-SYD and back during its design phase in the early 1990s. The 777 could have included more fuel capacity, but this would have meant enlarging some component (such as the wings or tail) beyond the optimized values that Boeing actually ended up with. This would have compromised shorter-range variants (777-200A, -200ER, -300A) that didn't need so much fuel volume and driven up empty weight on all versions.

Airbus solved the problem by giving the A345 and A346 a bigger wing with a stretched wingbox, both of which provided extra fuel capacity over the A343. If Boeing does not launch the 747ADV and turns toward a 777-400 stretch to cover the 400-seat market, the 777 will probably undergo a similar treatment, both because the current wing is loaded to its limits and extra fuel capacity is needed to preserve 747-like range.

The only way to solve the problem with the existing 772LR airframe is to cannibalize still more cargo capacity for fuel, which is what Boeing proposes for QF.

--B2707SST

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Keesje
Posted 2005-10-27 22:11:48 and read 12061 times.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 91):
Keesje, have you ever flown really long-haul?

Not really, 40 intercontinental trips max, certainly not more. E.g. I´ve never been to S.America & haven´t flown with all major airlines, not with ANZ, TAP, ANA, Icelandair and many others.

Really long-haul? Longest was AMS-HKG, 12-13 hrs I think. And Australia of course. 20-22 hrs non stop seems too long for me personally.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 75):
The truth of the matter is the A340 is too narrow to take the new seats QF is putting into the A380

As I remember from my past all the seats looked the same from a distance, however had slightly different sizes, PSS systems, rail positions, seatbox locations and curves to fit the specific interior locations.

But that is yrs ago and I´ve only been responsible for a few fleet conversions, no more than 30 wb aircraft max. at a time. Qantas might have a invented a total different seat concept so Hamlett you might have it right.

(btw is the upperdeck of the A380 that much wider then a A340?)

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Cloudyapple
Posted 2005-10-27 22:19:52 and read 11976 times.

If Qantas chose the LR it will be the biggest gamble they'll have ever made. If the LR can't make it nonstop OZ/UK both ways it will be a complete waste of the premium spent buying it rather than the ER or even the A/B spec B772 since it has no other route that requires such capability. Qantas will end up having to fly it to somewhere like Hong Kong or Tokyo on supplementary since it hasn't the A380 type capacity required on the transpacific or kangaroo routes.

But one thing you can be sure - one of the clauses on the purchase contract with either Boeing or Airbus will be for performance guarantee with a hefty penalty if it is not met. Also for Qantas it will be a PR disaster if the planes turn out unable to do what they are supposed to do.

So before any ink makes it on to the contract all Airbus/Boeing and Qantas must be absolutely sure of the technical feasibility.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-27 22:31:06 and read 11873 times.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 100):
If Qantas chose the LR it will be the biggest gamble they'll have ever made. If the LR can't make it nonstop OZ/UK both ways it will be a complete waste of the premium spent buying it rather than the ER or even the A/B spec B772 since it has no other route that requires such capability. Qantas will end up having to fly it to somewhere like Hong Kong or Tokyo on supplementary since it hasn't the A380 type capacity required on the transpacific or kangaroo routes.

Wrong. In addition to SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR, the B777-200LR is important to QF for SYD-JFK and SYD-DFW.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 100):
But one thing you can be sure - one of the clauses on the purchase contract with either Boeing or Airbus will be for performance guarantee with a hefty penalty if it is not met.

Of course there will be a clause for performance guarantees.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 100):
So before any ink makes it on to the contract all Airbus/Boeing and Qantas must be absolutely sure of the technical feasibility.

Boeing are already testing fuel consumption.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: TEAtheB
Posted 2005-10-27 22:34:06 and read 11845 times.

Thanks Zvezda, N60659 and B2707SST for the "B772LR fuel limited" stuff. Sounds like the A345 could be improved far more easily than the 772LR (you might argue that the 772LR doesn't need to be improved). I would imagine increasing engine thrust and some airframe weight reduction so that more fuel can be carried more efficiently would be much easier (although still a massive task) than a wing/airframe redesign to fit more fuel tanks.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-27 22:41:46 and read 11780 times.

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 102):
Thanks Zvezda, N60659 and B2707SST for the "B772LR fuel limited" stuff.

You're welcome.

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 102):
I would imagine increasing engine thrust and some airframe weight reduction so that more fuel can be carried more efficiently would be much easier (although still a massive task) than a wing/airframe redesign to fit more fuel tanks.

Adding thrust to the A340 is easy, but it won't help the range. The A340 needs a weight reduction more than anything else, though a reduction in SFC would be great too. I just don't see a lot of opportunity for weight reduction considering the structural constraints. It already has a carbon fibre keel. Airbus could perhaps drop 10,000 lbs. by applying A350 technologies.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: TEAtheB
Posted 2005-10-27 22:51:34 and read 11681 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 103):
Adding thrust to the A340 is easy, but it won't help the range.

Ah, I think I'm beginning to grasp it (I'll get there in the end, eh?). I was thinking that the fuel tanks could not be fully filled (is that right? if so, what's the point in designing an aircraft with fuel tanks larger than the volume of fuel that can be carried?) because the engines couldn't lift the OEW plus the payload plus all that fuel. Are you saying that the airframe structure is not strong enough to lift all that even if the engines were?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: RedFlyer
Posted 2005-10-27 23:02:41 and read 11582 times.

Quoting N79969 (Reply 96):
I guess travelers were distraught when they lost the opportunity to enjoy the high life at airports in the middle of the night in such places like Gander, Tehran, Karachi, Anchorage, and the Canary Islands with the advent of long-range airplanes. In fact, I hear other passeners wax nostalgic about those days every time I fly overseas.

I still have a hard time getting over the fact I could not buy the latest Wild Turkey gift set when I flew overflew Anchorage knowing it was on a store shelf only 5 miles below for $19.

That is rich! I had to wipe away the tears from my eyes I was laughing so hard! A classic response if I ever saw one. Puts the argument in true perspective. Thanks.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Sllevin
Posted 2005-10-27 23:04:43 and read 11564 times.

As much as I love the MH lounge at KUL (the picture Keeje included above is from the F side, which is fantastic, I agree), I'd much rather crank out the non-stop. Changing planes in NRT is the same -- I'd love to just fly SFO-SIN non-stop rather than stopping at NRT -- regardless of the great noodle place over by gate 25 (?).

Steve

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-27 23:13:49 and read 11483 times.

For all of the circularity of these posts I'm beginning to doubt that there is much by way of real inside knowledge being shared.

My group did a bit of checking. At no stage has Qantas firmly excluded the latest versions of the A340 from consideration (even though we doubt they will order the -500). However Qantas has given Boeing a horrendous time over emerging technical issues with the 787, even thought it likes it, a great deal.

The 787 will be late, it is too heavy, the right derivative hasn't been offered yet...the much sought after -10...and it will be stuffed as full of seats as possible to get the economics right, as will be the case with the A350, of which some certainly seem likely to be ordered.

The key numbers with the very long range issue are that without auxiliary tanks both candidates are capable of the same duration mission, but the Boeing will carry around 22 more passengers in the premium layout required by the prospective buyer. There are also operational issues that favour or disfavour both types at different parts of the proposed mission, including hot weather takeoffs, rejected takeoffs and end of mission diversions.

This forum has totally failed to mention even once the crucial issue of ultra cold fuel deterioration which is emerging as a concern or the absolute requirement that all high composite elements of the new designs must have exactly the same weight. Variations in weight are fatal to the prospects of high composite airliners, although it must be stressed, Boeing is working incredibly hard to provide the correct answers to sceptical potential buyers who have a real desire to buy the 787 if it can be made in the right size, delivered within the right time frame, and at the right price.

And, despite reservations expressed with greater credibility and authority by a few posters, the prospect of an ultra long range version of the A380 doing routes like Singapore-New York or Sydney-London by 2014 with more than 300 passengers in a high amenity(spacious) configuration hangs over the economic life of the -200LR and the -500 Airbus like a sword. The Boeing is clearly the better bet there since it is the basis of a conversion to a highly useful freighter format.

Precisely how much of what Qantas orders will also be influenced by the much anticipated removal of the foreign equity cap, and although I share that anticipation, we cannot be certain that it will happen.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Lemurs
Posted 2005-10-27 23:15:22 and read 11470 times.

Quoting N79969 (Reply 96):
I guess travelers were distraught when they lost the opportunity to enjoy the high life at airports in the middle of the night in such places like Gander, Tehran, Karachi, Anchorage, and the Canary Islands with the advent of long-range airplanes. In fact, I hear other passeners wax nostalgic about those days every time I fly overseas.

I still have a hard time getting over the fact I could not buy the latest Wild Turkey gift set when I flew overflew Anchorage knowing it was on a store shelf only 5 miles below for $19.

Oh man, I laughed so hard when I read this that I snorted Pepsi through my nose. You are an evil man. Funny, but evil. Thanks for putting in perspective. For the life of me I can't imagine why anyone would want to delay their arrival at their final destination. This just seemed like a no-brainer to me. Even if you should be laid over in an exotic destination, chances are you won't be leaving the airport...and if all you have a tech stop, you only get a longer trip without the stretch. Get me to where I want to be!

LOL, Wild Turkey. That's just awesome.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-27 23:18:03 and read 11430 times.

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 104):
I was thinking that the fuel tanks could not be fully filled (is that right? if so, what's the point in designing an aircraft with fuel tanks larger than the volume of fuel that can be carried?) because the engines couldn't lift the OEW plus the payload plus all that fuel.

The B787-3 has an OEW of 223,100 lbs, fuel capacity of 220,698 lbs, and a MTOW of 361,000 lbs. That means with full fuel and no payload, the B787-3 would be overweight by 82,798 lbs. Why would Boeing do that? Because to optimize the design would have required developing an all-new wing and the development costs would have exceeded the expected profit differential.

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 104):
Are you saying that the airframe structure is not strong enough to lift all that even if the engines were?

That is my understanding of the A340, yes. There are several people here who would know better than I. Hopefully someone will confirm that.

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 106):
I'd love to just fly SFO-SIN non-stop rather than stopping at NRT

My guess is SQ starts SFO-SIN nonstop in 2007 using A340-500s that have been replaced by B777-200LRs on SIN-EWR.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2005-10-27 23:22:24 and read 11393 times.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 98):
The only way to solve the problem with the existing 772LR airframe is to cannibalize still more cargo capacity for fuel, which is what Boeing proposes for QF.

Not the only way. Also lightening interior components. B is scrambling to do both. One more belly tank combined with lighter seats and carts and galleys and bins, as well as limiting pax to 240 (which means less luggage to compensate for the 4th small tank), is the proposed solution, from what can be pieced together. The question is added cost (for fittings and tank) vs. value and revenue.

And B just may have done it, but we'll know on Dec 7. By Airbus's new "response" it sounds like they fear B HAS done it, and they want to make it sound like only a revised 345 can do it, and want people to hold off until then.

I think EK might very well hold off on the 772LR if the 345 can be improved to do the job. QF is too late, however.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 101):
Boeing are already testing fuel consumption.

Exactly. This isn't pie in the sky stuff, this is late in the game tweaking. There is a reason B hasn't inked ANY 772LR deals since the first 5, and it's not due to lack of interest. It's due to the need for proof, and for both B and the airlines to announce the FINAL 772LR configuration.

PIA don't need 10000nm. Their 2 772LRs, being tested right now, will suit them. But everyone else who buys them need 10000nm or close to it for the longest routes, be it QF, SQ, BA, JL, NH, AF or anyone else.

Question: will B make belly tanks 3 (and 4) removable like the BBJ? Otherwise, those tanks would hurt on "8000-9000nm" routes to work on "10000nm" routes.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Keesje
Posted 2005-10-27 23:24:30 and read 11362 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 107):
Antares

Most of the issues you mention have been dismissed as Boeing bashing during the last year. thnx for sharing.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: N60659
Posted 2005-10-27 23:27:50 and read 11328 times.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 110):
Question: will B make belly tanks 3 (and 4) removable like the BBJ? Otherwise, those tanks would hurt on "8000-9000nm" routes to work on "10000nm" routes.

My understanding is that currently all the belly tanks are removable. The PK aircraft are being configured without the belly tanks.

-N60659

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-27 23:34:38 and read 11270 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 107):
This forum has totally failed to mention even once the crucial issue of ultra cold fuel deterioration which is emerging as a concern

Actually, I have. I suggested a solution. Far more fuel is needed for take-off thrust than for cruise thrust. Therefore, during cruise, far more fuel is pumped to the engines than is needed. The remainder (about 80%) is heated and then returned to the tanks where it mixes with the cold fuel and keeps the temperature of the fuel well above the ambient temperature. If the fuel needs to be warmer yet, just pump more fuel to the engines, heat more fuel, and return more warm fuel to the tanks.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-27 23:49:09 and read 11168 times.

Keesje,

I don't think they pay any attention to you, me or airliners.net at Qantas.

They'll dismiss any issues when they are good and ready, and probably with a great deal more precision and knowledge.

Have a nice day

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: FlyingHippo
Posted 2005-10-27 23:49:15 and read 11168 times.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 91):
Unless you're planning to exit the airport at the layover stop and get in a day or two of sightseeing at the layover country, the 2 or 3 hour layover stop is a total waste of time from a traveler's perspective.

100% agree with this statement. I fly with CI JFK-TPE/HKG yearly, and hate having to make a stop at ANC at 2AM local time in January... For a couple of hours, you sit at the gate with 350+ passengers all groggy and tired (ACN's tax free shops sucks, and no lounges for F or C passengers). And if it snows in ANC (Gee... IF it snows??), the plane has to be de-iced, which just adds to the delay.

I'd much rather have a non-stop flight, so I can sleep watch my movie, play games on IFE/Laptop, or just sleep all the way through.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-27 23:57:32 and read 11109 times.

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 115):
I'd much rather have a non-stop flight, so I can sleep watch my movie, play games on IFE/Laptop, or just sleep all the way through.

I could never sleep all the way through a 20 hour flight, though I had one girlfriend once who regularly slept 16 hours at a time once or twice a week. For me the great thing about ultra-long haul nonstops is being able to sleep 8 hours when my body is ready to, rather than exactly when the flight schedule requires it -- ready or not.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: FlyingHippo
Posted 2005-10-28 00:08:04 and read 11034 times.

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 108):
Even if you should be laid over in an exotic destination

When I first read your post... I sorta mis-understood your post...

Almost send you an e-mail to ask where that exotic location might be...

[Edited 2005-10-28 00:12:57]

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-28 00:25:17 and read 10937 times.

Zvezda,

Understood. Apparently this in no longer quite good enough. And the situation is expected to deteriorate as the upper cruise levels experience even colder conditions in some locations as the perverse flip side of lower atmosphere global warming.

Seems humanity is being confronted with the ramifications of global warming (and upper atmosphere cooling) in every aspect of our lives, on the roads, in our homes and factories and power utilities and in our jets.

Maybe (in jest) I can look forward to a return to the glory days as such in unpressurised airliners crawling along over the land and sea at 7000 feet and flying through valleys or around mountains.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-28 00:38:57 and read 10840 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 118):
Understood. Apparently this in no longer quite good enough. And the situation is expected to deteriorate as the upper cruise levels experience even colder conditions in some locations as the perverse flip side of lower atmosphere global warming.

This is simple physics. There is ample heat at the engines that could be used to warm the fuel. It's just a matter of flowing more fuel past the engines. The engineering can't be all that challenging. Bigger pumps, bigger pipes, bigger valves. That's it. Suppose, hypothetically, due to supposed global warming, ambient temperatures dropped so much that the heat loss (energy flux) of the fuel in the wings were to double. The solution would be to flow twice as much fuel past the engines. How much of a temperature drop (beyond historical levels) would be involved in a doubling of the heat loss? A doubling of the differential between ambient temperature (rarely colder than -70C) and the desired fuel temperature. That's seems most unlikely.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2005-10-28 01:04:57 and read 10677 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 116):
For me the great thing about ultra-long haul nonstops is being able to sleep 8 hours when my body is ready to, rather than exactly when the flight schedule requires it -- ready or not.

That is key. It is why I despise NY-EU red-eyes. Not enough time to sleep, getting up when you should be asleep. i far prefer west coast-EU red-eyes that leave in the evening. You can eat dinner at a normal time, go to sleep a little "early" and arrive as if you slept "late" in your arrival country but got up "early" at home.

Longer flights than that will always offer you the chance to sleep for a long stretch (or two shorter ones) at a time when you physically want to.

Quoting Antares (Reply 118):
Maybe (in jest) I can look forward to a return to the glory days as such in unpressurised airliners crawling along over the land and sea at 7000 feet and flying through valleys or around mountains.

There was a simpsons episode in the future with stacked wing biplane designs (8 and 10 fabric wings) where they were thankful to be back toward the better, older designs and way of travel. priceless.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Boeing747_600
Posted 2005-10-28 01:07:00 and read 10660 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 47):
But my guess is that Qantas are also considering nonstops to Dallas and/or O'Hare as well

While there is some semblence of rationale behind a nonstop to ORD, even a one-stop flight to DFW is hard to comprehend. They already codeshare to DFW on AA (QF's One-World partner) ex LAX.

The MBA-type VPs and managers at all major airlines love to throw phantom bones such as these to the aviation afficionados on the web from time to time.

Trust me, the only QF jet you'll ever see at DFW is John Travolta's 707:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jay Davis

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-28 01:10:23 and read 10634 times.

Zvezda,

Sounds compelling to me. I love simplicity too. But why then is this starting to cause concern in those places where airliners and operations are not considered simple things?

When my group began its study on the dynamics of forums in finance, aviation, property investments, and very recently, law, we each chose a user name of course.

My first thought was 'entropy' rather than 'antares' which is an unstable red giant star in our corner of the galaxy. (Near, but I hope not too near when it blows up in the cosmically near future.)

Don't know about you, but my life is a process of entropy. Each day starts out nice and simple and disintegrates into complexity as the hours tick by.

Antares

grumble, stumble, mumble

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-28 02:12:57 and read 10249 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 122):
Sounds compelling to me. I love simplicity too. But why then is this starting to cause concern in those places where airliners and operations are not considered simple things?

While it seems unlikely, there is one possible additional complexity that might be needed. It could be that the warm fuel return needs to be split and returned to different parts of the tank in a larger number of smaller tubes. That's far from an insurmountable challenge.

BTW, I've only ever heard from you that this is even an issue in airliner design. I've asked everyone I know at Airbus and Boeing and the aviation industry analysts I used to work with on Wall Street. None of them have ever heard that this is an issue. Can you provide a citation?

Quoting Antares (Reply 122):
Don't know about you, but my life is a process of entropy. Each day starts out nice and simple and disintegrates into complexity as the hours tick by.

Actually, entropy is the other way around: the process of complex (highly ordered) things becoming simpler (less well ordered). For example, what we defecate must have more entropy than what we eat.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Amy
Posted 2005-10-28 02:35:41 and read 10112 times.

I find it rather amusing that Airbus and Boeing are trying to sell an aircraft to QF that they clearly don't want!

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2005-10-28 02:38:16 and read 10095 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 123):
I've asked everyone I know at Airbus and Boeing and the aviation industry analysts I used to work with on Wall Street. None of them have ever heard that this is an issue. Can you provide a citation?

All I've seen is it is all based on some claim that SQ has to fly the 345 at FL290 or something. Yet CO flies it's 772s on very long routes, as do QF their 744s, and they don't have to do that. So I ask if it is a limitation of the 345 and not all planes, and I've yet to receive an answer...

And the jury is OUT on the cooling of the upper atmosphere, as recent studies with more precision instruments are showing it not to be the case (or not nearly as much as thought), and not to the extent that it would freeze fuel much faster. Now, being at altitude longer might be the issue, but can't some kind of heating coils be utilized to solve the problem?

But environmentalists, like most everyone else in our dishonest world of science, like to ignore data that doesn't support their particular viewpoint.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: SthPacific787
Posted 2005-10-28 02:40:55 and read 10079 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 34):
Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 32):
Right now he appears to have the "hampster-syndrome"; running around without really going anywhere



Quoting SthPacific787 (Reply 9):
pulling his hair out and running around chasing Boeing's initiatives

Back to earth:
- A has the biggest back log (& the number of aircraft is only half the story..)
- A upped its forecast to 360 aircraft deliveries this year, probably >400 next year
- A is at the start of the A380 era,
- A has a hot selling narrowbody product
- A owns the medium 250 seat market segment for itself 2002-2008
- A launched the A350 with already 140 orders after 2010 in the pocket.

My point Keesje. Boeing WAS the impotent one and hence Airbus is now in market leadership. However, it is now becoming apparent that the tables have turned and it is Boeing's initiatives with the 777 and particularly with the 787 that are stimulating the Airlines. Everything post-380 is follow the leader. Sure the A product line is healthy... now. The 737 has kept Boeing in the game and it also continues to be 'hot selling' and the 777 has overpowered the 340. The 787 is the beginning of great things from Seattle. The 737NNG with 787 is next and I suspect, Airbus' nightmare.

Swings and round-a-bouts though. Airbus will be back down the track I suspect.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: B2707SST
Posted 2005-10-28 02:43:38 and read 10057 times.

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 104):
is that right? if so, what's the point in designing an aircraft with fuel tanks larger than the volume of fuel that can be carried?

By definition, the size of the tanks dictates the amount of fuel that can be carried; I assume you are asking why design an aircraft that cannot lift all the fuel in its tanks. Whether this is possible or not depends on the payload also being carried. With zero payload, every commercial aircraft can take off with full tanks.

The A330-200 is probably the extreme case, as its empty weight plus max. fuel weight with no payload roughly equals its MTOW, but this is due to the larger fuel capacity intended for the A340s and A330-300.

Why not carry both max. payload and max. fuel at the same time? The short answer is that it gives airlines flexibility to trade payload versus range more easily. That said, for a given empty weight, being able to carry more fuel with a given payload and vice versa is always better.

Payload-range charts illustrate this graphically. On this 777-200ER chart, you can see the effect of increasing takeoff weights on payload-range capability, as well as the constraints imposed by maximum structural payload (top line) and maximum fuel (steeply-sloping right line).

http://128.173.204.63/courses/cee5614/fig1_a3.gif

(click to enlarge)

On the 777-200LR payload-range charts, accessible at http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/acaps/777rsec3.pdf page 4, the design range of 9,420 nm hits slightly below the MTOW -> fuel volume kink on the chart, which means the aircraft takes off with full tanks but is below MTOW.

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 104):
because the engines couldn't lift the OEW plus the payload plus all that fuel. Are you saying that the airframe structure is not strong enough to lift all that even if the engines were?

The main concern with the A345 and A346 are probably structural strength and wing loading. These aircraft already have the highest wing loading of any commercial jets, and it's unlikely that significant increases in MTOW could occur without a further enlargement of the wing.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2005-10-28 02:46:31]

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-28 02:57:48 and read 9974 times.

Zvezda and Ikramerica,

Second grandson has told me you could start with the readily professionally available FAST bulletin from Airbus, number 36, dated July 2005. As airline professionals you know that anyway, and will have read it thoroughly.

Ikramerica,

I probably share a lot of your reservations about the populist view of environmental sciences, except for one thing. All BS aside, there is a very, very serious set of problems going on here, and it would be an extremely good idea for all of our leaders to extract themselves from the association of science with ideology, and just address the problems really soon.

Zvezda,

Thank goodness. I would have had to change my moniker to 'yportne'.

seratnA

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2005-10-28 02:59:42 and read 9955 times.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 127):
On the 777-200LR payload-range charts, accessible at

Don't forget that these charts are not current.

They are from JUNE 2004.

That is pre-flight testing of 772LR, but after EIS of the 773ER.

In other words, that isn't the plane that is flying, that is the plane promised to PIA and EVA. It is based on the 2004 conservative estimates about how the 772LR would be expected to work based on what was learned during 773ER testing and the specifications at the time.

Which is one major reason some doubters are so confident. They are glomming onto pre-flight test projections and calling it final.

There will be a new chart soon, one that Airbus doesn't want to believe could be real, and it is why Airbus is scrambling to improve the 345 already despite it barely being in service.

772LR: "The news of my death has been greatly exaggerated."

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: SunriseValley
Posted 2005-10-28 03:03:29 and read 9930 times.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 127):
On the 777-200LR payload-range charts, accessible at

The link does not work
Try

http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/acaps/777_2lr3er.pdf

and go to Section 3.0

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Jasond
Posted 2005-10-28 03:17:41 and read 9863 times.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 28):
I don't!

PER-LHR is full of tourists... backpackers and wealthy babyboomers. The babyboomers are up the front, the 20 and 30 somethings up the back.... and since this is their own money both the front and the back are more price sensative. Hence why thai Airways $5000 business class tickets will do well.... but how many $13000 First or $10 000 business class tickets are you going to sell? Not enough!

Syd on the other hand is a global financial centre, and to a lesser but not insignificant extent, so is Melbourne. It is no accident Emirates stuck that amazing first class on this route, to ZRH and to JFK..... but nowhere else.

You are correct to an extent on your socio-economic breakdown in Western Australia however with one notable difference. More business (less price sensitive travel) could flow from what is seen as an unprecendented resource boom in W.AUS. We have not seen this level of activity since the iron ore boom in the 1960's. Currently multi-billion dollar contracts running 20-30 years are being signed on iron ore and gas resources and there has been an exodus of primary resource professionals (technical and business) flooding in from the eastern states. The government also recently revised the projected population figures for the next two decades and this suggests population growth that outstrips any other state in the country. To get this back on topic I see no reason why Qantas would not AT LEAST consider utilising long range A340's out of PER. EK have been doing this (albeit from lesser ranges) with a daily A340 service and I am led to believe that their load factors are more than acceptable.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Slarty
Posted 2005-10-28 03:28:43 and read 9796 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 60):
Odd how these ULH threads always seem to come down to large numbers of Australians saying that they can't wait for nonstop services, and almost equal numbers of Europeans telling them that they're wrong......

LOL.

Quoting Jasond (Reply 131):
You are correct to an extent on your socio-economic breakdown in Western Australia however with one notable difference. More business (less price sensitive travel) could flow from what is seen as an unprecendented resource boom in W.AUS.

Ditto for what is happening in Canada's resource industry, particularly Alberta.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-28 04:01:24 and read 9643 times.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 127):
With zero payload, every commercial aircraft can take off with full tanks.

The B787-3 with full fuel tanks and no payload is 82,000 lbs over MTOW.

Quoting Antares (Reply 128):
Zvezda and Ikramerica,

Second grandson has told me you could start with the readily professionally available FAST bulletin from Airbus, number 36, dated July 2005. As airline professionals you know that anyway, and will have read it thoroughly.

I'm not an airline professional. I'm an enthusiast. My work is about as far from the transportation sector as is possible.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zeke
Posted 2005-10-28 04:34:38 and read 9507 times.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 92):
Carry two flight crews? Seems to work for SQ on the SIN-EWR route.

Do you really think this will be an issue if adequate crew rest facilities are provided? I know Qantas has been an active participant in the international human factors studies that have been conducted on crewing requirments for ULR flights.

Thought SQ used 3 sets of crews for that flight.

They are the Australian rules for three or more pilots.

"tour of duty means the period between the time a flight crew member commences any duties associated with his or her employment prior to making a flight or series of flights until he or she is finally relieved of all such duties after the termination of such flight or series of flights and includes reserve time at the airport."

From the current QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED FLIGHT CREW (LONG HAUL) CERTIFIED AGREEMENT

Quote:
27.8.9 Jet aircraft with 3 pilots AND in-flight relief AND adequate rest facilities

A pilot on a jet aircraft in a flight crew consisting of three pilots with in-flight relief provided and adequate rest facilities available on board the aircraft will not be scheduled in excess of-

(a) 8-1/2 hours flight deck duty;
(b) 14 hours duty time.

If delays occur after commencement of duty, the scheduled limitations may be extended by up to and including four hours at the pilot's discretion.

27.8.10 B744 aircraft for planned single sectors with 4 pilots AND in-flight relief AND adequate rest facilities

Explanatory note: Clause 27.8.10 is to be read in conjunction with clause 27.2.4 (Any planned pattern which includes a sector covered by clause 27.8.10 requires Association approval).

A pilot on a B744 aircraft in a flight crew consisting of four pilots, with in-flight relief provided, and adequate crew rest facilities available on board the aircraft, for planned single sector operations, will not be scheduled in excess of:

(a) 8 1/2 hours flight deck duty;
(b) 16 1/2 hours duty time.

If delays occur after the commencement of duty, the scheduled limitations may be extended by up to and including three and one half hours at the pilot's discretion.

So it appears the present industrial agreement limit is 14 hours duty time (from sign on, to aircraft in the cockpit or bunk), regardless of the number of crew carried.

This matches the regulatory limit also.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-28 04:39:44 and read 9491 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 128):
Second grandson has told me you could start with the readily professionally available FAST bulletin from Airbus, number 36, dated July 2005.

I just read it. It does not support your assertion that temperatures at high altitude have been dropping. It also does not support your assertion that upgauging the flow of fuel to the engines to be warmed and returned to the tanks would not suffice. Obviously, Airbus does not come out and explicitly say it, but the article admits that the engines on the A340-500/600 do not provide enough heat to the return fuel to keep the fuel sufficiently warm throughout the envelope for the which the aircraft is certified.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: NAV20
Posted 2005-10-28 04:59:45 and read 9415 times.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 134):
So it appears the present industrial agreement limit is 14 hours duty time

Have to query that, Zeke - your own quoted passages (under 'B744 aircraft') refer to 8.5 hrs. flightdeck duty and 16.5 hrs. duty time? Those figures (together with the four-hours 'pilot's discretion' allowance) seem to fit with the present journey time MEL-LAX.

My guess is that the pilots would see the employment/career potentialities of nonstop and would readily negotiate on any necessary extensions to suit the 772LR (subject to pay adjustments, of course).

If (as I suspect) the system turns out to work best on 'naval lines' (4-hour watches) two four-hour watches plus one two-hour 'dog-watch' would give up to ten flightdeck hours per flightcrew, and say 20 hours total duty time. Not all that big an increase on the current allowances for the 747s (8.5 and 16.5 respectively)?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-28 05:15:32 and read 9337 times.

Zvezda,

There is voluminous documented evidence of upper atmosphere temperatures falling. I'm rather surprised that if you are able to correct me on the second law of thermodynamics and the meaning of entropy (for which I am grateful) then why are you so unfamiliar with the flip side of global warming, which is rapid cooling of the upper atmosphere.

I'm sure you are smart enough to know this, but for those who haven't followed global warming, the greenhouse effect prevents normal cooling of the atmosphere through heat energy radiated back into space by deflecting a portion of it back downwards.

This effect, cause by the greenhouse gases, lead by carbon dioxide and methane, reduces the amount of radiant energy that used to warm the upper atmosphere, hence higher temperatures below the tropause and radically cooler temperatures above it, including levels flown by commercial airliners and despite the contribution their engine emissions make to global warming (which is around 3% of the total according to some studies.)

Down here, in 'god's' waiting room for pilots as well as analysts and other colourful identities, the old 707 guys and early 747 guys remember when minus 37 C was normal at cruise across Australia, where I've been on flights where it has been minus 52 and lower. this is not a scientific comparison I know, but there are increasing instances of rather lower than normal temperatures being encountered in the upper atmosphere and significantly, they tally with data from meteorological balloons and the current models for global warming.

Why do I know this? Because while air transport stocks mean bugger all in the Australian equity market, resources stock prop up the economy.

We don't invest serious resources into aviation, but monitoring the likely and current participants in clean coal technology and post combustion capture techniques, geothermal (hot rocks) energy and tidal capture and biomass conversion (ethanol is only the beginning) do consume a lot of our time.

These pursuits offer an opportunity to cut large chunks out of the base load of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission, something that can work really quickly, and also make the punters who choose the right stocks very rich at the same time.

The only reason a few of us here come to this forum is to look at the dynamics of alternative media, not just forums but blogs and closed user groups. The closed user groups are fascinating but dangerous when it comes to stocks and the inane things some professionals do with their money, including the really big suckers, pilots, dentists and doctors. Media stocks are moderately important in this country. Pity the same can't be said for the media itself.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: NAV20
Posted 2005-10-28 05:32:20 and read 9245 times.

Don't disagree with you that there may be a developing problem, Antares. But I'm equally sure that the fuel technology to deal with it already exists; simply because military jets already fly at up to twice the altitudes required by civil aircraft.

So it's likely to be a question of cost rather than feasibility. The military doesn't have to worry about money (except when it comes to paying the blokes!  Smile) but the civil field does. IMO, it would only be if the cost of the technology (or the weight of any required insulation) reached prohibitive levels, sufficient to offset the economies gained by flying at 35,000 feet plus, that we would see any material reduction in service altitudes.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: RedFlyer
Posted 2005-10-28 05:34:53 and read 9237 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 137):
then why are you so unfamiliar with the flip side of global warming, which is rapid cooling of the upper atmosphere.

Antares, I mean no disrespect whatsoever by injecting myself into your debate with Zvesda so I hope you will take it as a polite observation and opposing viewpoint only. In any event, while I don't think anyone, certainly not myself, can dispute your assertion that upper atmospheric temps have dropped over the past few years, the biggest problem I see with it is that it has not, contrary to popular belief, been definitively proven that it's related to global warming. The concept of "global warming" is certainly a popular one but only because it appears to be the simplest one to explain the temp variations.

Earth's temps have fluctuated greatly over the centuries and perhaps we are experiencing a trend of elevated temps (at the surface); however, we don't know what the cause is. And we certainly had no way of observing upper atmospheric temperatures in centuries past. The changes could very well be attributed to carbon emmisions over the past century; it could also very well just be a coincidence.

In any event, as I said, I mean no disrespect and sincerely appreciate your posts that I've read thus far. I just wanted inject an opposing viewpoint since you seem so intent on attributing upper atmospheric temp changes to the still unproven phenomenon of "global warming".

Regards,

R

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-28 06:01:25 and read 9138 times.

NAV20 and RedFlyer,

You both make important points. But military jets at least only fly at those altitudes, even higher than Concorde used to, for short intervals. Was it not true that BA alone accumulated hundreds of times more flight experience in supersonic and transonic regimes than all the world's air forces combined?

Or was that an urban/urbane myth? But yes. of course it can be solved. Indeed high tech all composite wings may well provide the answer to at least part of the issue, so add one more tick to the merits of the 787 programme.

I think we need to ask if the natural variability of the climate is retarding or magnifying the anthropogenic component. The latter possibility would be the preferable answer at this stage.

What we can measure down the ages, that is, pollen deposits, ice captured CO2 levels and so forth, tend to endorse the view that anthropogenic factors are uncomfortably large. If we release the immobilised methane and carbon dioxide at the base of the thawing tundra we are really in terrible trouble, and they contain huge reserve of greenhouse gases that have been locked up according to some studies for tens of millions of years and untouched by the interglacials, one of which we inhabit.

This debate is veering off course in a sense for an aviation forum, and unfortunately, is often defined by ideological parameters rather than surival of the species considerations.

But to attempt to bring it back on course, it is crucial to prevent aviation being turned into the exaggerated whipping boy for ideologues who see this as a chance to advance anti-technological agendas.

Technology will save the day. Those who own the right part of the action will be able to afford cold drinks and premium jet travel for all of their days.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zeke
Posted 2005-10-28 06:18:51 and read 9068 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 136):
Have to query that, Zeke - your own quoted passages (under 'B744 aircraft') refer to 8.5 hrs. flightdeck duty and 16.5 hrs. duty time? Those figures (together with the four-hours 'pilot's discretion' allowance) seem to fit with the present journey time MEL-LAX.

True this is for pacific or europe trips, however this only applies to the 744, not even the 743 can use that clause.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 136):
My guess is that the pilots would see the employment/career potentialities of nonstop and would readily negotiate on any necessary extensions to suit the 772LR (subject to pay adjustments, of course).

EBA7 is up for vote now, I am told no 777 in it, and no extension to the duty times. Word is it is going to get rejected by the pilots anyway.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 136):
If (as I suspect) the system turns out to work best on 'naval lines' (4-hour watches) two four-hour watches plus one two-hour 'dog-watch' would give up to ten flightdeck hours per flightcrew, and say 20 hours total duty time. Not all that big an increase on the current allowances for the 747s (8.5 and 16.5 respectively)?

You got to be kidding, it is a significant increase. Not everyone can sleep in the bunks. Not everyone can sleep for 3 hours at a time. SQ delayed their 773ER so they could have level bunks with an even mattress instead of the wedge mattress.

In my view we are reaching the limit of human performance in terms of fatigue, crossing 10 time zones in one hit, and then expect a person say in the late 50’s to be at peak performance after unsatisfactory rest to pull off a low visibility CAT 2 or 3 landing where you have less than a second to decide.

Duty time for each crew member starts at sign on, maybe 2 hrs before the flight leaves, and finishes 30 minutes after it stops, so its more like 22.5 hrs. Similar constraints are on cabin crew.

I would not see CASA letting them get away with less than 6 pilots per sector, in my view even that is pushing it. I think you would also need a 747 load of cabin crew to cover the rest periods for them.

With such a heavy crew, yield would want to be very good.

The Captain and F/O would have to be in the seats for takeoff and landing, I understand that QF also have the cruise pilots in the cockpit for takeoff and landing also. If I remember correctly under Australian rules to take passengers, they each have to do 3 takeoffs and landings every 90 days (just about every bid period), and because the flight would also go during night they need at least 3 take-offs and 3 landings at night (night can cover day) , going to be difficult if you only get one takeoff and landing every 20 hours.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: QFA001
Posted 2005-10-28 06:58:30 and read 8936 times.

Quoting Sq212 (Thread starter):
Will it sell?

I hope not. The B772LR would be too marginal as it is; the A345 pretty much needs a KC-135 flying behind it for refueling.  Wink

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 2):
Good Luck Leahy, because you will need a lot of it to win this one!!!

Ooooow. Sir, I believe that you have developed into quite an analyst. Careful on this one. You know that Leahy never gives in. We are talking about a very large airplane order. For this one, Leahy would sell his wife.

Quoting LordHowe (Reply 3):
How long (how many hours) would the nonstop LHR-SYD flight be - and SYD-LHR?

For the B772LR: 19:30 LHR-SYD 21:00 SYD-LHR
For the A345: 20:15 LHR-SYD 21:50 SYD-LHR

IMHO, neither airplane is fast enough. A M0.85 airplane (eg. A380, B747, B787) might be more appealing, though. However, none of those airplanes offer the ability to be turned into a SYD-LHR vv airplane.  Sad

Quoting RedChili (Reply 12):
Maybe some of those "analysts" are comments taken from a.net forums???

Actually, I believe that you almost hit the nail on the head. The suggesting that Mr Thomas made in his article was discussed several months ago at the online Orders Forum. However, he neglected the second-half of the suggestion:

For each two B772LRs flying non-stop eastbound, a single A380 flying westbound with tech-stops could be used. Two B772LRs could have the same number of seats (ie. 'effective' ASKs) as one A380.

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 15):
Incidently Qantas had a press release the other day, AND two months ago AND late last year stating they were evaluating both the 777 and A340 variants.

Heya, Mont, long time no see. FWIW, last week it was claimed that Dixon had mentioned that the A340 was out-of-the-running. AFAIK, it is.

Quoting GARPD (Reply 19):
Does anyone know what QF's current policy is on ETOPS?

What would you like to know? QF is 180 rated on A330s, B737NGs & B767s. If ETOPS is expanded, QF will apply for expanded rights. The first expanded ETOPS airplane will end up being one of A350, B777 or B787.

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 56):
Only 120 passengers (240 for 777LR) and this if AFTER improvements. The A345 is VERY sad in comparison with 777LR and the only contest it has won with the 777LR is getting to the market first!

The article mentioned that the B772LR could do 240-pax LHR-SYD. It did not claim that it could do it on the reciprocal SYD-LHR sector.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 76):
If it is too narrow on the A340, would it fit in the A350 with whatever interior wall modifications that have been made?

Simple answer: no. I don't think that that will preclude QF buying the A350, though. However, I think that Airbus would need to offer a concession for not being able to meet that requirement.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 83):
Even with the rumored fourth belly tank, it will still be fuel limited, not weight limited.

It isn't four belly tanks; it's six.

Quoting Antares (Reply 107):
My group did a bit of checking.

With QF or just some guy standing on a street corner?  Yeah sure

Quoting Antares (Reply 107):
The 787 will be late, it is too heavy, the right derivative hasn't been offered yet...the much sought after -10...and it will be stuffed as full of seats as possible to get the economics right, as will be the case with the A350, of which some certainly seem likely to be ordered.

Maybe we should nickname you Scoop?  Wink

 airplane QFA001

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Jasond
Posted 2005-10-28 07:03:57 and read 8913 times.

Quoting Slarty (Reply 132):
Ditto for what is happening in Canada's resource industry, particularly Alberta.

I think what most of us are seeing is that the commercial aviation business is going through one of its most dynamic periods in history. New markets and routes are being opened up and at least being considered that a few years ago would not have even been thought of. The world generally is changing at an enormous pace and the introduction of new economies and technology literally makes anything is possible in this industry, something that is a huge departure from traditional thinking. I don't know how true this story is but I read somewhere that one of the reasons the A380 was considered came from a chance meeting from a senior Airbus official and a senior airline official working out of SE Asia. They were waiting for their respective flights at CLK when the observation was made that a 747 was arriving and departing every 30 seconds. The end result was an undertaking by the Airbus guy that they would 'workshop' a concept for a larger capacity airliner. This may not be a great example but if you had suggested 10 years ago that an A340 would be operating out of such a 'regional' city as PER you would have been lampooned on a site like this had it existed. The rest of course is history.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Dalecary
Posted 2005-10-28 07:32:05 and read 8878 times.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 142):
Ooooow. Sir, I believe that you have developed into quite an analyst. Careful on this one. You know that Leahy never gives in. We are talking about a very large airplane order. For this one, Leahy would sell his wife.

Specifically regarding the A340, though. It has no chance at QF. As you have said before, it is a different matter with the A350 and that appears to be Airbus' real focus in this campaign(maybe some more A380s as well).
The general consensus is still QF 777/787 and JQ A359 is it not???
I'm not an analyst's bootlace, but I can see the obvious when it is right in front of me.
And from what I've heard, Boeing are every bit as desperate/keen to win this order, or the bulk of it. Don't know who would sell their wife at Boeing, though!!!

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Shenzhen
Posted 2005-10-28 07:48:56 and read 8846 times.

Quoting BoogyJay (Reply 69):
- the A330 already in the fleet counts as well. Maybe only marginally. But still.



Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 85):
Thank you. To be honest, my pet-peeve is not someone who is mis-informed, because that can be corrected. My biggest pet-peeve is someone who loudly and rudely denounces someone else's (correct) information in favor of their own (in-correct) information. When Dalecary stated that the A340 was no longer being considered by QF, all it would have taken would be asking him "Why?" instead of immediately lam-basting him with false accusations. As it happens, I know Dalecary to be privy to the same knowledge I have.

I recall seeing on a Boeing webpage that Qantas had ordered the 744ER and 767-4, but had to pull it quite quickly when Qantas anounced the A380/744ER/A330 order.

Quoting Antares (Reply 107):
My group did a bit of checking. At no stage has Qantas firmly excluded the latest versions of the A340 from consideration (even though we doubt they will order the -500). However Qantas has given Boeing a horrendous time over emerging technical issues with the 787, even thought it likes it, a great deal.

The 787 will be late, it is too heavy, the right derivative hasn't been offered yet...the much sought after -10...and it will be stuffed as full of seats as possible to get the economics right, as will be the case with the A350, of which some certainly seem likely to be ordered.

Interesting how Qantas are going to replace their mid size fleet with unacceptable airplanes.

This is typical customer bickering, in an attempt to get more for less, or get what they want over what another airline wants, first. If there is a special need, and Qantas are willing to pay for it, I'm sure Boeing or Airbus will do their utmost to help. If neither are willng, then Qantas will simply need to accept what is currently on offer, and adapt to the airplane (meaning, if you can't get the perfect airplane to suit your current process, then adjust the process).

Cheers

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-28 07:49:37 and read 8844 times.

Whether by accident or clever intention QFA001 and Dalecarey have either hinted at or blundered into a minor scandal concerning wives that our fearless media have apparently decided not to write, possibly because it is wrong, or even if they were to write what is actually right, it would be rather expensive if it ended up in a defamation action and his or her honour was having a bad day.

OK, that's a bit mysterious and I'm not going to elaborate on gossip.

The thing about analyst briefings is that the executives or board persons put up by listed companies have to put up with crude greedy questions about money, risk and policy that the general media seem not to ask with the enthusiasm they used to.

Other people go to most of these briefings, and we don't go to all of them. In fact we spend more time in dining rooms listening to what the finance houses that interact massively with the institutions have to say, including what the intimate guest luncheon speaker, or panelists really think.

It is a sad day when you have to go to crikey.com to get a second opinion on the validity of aviation news, or any news. And I sure don't accept crikey as a prime source any more than any other paper. It is just that they seem rather less timid.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: QFA001
Posted 2005-10-28 07:53:11 and read 8845 times.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 144):
Specifically regarding the A340, though. It has no chance at QF.

I know what you're saying. However, consider this: Leahy is renowned for coming in late with sweeteners to get a deal through. If QF bought A340s, it wouldn't be the first time that Leahy had managed to win an order after Airbus lost the technical evaluation.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 144):
As you have said before, it is a different matter with the A350 and that appears to be Airbus' real focus in this campaign(maybe some more A380s as well).

Well, the make-up is changing a little. Seattle and Toulouse continue to sweat.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 144):
The general consensus is still QF 777/787 and JQ A359 is it not???

I don't know if it's a consensus. It's certainly been mooted.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 144):
And from what I've heard, Boeing are every bit as desperate/keen to win this order, or the bulk of it. Don't know who would sell their wife at Boeing, though!!!

I hope the better airplanes win, with or without wives.  Wink

 airplane QFA001

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Dalecary
Posted 2005-10-28 08:04:26 and read 8819 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 146):
Whether by accident or clever intention QFA001 and Dalecarey have either hinted at or blundered into a minor scandal concerning wives that our fearless media have apparently decided not to write, possibly because it is wrong, or even if they were to write what is actually right, it would be rather expensive if it ended up in a defamation action and his or her honour was having a bad day.

OK, that's a bit mysterious and I'm not going to elaborate on gossip.

The thing about analyst briefings is that the executives or board persons put up by listed companies have to put up with crude greedy questions about money, risk and policy that the general media seem not to ask with the enthusiasm they used to.

Other people go to most of these briefings, and we don't go to all of them. In fact we spend more time in dining rooms listening to what the finance houses that interact massively with the institutions have to say, including what the intimate guest luncheon speaker, or panelists really think.

It is a sad day when you have to go to crikey.com to get a second opinion on the validity of aviation news, or any news. And I sure don't accept crikey as a prime source any more than any other paper. It is just that they seem rather less timid.

Antares

Off on a tangent here aren't we. Not quite sure what your point(s) are here!!!
Where does crikey.com fit into anything I or QFA001 have said???

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Dalecary
Posted 2005-10-28 08:10:48 and read 8812 times.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 147):
I know what you're saying. However, consider this: Leahy is renowned for coming in late with sweeteners to get a deal through. If QF bought A340s, it wouldn't be the first time that Leahy had managed to win an order after Airbus lost the technical evaluation.

True, but you would hope QF may have learned that the best aircraft is the way to go. To pull off another A330 type coup with the A340 is just about pure fantasy IMO.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 147):
Well, the make-up is changing a little. Seattle and Toulouse continue to sweat.

Any elaboration possible on that statement? Understand if not possible.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 147):
I don't know if it's a consensus. It's certainly been mooted.

And mooted from what I regard as very good sources.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 147):
I hope the better airplanes win, with or without wives

I'm with you on that one!!!

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-28 08:18:41 and read 8802 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 137):
I'm rather surprised that if you are able to correct me on the second law of thermodynamics and the meaning of entropy (for which I am grateful) then why are you so unfamiliar with the flip side of global warming, which is rapid cooling of the upper atmosphere.

I'm sure you are smart enough to know this, but for those who haven't followed global warming, the greenhouse effect prevents normal cooling of the atmosphere through heat energy radiated back into space by deflecting a portion of it back downwards.

This effect, cause by the greenhouse gases, lead by carbon dioxide and methane, reduces the amount of radiant energy that used to warm the upper atmosphere, hence higher temperatures below the tropause and radically cooler temperatures above it, including levels flown by commercial airliners and despite the contribution their engine emissions make to global warming (which is around 3% of the total according to some studies.)

This may be off-topic, but there is significant but inconclusive evidence for global warming. The greenhouse gas theory is just one theory and it hasn't been subjected to experimental verification. The suggestion that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are significant next to volcanic activity is dubious. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is self-limiting because as it increases, so does plant growth which consumes carbon dioxide. I do agree with you that it is politically motivated.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 141):
The Captain and F/O would have to be in the seats for takeoff and landing, I understand that QF also have the cruise pilots in the cockpit for takeoff and landing also. If I remember correctly under Australian rules to take passengers, they each have to do 3 takeoffs and landings every 90 days (just about every bid period), and because the flight would also go during night they need at least 3 take-offs and 3 landings at night (night can cover day) , going to be difficult if you only get one takeoff and landing every 20 hours.

This is exactly the reason why SQ mixes a lot of SIN-CGK flying into their A340-500 rotations.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 142):

It isn't four belly tanks; it's six.

We shall see.

Quoting Antares (Reply 146):
Whether by accident or clever intention QFA001 and Dalecarey have either hinted at or blundered into a minor scandal concerning wives that our fearless media have apparently decided not to write, possibly because it is wrong, or even if they were to write what is actually right, it would be rather expensive if it ended up in a defamation action and his or her honour was having a bad day.

Antares, you make it sound like Leahy has sold his wife to more than one airline and now they are upset because they don't want to share.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Jasond
Posted 2005-10-28 08:27:15 and read 8779 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 146):
It is a sad day when you have to go to crikey.com to get a second opinion on the validity of aviation news, or any news. And I sure don't accept crikey as a prime source any more than any other paper. It is just that they seem rather less timid.

I read it on the Internet so it must be true...

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-28 08:57:03 and read 8744 times.

Zvezda,

We are having a civilised disagreement. I'm not sure how much more serious climate change has to get before we need to take steps to deal with it, including obviously aviation.

Your comments about self limiting excess carbon are however spot on in terms of the merits of replacing fossil fuels where possible by biomass. When we burn sugar cane (ethanol) to replace oil it is a zero sum game, because it grows back. It is another way of saying biomass can give us the benefit of storable solar energy because of the conversion of sunlight to plant matter by photosynthesis. When we burn natural gas, coal or oil, we liberate carbon dioxide that was locked up. The best studies I have seen show that around 7 billion tonnes of solid carbon equivalent are pumped into the environment annually, and around 5 billion tonnes disappears into the ocean and soil including the biomass sink you are referring to. The surplus 2 billion tonnes is currently adding around 2.5 parts per million of CO2 to the atmosphere, where the concentration is now north of 378 ppm, which is the highest it has been since the Permian extinction event 240 million years ago, long before the more famous asteroid extinction of around 60 million years ago.

It is a great pity that idiots in animal costumes keep pretending we can deal with it by riding bikes (Antares on a bike=half of Canberra in hospital) and have driven the people who need to be convinced to instead put the arguments about climate change in the same basket that they file the lunar left and lunar right.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-28 09:05:40 and read 8728 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 152):
fossil fuels

Like everyone else in the former Soviet Union and growing numbers in the west, I don't believe there have ever been fossil fuels. The biogenic theory of petroleum doesn't come close to explaining the evidence. Petroleum is almost certainly primordial. Most of the work is in Russian, but in English you can start with Thomas Gold (who plagerized Russian sources).

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Iwok
Posted 2005-10-28 09:34:16 and read 8691 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 60):
Odd how these ULH threads always seem to come down to large numbers of Australians saying that they can't wait for nonstop services, and almost equal numbers of Europeans telling them that they're wrong......

 rotfl ... rotfl ... rotfl 

Quoting Keesje (Reply 62):
BTW I don't think a non stop Syd/MEL-Europeservice is a good idea.

It will be hard to compete against:

- more luxerious,
- higher frequency,
- cheaper

1 stop flights with time for
- streching your legs,
- buying a newspaper/ magazine
- taking a shower/shave in a lounge,
- getting some fresh wok food &
- bit of shopping at a hub.

e.g. I really like KUL hub & lounges.



Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 84):
What do you mean by "fuel limited, not weight limited".

Your post reminds me of some sort of advertisement for a cruise ship. Listen: when you have to take a trip across the world that will take either 19-20 or 22-24-hours, which would you choose. For me, having done a lot of long-haul, I always make it a point to choose the minimum number of connections and am willing to pay a 100-200 bucks more for the privilage of a shorter flying time.

Quoting Antares (Reply 128):
I probably share a lot of your reservations about the populist view of environmental sciences

I do too. The one thing that gets me is the rising temperature of Mars. In about 1000-years it is predicted that some liquid water will exist on Mars, yet there are no hoards of SUVs' on the planet. I suspect that we are in the midst of a solar cycle and that we're warming up a bit.. Seeing as CO2 has very high solubility in water (i.e. the ocean) it is possibly to postulate that higher temps caused by a postulated solar cycle are causing more CO2 to be released from the world's oceans.

the problem we have is that we have only been studying the environment for a relatively short period of time, so we can only rely on archeological data (ice etc.) to give us a clue as to what happened in previous ice ages.

-iwok

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-28 09:40:05 and read 8674 times.

Zvezda,

Whether that is true or not, and it is controversial and interesting, it makes no difference to the problem we have in burning oil, natural gas and coal and liberating carbon dioxide and other undesirable additions to the atmosphere, including radioactive isotopes of readily measurable age, that would otherwise have remained locked up.

Quite a bit of serious work is underway in the US looking at how the agricultural sink can be improved by forcing more carbon into the soil and paying for the cost of so doing with enhanced production, whether in a faster growing form of oak from memory in one experiment, or just corn that grows half a metre taller.

Aviation is a special case in my view. We can't burn hydrogen at altitude without causing havoc to what is normally a very dry part of the atmosphere, yet we can burn hydrogen at ground level with overwhelmingly beneficial consequences if it replaces petroleum.

Breakthroughs are needed. And whether the issues is totally natural or man made, or somewhere in between which is the most likely situation such breakthroughs will generate wealth as well as health benefits.

I do a bit of public speaking here and there. My most consistent theme is to be bold, and embrace the benefits of human ingenuity and a healthy profit motive. Clinging to the current mind set of well, my mind pretends it will all go away and not happen, is about as useful as resisting the ascendancy of jet engines over the compound radial piston thing that kept breaking down on the old Super Connies.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2005-10-28 09:41:53 and read 8673 times.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 50):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 40):
On another thread Astuteman said that he had heard from a friend in Airbus that they are planning a quick weight-saving upgrade of the A340 - and, in the longer term (i.e. by say 2011), thinking about 'A350-ising' it with composite wings, wider lighter fuselage etc. I expect that the first idea is what Leahy wanted to talk to Geoff Dixon about.

Assuming the source is in fact reliable, I thought Airbus had all but conceeded that "4 engines 4 long-haul" was all but dead given the advent of the 350. Wouldn't it make more sense for Airbus to "787-ise" the 350 (go to an all-composite construction, bleedless engines, etc.) to get the needed range rather than "350-ise" a model that would never be as efficient or reliable as a 2-holer?

Good caution, Redflyer. A "thinking about" A350'ing the A340 was put to me purely in terms of being 1 of a whole range of options under scrutiny (much like the A350 12 months ago) - nothing more than that.

FWIW, The A350 has been developed (according to A) to grow up to c 275t (from about 245t today). Suspect that this "HGW" route to a ULR might be on the horizon (don't quote me on this as a reliable source...)

Quoting Antares (Reply 107):
And, despite reservations expressed with greater credibility and authority by a few posters, the prospect of an ultra long range version of the A380 doing routes like Singapore-New York or Sydney-London by 2014 with more than 300 passengers in a high amenity(spacious) configuration hangs over the economic life of the -200LR and the -500 Airbus like a sword

A380 the dark horse eh? Daft as it is, I've always thought that, IF IT COULD BE DONE, the A380 would make the best ULR. It certainly has the most space.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 103):
I just don't see a lot of opportunity for weight reduction considering the structural constraints. It already has a carbon fibre keel. Airbus could perhaps drop 10,000 lbs. by applying A350 technologies.

Specifically, by adopting composite wings (about 2 1/2 t saving), and an Al/Li fuse using FS welding (which is some 5% lighter, apparrently). I believe the new larger interior linings save a bit, too.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Baw716
Posted 2005-10-28 09:55:49 and read 8654 times.

Well, I can see there has been a lot of discussion on this topic. I have spoken on this point before and got splattered on by a number of folks. I'll take my chances once again.

The 777LR with 240 seats if it configured heavily F/C/Premium Y to keep the ZFW down, the load would have to look something like this:
Assuming 100% LF = 240 pax plus crew of 16 (12 F/A) + (4 Pilots)
ZFW=376522 Payload Wt=58,822lbs (assumes 64lbs bags per pax and 0 cargo.
Fuel=345653 incl reserves at M0.84 cruise EASTBOUND
BlockWt=722175 TOW=720175 MTOW 766.8KLBS
FlightTime=18h45min incl 40kt average tailwind
LandingWt=365700lbs MLWT=492,000lbs at sea level
Fuel Reserves at landing=+/- 20,000 lbs.

In its current range figures, it barely will make it nonstop with 240 pax eastbound. It will not make it westbound. The winds will be at least 40kts on the nose and likely to be so for a good portion of the flight, especially on the northern route over HKG. With an 80kt swing in wind, the payload would have to go down significantly, or there would need to be another two hours of fuel minimum loaded and that will put the aircraft overweight.

Therefore, the only answer is to get the aircraft under 200 seats. Assuming for the moment that leisure customers are not going to be willing to pay the extra price for a nonstop, the profile of the passenger on the ULH flights will generally be business people, it would make better sense to take seats out, reduce the weight, charge the higher fares for the nonstop flights. Passengers, especially business people who want to shorten their trip by the two hour stop in Bangkok or Singapore will gladly pay the premium, especially if they are relegated to the back of the plane. A premium economy a la what SQ has done to reduce the weight on the A345 would make sense on the 777LR; but to be profitable, there would have to be an emphasis on a higher F and J mix (12 F/78 C/110PY). With 200 passengers, you lose about 10,760 lbs of weight, just in passengers, then take out the seats, the catering, the extra f/a's, the extra fuel required to carry the extra weight...etc. Then it might be possible to eek out the range with some additional fuel tankage and an increase in gross weight.

That formula would make Sydney-London more realistic. Economy Class passengers can still fly via Bangkok/Singapore/HKG, as they do now, at much lower fares, since capacity will be opened up on those flights.

Boeing can make it happen. The question is, does QF want it bad enough to have a few of the 777s they order be specially modified for this kind of flying. The standard 777LR is capable flying just about anywhere else. We just don't know. After all, they were the ones who asked for and got the 747-400ER.

baw716

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Boeing nut
Posted 2005-10-28 09:58:17 and read 8648 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
Sadly, the article doesn't indicate what modification would be made to the A340-500 to give it the needed range boost. Presumably, it would be an application of A350 developments and updated engines.

I'm betting extra tanks as it doesn't currently have them.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
One would almost forget Boeing has been trying to sell the 772LR for 5 years now and Airbus has since then become a clear market leader.

Don't some of you guys have somewhere an little uncomfortable feeling some crusial info in the endlessly repeated a.net 777 superiority over 340 truth is missing?

God, I'll bet C'boy doesn't have any hair left.

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 46):
That's nonsense! The 772LR cannot do it both directions. So, please explain what's better about that...

Well, maybe that the A345 can't do it in any direction?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Glareskin
Posted 2005-10-28 10:20:57 and read 8616 times.

Quoting Boeing nut (Reply 158):
Well, maybe that the A345 can't do it in any direction?

Exactamundo! That is why Leahy offered the special version. If Airbus can do it this will be the ultimate USP for QF. And what if he's bluffing?


Quoting N79969 (Reply 81):
this is a last minute shot from half court and also a way to pressure Boeing's pricing.

Might be true N79969..

Either way, lets just recognize Leahy is a super salesman because with this action he increased the chance to win the deal or lower the margin for Boeing!

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-28 10:45:13 and read 8578 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
Sadly, the article doesn't indicate what modification would be made to the A340-500 to give it the needed range boost. Presumably, it would be an application of A350 developments and updated engines.



Quoting Boeing nut (Reply 158):

I'm betting extra tanks as it doesn't currently have them.

I'll take you up on that bet for any amount of money at any odds -- as long as you don't mean new larger wings. The A340-500 can't take off with a full passenger load and the tanks it already has fully loaded with fuel. The A340-500 is not fuel limited; it is weight limited. Adding tanks doesn't help at all.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Aerosol
Posted 2005-10-28 10:53:27 and read 8563 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 160):
I'll take you up on that bet for any amount of money at any odds -- as long as you don't mean new larger wings. The A340-500 can't take off with a full passenger load and the tanks it already has fully loaded with fuel. The A340-500 is not fuel limited; it is weight limited. Adding tanks doesn't help at all.

I find it hard to believe that engines that lift a 346 with full tanks can not lift a 345 with full tanks!

If you show me the math I will clearly admit that you were right Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Boeing Nut
Posted 2005-10-28 11:19:37 and read 8522 times.

Quoting Aerosol (Reply 161):
I find it hard to believe that engines that lift a 346 with full tanks can not lift a 345 with full tanks!

If you show me the math I will clearly admit that you were right

According to A.net's a/c data page, both the -500 and -600 have the same MTOW of 804,675 lbs.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-28 11:30:33 and read 8510 times.

A340-500:
MTOW: 366t
Max fuel: 174t
OEW: 171t

So, an A340-500 with full fuel and zero payload weighs 345t. The crew will add about 2t. That leaves 19t for passengers and cargo. That's about 200 passengers with baggage and zero cargo. To load Airbus' specified full passenger complement requires offloading fuel. Adding tanks doesn't help and just makes the aircraft heavier.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zeke
Posted 2005-10-28 14:46:21 and read 8398 times.

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 157):
FlightTime=18h45min incl 40kt average tailwind



Quoting QFA001 (Reply 142):
For the B772LR: 19:30 LHR-SYD 21:00 SYD-LHR



Quoting Baw716 (Reply 157):
Fuel=345653 incl reserves at M0.84 cruise EASTBOUND

Dont believe 0.84, espically at the start of the flight.

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 157):
Assuming 100% LF = 240 pax plus crew of 16 (12 F/A) + (4 Pilots)

Dont think they will get away with less than 6 pilots, cabin crew looks too few for the best part of 22-24 hours of duty with 240 pax.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-28 16:51:06 and read 8290 times.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 164):

Dont think they will get away with less than 6 pilots, cabin crew looks too few for the best part of 22-24 hours of duty with 240 pax.

I also don't buy 4 pilots for SYD-LHR, though I could imagine 5 being acceptable. The important thing is that the pilots at the controls during landing are very well rested. If they both get a 12 hour rest period before taking the controls, then 3 additional pilots are needed to rotate. W=Work, R=Rest. I'm assuming a 24 hour duty cycle divided into 6 four hour periods.

Pilot 1: WWRRRW
Pilot 2: WWRRRW
Pilot 3: RRWWRW
Pilot 4: WRWRWR
Pilot 5: RWRWWR

Each pilot works 3 four hour shifts. There are 3 pilots on duty the first 8 hours and the last 4 hours, with 2 pilots on duty at other times. The 2 pilots at the controls for landing will have just had a 12 hour rest and the other pilot on duty will have just had a 4 hour rest. I would feel very comfortable with such a 5 pilot arrangement, but a total of 4 pilots would leave me a bit uneasy on flights longer than 18 hours.

QF are doing serious testing of long haul pilot rest, so we'll see what their results are.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: WINGS
Posted 2005-10-28 18:09:41 and read 8212 times.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 164):

Dont think they will get away with less than 6 pilots, cabin crew looks too few for the best part of 22-24 hours of duty with 240 pax.

Good point Zeke. It does seem too few flight crew for such a long journey. This may imply a lack of quality on behalf of the flight attendants towards the passengers due to fatigue.

Regards,
Wings

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: RedChili
Posted 2005-10-28 21:54:55 and read 8081 times.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 141):
I would not see CASA letting them get away with less than 6 pilots per sector, in my view even that is pushing it. I think you would also need a 747 load of cabin crew to cover the rest periods for them.

This is a crucial question concerning nonstop flights between SYD-LHR. If Zeke is correct in his estimates, then this question alone will make the flight uneconomical to operate.

If we're talking about a total crew of around 25 people, imagine how much they weigh, and you will realize that they will have to reduce the number of passengers even more. And those few pax will have to pay for the salaries, accommodation in London, etc. for the crew. This will not be cheap.

Does anybody know exactly how many pilots and cabin crew are working on SQs A345?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: SunriseValley
Posted 2005-10-28 23:08:16 and read 8009 times.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 167):
This is a crucial question concerning nonstop flights between SYD-LHR. If Zeke is correct in his estimates, then this question alone will make the flight uneconomical to operate.

RedChili and others who are second guessing all these issues are overlooking the fact that QF are well aware of all the issues. Why would they have asked for a proposal for an aircraft that can fly 10000nm in still air? In that figure they took into account all operational constraints. This allows for about 20hrs30 min assuming a 485 knot ground speed and can be done as BAW217 said in reply 157.
In fact if anyone wishes to go through Widebodies postings I believe you will see one where the payload/range chart has been extended at the upper end from that shown on Boeing document D6-59329-2 dated June 2004. If I remember correctly this change is a result of the actual fllight testing of the type.
So many of the points flogged to death in this thread were also flogged to death in an earlier thread titled "QF to make a decision Dec. 7th" or something like that.
Go back and refresh your memories!

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Unicorn
Posted 2005-10-29 00:05:49 and read 7959 times.

The article in question is written by Geoff Thomas, who is so notoriously pro-Boeing and pro-777 that he has been confidently predicting the Qantas would buy the 777 (in some iteration or other) since before the aircraft first flew a decade ago.

His stance on this issue is so well known that it is a standing joke amongst the Australian avaiation and media fraternity.

Unicorn

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2005-10-29 02:21:43 and read 7889 times.

Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 121):

While there is some semblence of rationale behind a nonstop to ORD, even a one-stop flight to DFW is hard to comprehend. They already codeshare to DFW on AA (QF's One-World partner) ex LAX.



Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 121):

Trust me, the only QF jet you'll ever see at DFW is John Travolta's 707:

well...I guess you would have to disagree with Dixon:

"- Qantas commencing Auckland-Dallas-Auckland non-stop services when the new, long range Boeing 747-400 is delivered in late 2002. Dallas is a major worldwide hub for American Airlines, particularly to all major North American and South American cities;"

granted the route didn't go through, considering they had it in their plans goes to show how important SYD/AKL-DFW is on their route, as this would free up their LAX slots a bit more..

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 123):

Actually, entropy is the other way around: the process of complex (highly ordered) things becoming simpler (less well ordered). For example, what we defecate must have more entropy than what we eat.

Zvezda..incorrect...

entropy is the INCREASE in disorder or randomness...(I was a chemistry majour in college)...my chemistry professors would always give the comparison of one's bedroom in college (i.e. how randomness-or entropy of a bedroom increases).....easy to remember!

entropy is a change of irreversible transformations..

its actually a little bit more complicated than that..but we'll keep at this level..

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 142):
For this one, Leahy would sell his wife.



[Edited 2005-10-29 02:41:04]

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-29 05:16:28 and read 7775 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 123):
Actually, entropy is the other way around: the process of complex (highly ordered) things becoming simpler (less well ordered). For example, what we defecate must have more entropy than what we eat.



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 170):

Zvezda..incorrect...

entropy is the INCREASE in disorder or randomness...(I was a chemistry majour in college)...my chemistry professors would always give the comparison of one's bedroom in college (i.e. how randomness-or entropy of a bedroom increases).....easy to remember!

Read it again! You agreed with me, but claimed to disagree. I wrote that entropy is the process of things becoming less well ordered. You argued, no, it's the increase in disorder. Same thing!!!  Yeah sure

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Monteycarlos
Posted 2005-10-29 06:09:28 and read 7740 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 136):
Have to query that, Zeke - your own quoted passages (under 'B744 aircraft') refer to 8.5 hrs. flightdeck duty and 16.5 hrs. duty time? Those figures (together with the four-hours 'pilot's discretion' allowance) seem to fit with the present journey time MEL-LAX.

My guess is that the pilots would see the employment/career potentialities of nonstop and would readily negotiate on any necessary extensions to suit the 772LR (subject to pay adjustments, of course).

The way I understand it NAV (or at least the way duty time limitations are being taught to us through CRM and HR) is that they are fixed at 10 or 11 (can't remember - its available in the CASA CAO's) hours of 'duty' time' which of course includes all the pre-flight etc. Thus you need two crews for most flights greater than 8 hours. I don't think it is negotiable through EBA's.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 136):
If (as I suspect) the system turns out to work best on 'naval lines' (4-hour watches) two four-hour watches plus one two-hour 'dog-watch' would give up to ten flightdeck hours per flightcrew, and say 20 hours total duty time. Not all that big an increase on the current allowances for the 747s (8.5 and 16.5 respectively)?

I don't think it operates like that.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 142):
Heya, Mont, long time no see. FWIW, last week it was claimed that Dixon had mentioned that the A340 was out-of-the-running. AFAIK, it is.

Yeah been floating around at uni, trying to keep up with my business subjects. I'm a bit isolated from the world of aviation at the moment. I do see your point about the A340 but your below quote was exactly what I was trying to hint at!

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 147):
I know what you're saying. However, consider this: Leahy is renowned for coming in late with sweeteners to get a deal through. If QF bought A340s, it wouldn't be the first time that Leahy had managed to win an order after Airbus lost the technical evaluation.

Basically it comes down to $$$ both in the short and long term, would you agree? I think the 777 makes sense completely but who knows how the minds of the upper echelon at QF think.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: QFA001
Posted 2005-10-29 07:02:52 and read 7708 times.

There is no provision for a 21-hr flight in the current Australian regulations. However, based on the rules for duty periods up to 16-hr, QF would require six (6) crewmembers. There may be room to move down to five (5), including two CPTs, two F/Os and one S/O.

AFAIK, SQ uses four (4) crewmembers for the 18-hr SIN-EWR vv services.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 156):
FWIW, The A350 has been developed (according to A) to grow up to c 275t (from about 245t today).

Airbus has said that the A350 can grow to 260t based on ACN/PCN. Ofcourse, it might be able to go past that with a centre gear peg aka A340. However, that still wouldn't settle the issue of where to get the thrust for it...

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 160):
The A340-500 is not fuel limited; it is weight limited. Adding tanks doesn't help at all.

It can if you're only carrying 120 passengers. Also, if the A340 offered is the new version with lower OEW...

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 163):
So, an A340-500 with full fuel and zero payload weighs 345t. The crew will add about 2t.

Crew are included in OEW.

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 172):
Yeah been floating around at uni, trying to keep up with my business subjects. I'm a bit isolated from the world of aviation at the moment.

Good luck with your year-end items.

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 172):
Basically it comes down to $$$ both in the short and long term, would you agree?

I do wonder where the mix of short- and long-term will be. QF is going to attempt to leverage this deal off their bottom line and finance a lot of it via cashflow. So, purchase price (ie. short term) will be a huge consideration. OTOH, they need airplanes that can do what they want them to do (ie. long term). So, it is still a value-driven process.

IMHO, that is one of the reasons why QF considers splitting their order. The OEM's different products will appeal at different levels. However, as far as technical capability is concerned, nothing is going to get past the B777/787. But, that's why I mentioned above that Leahy has won orders in the past after Airbus lost the technical evaluation.

 airplane QFA001

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: NAV20
Posted 2005-10-29 07:21:31 and read 7678 times.

Hi, Montey, good to see you.

The 'four-hour watch' system is in use by Singapore at the present time. However, I agree with everyone who has said that four flightcrew seems a bit light; personally I'd feel happier with 5/6. It occurs to me, though, that required cabin crew numbers might be lower than on a 'normal' flight since there would be one long 'sleep period' instead of the two short ones on a onestop; and probably fewer meals.

On the revenue side, the proposal is apparently for 'all-business'. And if a nonstop service proves as attractive to the business community as most of us think it will, Qantas will have the opportunity to charge full fares rather than frequently having to offer discounts. If things turn out that way, and the flights are fully-booked at business fares all the time, the increased revenue per seat would surely absorb any increased crew costs?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Monteycarlos
Posted 2005-10-29 07:57:28 and read 7648 times.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 173):
Good luck with your year-end items.

Haha thank you.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 173):
I do wonder where the mix of short- and long-term will be. QF is going to attempt to leverage this deal off their bottom line and finance a lot of it via cashflow. So, purchase price (ie. short term) will be a huge consideration. OTOH, they need airplanes that can do what they want them to do (ie. long term). So, it is still a value-driven process.

Indeed, so I am thinking that perhaps if the order is big enough then some of the QF 'leverage' will be drawn by apparent "interest" in the A340. Whether Boeing go for it is another story.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 173):
IMHO, that is one of the reasons why QF considers splitting their order. The OEM's different products will appeal at different levels. However, as far as technical capability is concerned, nothing is going to get past the B777/787. But, that's why I mentioned above that Leahy has won orders in the past after Airbus lost the technical evaluation.

Yeah true. I just wonder the exact information Leahy is putting to the board. He must have something aside from price and A340-500X up his sleeve.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 174):
The 'four-hour watch' system is in use by Singapore at the present time. However, I agree with everyone who has said that four flightcrew seems a bit light; personally I'd feel happier with 5/6. It occurs to me, though, that required cabin crew numbers might be lower than on a 'normal' flight since there would be one long 'sleep period' instead of the two short ones on a onestop; and probably fewer meals.

I see what you mean... I think QFA001 has our best guess below:

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 173):
There is no provision for a 21-hr flight in the current Australian regulations. However, based on the rules for duty periods up to 16-hr, QF would require six (6) crewmembers. There may be room to move down to five (5), including two CPTs, two F/Os and one S/O.



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 174):
On the revenue side, the proposal is apparently for 'all-business'. And if a nonstop service proves as attractive to the business community as most of us think it will, Qantas will have the opportunity to charge full fares rather than frequently having to offer discounts. If things turn out that way, and the flights are fully-booked at business fares all the time, the increased revenue per seat would surely absorb any increased crew costs?

I would think so as well... these are going to be expensive seats to put it bluntly.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Boeing747_600
Posted 2005-10-29 10:45:56 and read 7564 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 170):
well...I guess you would have to disagree with Dixon:

"- Qantas commencing Auckland-Dallas-Auckland non-stop services when the new, long range Boeing 747-400 is delivered in late 2002. Dallas is a major worldwide hub for American Airlines, particularly to all major North American and South American cities;"
..

2002 did he say?!  Smile Just checking. Looks like Dixon himself would have to disagree with Dixon  biggrin 

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 170):

granted the route didn't go through, considering they had it in their plans goes to show how important SYD/AKL-DFW is on their route, as this would free up their LAX slots a bit more..

DFW is a singularly unattractive airport for foreign airlines, because of its location and distance from the city of Dallas. I'll bet the only reason KE still flies there is because they cant find any takers for that slot they have.

Now if only they would scrap that idiotic Wright amendment and acquire some land adjoining DAL and extend 13R/31L, DAL would see at least as many overseas tailfins as ATL

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zeke
Posted 2005-10-29 11:10:11 and read 7528 times.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 173):
There is no provision for a 21-hr flight in the current Australian regulations. However, based on the rules for duty periods up to 16-hr, QF would require six (6) crewmembers. There may be room to move down to five (5), including two CPTs, two F/Os and one S/O.

AFAIK, SQ uses four (4) crewmembers for the 18-hr SIN-EWR vv services.

True, not possible under current regulations, if QF gained the regulatory approval via a CAO 48 exemption for the service, having pilots basically working for 22-24 hours straight is only half the issue. QF would also need to negotiate an industrial agreement for the same with APIA. APIA and management are not on good terms at the moment.

Remember how this turned out at AC.

I thought the SIN-EWR vv services were not 18 hrs both ways, thought one way was 2 hrs longer, I heard the return way goes via overhead London to get better winds. Don’t know for sure, just what I heard. Also heard its 6 crews per flight.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 174):
On the revenue side, the proposal is apparently for 'all-business'. And if a nonstop service proves as attractive to the business community as most of us think it will, Qantas will have the opportunity to charge full fares rather than frequently having to offer discounts. If things turn out that way, and the flights are fully-booked at business fares all the time, the increased revenue per seat would surely absorb any increased crew costs?

Last time I looked at the SQ website, they charged the same price for the direct New York service on the 345 as they did for a one stop 744 economy seat.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-29 11:26:48 and read 7514 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 170):
granted the route didn't go through, considering they had it in their plans goes to show how important SYD/AKL-DFW is on their route, as this would free up their LAX slots a bit more..

Since when is LAX slot restricted?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-29 12:40:52 and read 7472 times.

Zvezda,

The slots may not be restricted but the access of carriers to the unrestricted slots is anything but unrestricted. Sort of Kafka meets the jet age. If you've got slots at LAX and you want more, the first thing a smart non US carrier does is talk to its lawyers specialising in bilaterals, then its lobbyists, and finally, puts in an application.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-29 13:25:32 and read 7446 times.

Antares, I understand that all government is kafka-esque. The problem you describe is inherent to government ownership of airports. I would, of course, like to see all airports privatised, subject to two conditions:
1) that no company (or affiliated companies) may own (wholly or in part) two airports within 100 to 200 km of each other, and
2) that companies (or affiliated companies) may own (wholly or in part) airlines or airports, but not both.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-29 14:14:23 and read 7403 times.

Zvezda,

That is decidedly the right formula. Unfortunately we didn't get suggestion Number 1 right everywhere in Australia, since the Sydney Airport consortium dominated by MAp has first right of refusal to built a second jet airport in the Sydney basin, and competition is badly needed, and a western Sydney airport grows more necessary by the day anyhow.

Melbourne has a better chance. Avalon has the potential to make life very competitive for Tullamarine. Let's see if the A380 lands at both airports in a few week's time.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Sebolino
Posted 2005-10-29 14:43:52 and read 7364 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 170):
entropy is the INCREASE in disorder or randomness...(I was a chemistry majour in college).

You may have had good grades, but your definition is still wrong.  Smile

Entropy is not an increase, it's a value measuring the degree of disorder. The statistical definition is S = k.ln(Omega) where Omega is the number of microscopic states possible.
The definition in classical thermodynamics gives only the change of entropy: dS = dQ/T.
The entropy can only increase globally, I guess it's what you meant.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: RedChili
Posted 2005-10-29 15:44:31 and read 7308 times.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 168):
RedChili and others who are second guessing all these issues are overlooking the fact that QF are well aware of all the issues. Why would they have asked for a proposal for an aircraft that can fly 10000nm in still air?

There's a big difference between asking for a proposal for the airplane, and saying that we are 100 percent sure that we can have flights between SYD-LHR and make money on it. As far as I know, QF hasn't decided yet if they're going to buy the plane, and they have not decided to use the plane on SYD-LHR flights. I know that QF is very well aware of these facts, and I believe that this is one of the factors (not the only one) which will decide whether to buy the airplane, and whether to use it on that route or not.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 174):
And if a nonstop service proves as attractive to the business community as most of us think it will, Qantas will have the opportunity to charge full fares rather than frequently having to offer discounts. If things turn out that way, and the flights are fully-booked at business fares all the time, the increased revenue per seat would surely absorb any increased crew costs?

Maybe. If they can charge a premium fare, and get fully booked flights almost the whole time without having to give upgrades or putting non-revs in there, then they may be able to make a good profit. Time will tell.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: NAV20
Posted 2005-10-29 16:15:36 and read 7271 times.

Boeing and Qantas have been talking about this possibility for at least a year, RedChili. I don't think the idea would have progressed from 'fond hope' to its present full-fledged 'rumour' status (  Smile ) unless Boeing were within sight of providing the required performance, and Qantas had already done its market research and other homework.

From QF's angle it's easy to see why. Dixon has been quoted as describing Oz/LHR as the 'Holy Grail', for good reason. Qantas crews have to be echelonned all the way to London whereas their main competitors (SIA and EK) can use Changi/Dubai as 'scissor-hubs' (so that, I would imagine, their crews just fly quick 'out-and-returns' and can spend a lot of their rest periods at home base).

If Qantas can make nonstop a reality, it would be difficult for SIA and EK to follow suit. Their crews, maintenance etc. would be 'up in the air' at both ends, they'd continually be overflying their own hubs.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: QFA001
Posted 2005-10-29 18:06:35 and read 7200 times.

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 175):
I just wonder the exact information Leahy is putting to the board. He must have something aside from price and A340-500X up his sleeve.

The A350, right? Airbus now has a 2-engine airplane with enough range to benefit the Oceania carriers.

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 175):
I think QFA001 has our best guess below:

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 173):
There is no provision for a 21-hr flight in the current Australian regulations. However, based on the rules for duty periods up to 16-hr, QF would require six (6) crewmembers. There may be room to move down to five (5), including two CPTs, two F/Os and one S/O.

FWIW, it wasn't a guess.

 airplane QFA001

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-29 20:30:12 and read 7110 times.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 183):
If they can charge a premium fare, and get fully booked flights almost the whole time without having to give upgrades or putting non-revs in there, then they may be able to make a good profit.

If the nonstop flights are all business class (as rumored), then I could see QF offering operational or cash upgrades from the one-stop business class to the nonstop business class. I think many business travellers holding a business class ticket on the one-stop would pay $500 or so at the airport to upgrade to the nonstop. Of course, non-revs should be put on the one-stop service.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 184):
If Qantas can make nonstop a reality, it would be difficult for SIA and EK to follow suit. Their crews, maintenance etc. would be 'up in the air' at both ends, they'd continually be overflying their own hubs.

It seems exceedingly unlikely that any airline not based in UK/OZ will fly UK-OZ nonstop. BA and QF codesharing together can probably fill one low-density airplane per day LHR-SYD and another LHR-MEL. I would be surprised to see the market provide more demand than that at the fares required to make the nonstop profitable. If QF can make this work, it will be a signficant financial blow to EK and SQ, taking some of their best revenue.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-29 23:19:08 and read 7007 times.

The wild card for non-stops both ways to London would have to be SQ's 49% owned VS.

There is a militant free market tendency clique in feral cabinet that would like to link opening Qantas to unrestricted foreign investment to true, doctrinaire, open skies. In which case SQ and EK and anyone else will be able to put their hands up for converting existing capacity to non-stop. I'm not predicting this clique will prevail, but I am suggesting it is not beyond the bounds of political possibility.

The formula for the 120 seat version of the A345 with small additional tanks and underfloor crew rest container facility is said to be as follows.

12 luxury suites in zone A between the first two set of doors.

40 exceptionally spacious fully flat business class sleepers arranged two by two by one in the major part of the cabin.

68 premium economy seats similar to the 117 currently found in the SQ 345 at the rear.

SQ has demonstrated that the jet is capable and reliable over the longest commercial flights ever operated in the world, and some of its missions have lasted more than 19 hours 20 minutes and landed with legal reserves and more.

The sector revenue target of the mission is around $AUD 600,000. This is actually achievable at plausible premiums on all cabins and nearly full flights on nearly all days.

A fleet of 10 such jets is being talked about. They would provide daily non-stops both ways to LHR from Melbourne and Sydney, and a daily Sydney-New York service.

However there is not quite enough demand for this capacity. Some of the links will be only five times a week each way, with the under utilisation sacrificed on lower frequency missions from Perth or Brisbane or Auckland, just to squeeze Air NZ's low hangers even more painfully that at present.

The A350-900 will complete the Air NZ agony on a multi-daily basis.

Caution. There is a competing Boeing plan covering similar eventualities/desires. It would be wrong to assume either manufacturer has the verdict fully in the bag. It would be really silly to argue that either has no chance either.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-29 23:51:13 and read 6977 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 187):
A fleet of 10 such jets is being talked about. They would provide daily non-stops both ways to LHR from Melbourne and Sydney, and a daily Sydney-New York service.

That would require a fleet of 8 (6 flying the missions plus 2 in MX or flying short-haul so that the pilots get enough landings to keep current). Why 10?

Quoting Antares (Reply 187):
However there is not quite enough demand for this capacity. Some of the links will be only five times a week each way, with the under utilisation sacrificed on lower frequency missions from Perth or Brisbane or Auckland....

Sorry, I'm not following your meaning.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2005-10-30 00:06:55 and read 6954 times.

According to other reports, B was only proposing 5 772ULR to QF. The frequency you describe would need 7 or 8. Assuming a fleet of 10 772ULR/345LR, where would the other 2 go, or are we talking SYD-JFK and MEL-JFK?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-30 00:14:48 and read 6942 times.

If I knew more about the calculations I'd throw them into the ring. As I understand it QF see a need for three units to assure daily capacity between either Australian city and London for the times that are practicable.

My guess is that type currency might be provided by any A346s that are in the bigger deal. Assuming (big assumption) that this is the winning deal.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Dalecary
Posted 2005-10-30 00:47:37 and read 6924 times.

Antares,

I'm very happy to say the A345 has no chance at QF. It's as plain as you pretend to be all-knowing that it's 772LR for QF or nothing, if they choose to venture down this path. Whether they take this route or not is the big issue, not what equipment they will use on it. The A345 cannot technically compete with the 772LR on ULR missions. From what I hear the A350ised A340 can't get much interest from airlines and won't be available to 2009 anyway.
QF aren't going to wait 4 years.
If you think the A350 can replace the 763 domestically and Trans-Tasman, then you have real problems. 788 is a sure thing at QF and I think the 789/789HGW is pretty close to a sure thing. As it stands, the 359 doesn't have Trans-Pacific range as Airbus sacrificed range for capacity to suit EK. There is a mooted 359HGW, but what do we know about that and when is it's EIS???
JQ are the big chance for the A359 in the QF group. I rate FJ also as some chance, as they were on the verge of ordering A333s.
The game-changer for QF could well be the proposed 789HGW. By my reckoning, it has range in the 9,200-9,500nm region. Great range,capacity to really open up a whole new world for QF.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-30 00:48:56 and read 6922 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 190):
As I understand it QF see a need for three units to assure daily capacity between either Australian city and London for the times that are practicable.

I had been figuring a six day rotation for SYD-LHR-MEL-LHR-SYD-JFK-SYD. That would work with the B777-200LR, but the slower A340-500 might not be able to make it in that rotation schedule. I wonder if the A340-500 could fly SYD-LHR-MEL-LHR-SYD on a five day rotation, given the curfew constraints. I guess an A340-500 would end that rotation about 50 to 52 hours after starting. If it can't, that would be a big advantage for Boeing.

Quoting Antares (Reply 190):
My guess is that type currency might be provided by any A346s that are in the bigger deal. Assuming (big assumption) that this is the winning deal.

Good point. I was thinking of the SQ case of flying 2x daily to CGK to keep current.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: SunriseValley
Posted 2005-10-30 00:55:52 and read 6921 times.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 177):
I thought the SIN-EWR vv services were not 18 hrs both ways, thought one way was 2 hrs longer, I heard the return way goes via overhead London to get better winds. Don’t know for sure, just what I heard. Also heard its 6 crews per flight.

No doubt you heard correctly. From their timetable they give a time of 18hrs 10min SIN-EWR and 18hr 35min EWR-SIN. Clearly they are flying both legs east bound.
Playing around with Great Circle Navigation I can get the EWR-SIN leg down to about 8600nm using Helsinki as a way point. The true Great circle from SIN-EWR is 8285nm. Plugging in a cruise of 475 knots gets a time of about 30 to 40 mins. less than the timetable time. If I plug in a 40 knot tail wind which I understand from PhilSquires and others is about right, this knocks off about 2 hours for both legs. Is it reasonable to assume an allowance of an hour at both ends?
It is interesting to note that according to Flight Explorer the EWR-SIN leg that departed at 11.21PM yesterday arrived in SIN at 4.28PM today, local time an elapsed flying time of 17hrs 7min. The SIN-EWR leg , same days had an elapsed time of 18hrs 1 min.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-30 01:39:20 and read 6876 times.

DaleCarey,

Even if you are right, and I've been of broadly similar views right up until a few weeks ago about the Qantas order, why rant and rave like a child.

The thing that fascinates me is the tribalism that suffuses at least part of this forum. Look whatever causes you excitement is great. But some of us actually want to know what the people who are inextricably involved with the industry think rather than shout of them because they are wearing the wrong slogan tatooed on their foreheads or stuck to their bumper bars.

I think I can work out who flies for an airline, who has piloting experiencing, and who is a trained engineer. There are some very fine insights to be gained from them, but absolutism just doesn't work for me.

It is like some of us sit outside the coffee shop people watching, and people listening, and then having some one come charging up to us with a phamplet or a cause and want to enroll us on the spot.

I'm not going to sign up for any absolute position on anything.

When I was young I knew everything, and wanted to impose it on everyone. Now that I'm old I know nothing, and I can look forward to learning
everything .


Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2005-10-30 02:06:14 and read 6820 times.

glancing through I'm seeing terms like Tribalism and Surface Temperatures of Mars. A clear indication that everyone needs a time-out from this topic!

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Monteycarlos
Posted 2005-10-30 02:21:11 and read 6813 times.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 185):
The A350, right? Airbus now has a 2-engine airplane with enough range to benefit the Oceania carriers.

Possibly or maybe some kind of deal on A388's to stifle any 747ADV interest?

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 185):
FWIW, it wasn't a guess.

I meant about the possible reduction to 5 crew.  Smile

Quoting Antares (Reply 194):
The thing that fascinates me is the tribalism that suffuses at least part of this forum. Look whatever causes you excitement is great. But some of us actually want to know what the people who are inextricably involved with the industry think rather than shout of them because they are wearing the wrong slogan tatooed on their foreheads or stuck to their bumper bars.

 rotfl  I hear you can buy t-shirts too.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 195):
A clear indication that everyone needs a time-out from this topic!

Amen.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: RedChili
Posted 2005-10-30 07:38:53 and read 6727 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 184):
Boeing and Qantas have been talking about this possibility for at least a year, RedChili.

Yes, I know that, and I also acknowledge that there's a good chance that QF in the end will end up getting the 772LR, and that they might use it on SYD-LHR. But I don't want to be blind to the problems with such a flight, as there are many. And in my knowledge, QF hasn't made the decision yet.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 184):
If Qantas can make nonstop a reality, it would be difficult for SIA and EK to follow suit. Their crews, maintenance etc. would be 'up in the air' at both ends, they'd continually be overflying their own hubs.

They would probably not even be allowed to fly that route nonstop.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Glareskin
Posted 2005-10-30 07:45:18 and read 6721 times.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 197):
They would probably not even be allowed to fly that route nonstop.

What about BA or Virgin? Did they ever consider flying this route non-stop?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-30 08:14:28 and read 6695 times.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 197):
They would probably not even be allowed to fly that route nonstop.

Even if allowed to, I don't think EK could effectively compete against QF's home advantage unless we have all underestimated demand. I know EK are doing well trans-Tasman, but I have doubts about making that work ultra-long haul.

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 198):
What about BA or Virgin? Did they ever consider flying this route non-stop?

BA would codeshare with QF. I have not heard any rumours of VS considering this route. I really think there is only sufficient demand at the fare levels needed to make one SYD-LHR and one MEL-LHR flight work per day.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-30 08:24:28 and read 6687 times.

Glareskin,

My guess is that BA will vanish totally into the QF codeshare once the A380 frequencies build up, although guesses are hostage to the unforseen shocks of the future.

Gallant Sir Richard is another matter. The perfect stunt would be to wait until the day before the A380 tour kicks off and announce that Virgin Atlantic will use presumably some of the -200LRs we keep waiting for Singapore to order, for itself, and perhaps its 49% owned play thing.

I think Sydney is the only destination to which VS doesn't fly non-stop. Here is the ideal chance to return to consistency and infuriate Qantas, and he does have the necessary traffic rights.

As to other carriers flying non-stop, well it could happen if cabinet continues on its free market bent and decides to repeal the Qantas Sale Act at the same time, so that Qantas gets better access to cash, but more competition.

The chances of both of these things happening at the same time as less than even. I think there is a good chance however that Qantas will be allowed to open its register to unlimited foreign ownership, making it even easier to pursue a very ambitious but much needed fleet upgrade.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zeke
Posted 2005-10-30 09:26:56 and read 6644 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 200):
Gallant Sir Richard is another matter. The perfect stunt would be to wait until the day before the A380 tour kicks off and announce that Virgin Atlantic will use presumably some of the -200LRs we keep waiting for Singapore to order, for itself, and perhaps its 49% owned play thing.

Considering GSRB has taken mileage from many others for flying twins long haul, and his motto is "4 engines for long haul", and SQ owns around 50%, could SQ using the GSRB PR machine upset everything an get the 5xA345's off SQ an offer LHR-SYD non-stop ?

I have friends in the middle east who have been approached to operate four engine equipment for a derivative of VS not so long ago based somewhere not far from SYD, when I heard of this I thought it was for a backdoor way for SQ to fly the pacific, maybe it was for another reason. Many expats would love to leave the sandpit for a retirement job back home.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-30 10:06:01 and read 6605 times.

Zeke,

Thanks for an interesting snippet of information on VS plans down under.

Zvezda,

EK has about 7 per cent of the high yield market to Europe, or about as many as it can fit in its jets. It wants more. Its local people have been quoted ad nauseum as saying they will replace all smaller jets with A380s on the Australia routes, including trans Tasman. On current indications they will do very well, although I don't think the A380 will give them container growth, and large containers have been very important to their rapid air freight expansion trans Tasman. There is some infuriatingly out of date data on this on the dotars site, www.dotars.gov au, then select aviation stats from the menu and drill. You will however discover the havoc that EK has wrought by targeting air freight.

Al Maktoum is reported in the press this week as asking the government for triple dailies not including trans Tasman from Sydney and Melbourne against the current double dailies.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-30 10:40:47 and read 6572 times.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 201):
could SQ using the GSRB PR machine upset everything an get the 5xA345's off SQ an offer LHR-SYD non-stop ?

The A340-500s that SQ have could not fly SYD-LHR nonstop. For QF, Airbus are proposing a reduced OEW version of the A340-500 that takes technology from the A350. The SQ fleet could not be refitted.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zeke
Posted 2005-10-30 11:21:08 and read 6532 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 203):
The A340-500s that SQ have could not fly SYD-LHR nonstop. For QF, Airbus are proposing a reduced OEW version of the A340-500 that takes technology from the A350. The SQ fleet could not be refitted.

Dont know, was mooted it is feasible to operate the 345 eastbound (europe-south west pacific-north east america-europe) and use the existing equipment westbound (europe-north america-south west pacific-asia-europe) using existing ports/traffic rights in their network.

But what would they know, they are just pilots.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2005-10-30 11:33:59 and read 6519 times.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 204):
Dont know, was mooted it is feasible to operate the 345 eastbound (europe-south west pacific-north east america-europe) and use the existing equipment westbound (europe-north america-south west pacific-asia-europe) using existing ports/traffic rights in their network.

It is technically feasible for SQ's A340-500s to fly LHR-SYD nonstop and SYD-LHR one-stop, however, the demand for that is not nearly as high as the demand for bidirectional nonstop service.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Dalecary
Posted 2005-10-30 12:15:44 and read 6471 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 194):
DaleCarey,

Even if you are right, and I've been of broadly similar views right up until a few weeks ago about the Qantas order, why rant and rave like a child.

The thing that fascinates me is the tribalism that suffuses at least part of this forum. Look whatever causes you excitement is great. But some of us actually want to know what the people who are inextricably involved with the industry think rather than shout of them because they are wearing the wrong slogan tatooed on their foreheads or stuck to their bumper bars.

I think I can work out who flies for an airline, who has piloting experiencing, and who is a trained engineer. There are some very fine insights to be gained from them, but absolutism just doesn't work for me.

It is like some of us sit outside the coffee shop people watching, and people listening, and then having some one come charging up to us with a phamplet or a cause and want to enroll us on the spot.

I'm not going to sign up for any absolute position on anything.

When I was young I knew everything, and wanted to impose it on everyone. Now that I'm old I know nothing, and I can look forward to learning
everything .

Fair Dinkum who is the ranter and raver Antares. Yes, at least I can get your username correct. My attitudes are well sourced in this matter, it's just your total arrogance that wipes it away. I'll stick with every word I said and am happy to retract if I am wrong. Where is your evidence??? You hide behind this closet of "business associates" and come out and say the 787 is overweight and won't be ready on time. Next, I fear you are likely to say Boeing has had a rethink on the composite fuselage and will revert to an aluminium one.
FYI, I see merit in the A350 at JQ/FJ and just possibly QF. But the 345/6 just doesn't stack up against the 772LR/773ER and it is obvious to anyone with a mild interest in this industry.
There's way more to this deal than just purchase price. This time Boeing has the aces, just like Airbus had in 2000 with the A380. It is almost inevitable this order will be split amongst both OEMs as that appears to be the QF dogma these days. I just fancy, and very highly at that, that Boeing will get a larger slice of the pie this time.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: NAV20
Posted 2005-10-30 13:35:30 and read 6409 times.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 204):
was mooted it is feasible to operate the 345 eastbound (europe-south west pacific-north east america-europe)

Zeke, I think Qantas are playing their cards very cleverly - saying "Nonstop both ways or no deal." And my guess is that they'll win the hand - and, further, that (even if the A345 can make the range) the 772LR will win out on more passengers for less fuel.

However, lots of people (you are the most recent) have floated the 'SW Pacific-NE America' idea. I should declare an interest here - I don't care too much about Oz-LHR nonstop because my most frequent trip is MEL-JFK. So if nonstop Australia/NYC and return is ever possible, I'd be among the first to consider booking on it.

Thing is, though, on the evidence available, I don't think the 772LR (or A345) has any chance of making that trip either way. Boeing's 772LR range-chart from New York shows Auckland and Jackson's (Port Moresby) as extreme range. As far as I know, the reason is that Southern Hemisphere prevailing winds east of Australia are from the north-east a lot of the way, and after that you generally get west winds as you approach California - so the jetstreams average out to give you the worst of both worlds.

If you've any information that says Australia/New York is feasible with any of the aeroplanes currently coming available, I'd be delighted to hear about it. But, as far as I know, even if Australia/LHR becomes feasible soon, Australia/JFK is still a long way in the future?

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zeke
Posted 2005-10-30 13:43:52 and read 6389 times.

Dale

To be fair to Antares, I have asked you about the status of A340s with QF for SYD-LHR, your reply was

Quote:
Yep, the 345 is the only model to be publicly ruled out, but I'm very confident that no A340 model will be ordered by the QF group. The stories re QF having a general dislike for the A340 are, well.......................TRUE.

I know you love the 777, and I firmly believe that after being in service with various airlines for over 10 years now the Qantas group might get around to buying them. From an outsiders point of view QF seem to be very cautious and deliberate in selecting them, there is a commercial risk associated with the type which is why I think (my personal view) they will always be in the market for a quad, what the quad will be I don’t know, it maybe a 340, 380 or 744ADV.

In my view the 773ER too small for some of their trunk routes, on thinner routes if you want a three class aircraft less than 300 seats it rules out the 744ADV and A380.

I have sat back and seen some quite surprising developments of late involving QF, and they seem to be expanding the Jetstar brand quicker than I had ever thought. From time and again I see and hear of snippets where they are talking to existing operators in asia (asia in the bigger sense from middle east to japan) of possible franchise or equity partnerships.

What is announced in the next round of order will no doubt come of surprise to me, however I would not be surprised if the majority of the QF order will not have QF livery when delivered.

The composition of the order in my view will also give the industry the biggest hint as to where management is positioning the Qantas group on the global market. One view which has been postulated is the use of Jetstar exclusively for domestic Australian and lower yield international product, and QF mainline to retain the "CITIFLYER" brand domestically and be the flagship international product.

I therefore would not be in hurry to claim a victory for the 777 and assume it will permanently exclude any similar airbus products in the Qantas group, any victory gained is long overdue and has taken Boeing best part of 15 years to convert.

I would also like to echo some of the sentiment of Antares, I respect your passion for the 777 and your obvious strong analytical mind. Having a mathematical background myself I am always left dumbfounded by some of the decisions of financial and marketing people make in large organizations, I am also aware that the tool that uses the least amount of fuel, or carries the most weight is not always the best tool for a job for less obvious reasons.

I am keen to learn and know more myself, and would appreciate any input you have, the upcoming order in my view is going to the cutting edge in terms of both management direction and selected products.

Could I suggest that if you were to consider expressing your views in a less antagonistic form they would be better received by all and sundry and it would significantly add to the fabric of the discussion.

I hope this post has not come across as being condescending, it was not my aim. I have often see management styles change as quick as it takes an executive to complete a MBA, what is a sure horse one day is tomorrows bad idea.

Just my 2c.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Zeke
Posted 2005-10-30 14:21:33 and read 6347 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 207):
If you've any information that says Australia/New York is feasible with any of the aeroplanes currently coming available, I'd be delighted to hear about it. But, as far as I know, even if Australia/LHR becomes feasible soon, Australia/JFK is still a long way in the future?

I don’t believe it is presently possible both directions with a commercial payload, if you were to use a Boeing/Airbus product line I know one way route structures like LHR->JFK->LAX->AKL->SYD->HKG->LHR are possible with a 773ER/346, and LHR->SYD->AKL->JFK->LHR possible with in a 772LR/345. The stops in between seem wasteful westbound if looked at in isolation, however I am told they do have efficiencies if the operator has existing flights to the intermediate ports (eg LAX & HKG).

This is more like the way a freighter crews would be routed with crews doing an east bound or westbound pattern.

However I think B/A will have products to make it possible in both directions within 5 years with a commercial payload with a 5-6% drop in fuel burn giving the required 5-10% increase in still air range.

N.B. any ports listed are purely accidental for the discussion

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: NAV20
Posted 2005-10-30 14:56:00 and read 6305 times.

Thanks, Zeke.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's surprising how quickly things can move in aviation sometimes - as little as three months ago, majority opinion on here was that ULH routes like SYD/LHR weren't just undesirable - they were just plain impossible. Now, as you imply, with both manufacturers under pressure from customers to provide more that the 'usual' 8,000nm. max. range, things are likely to move quickly over the next few years. Sincerely hope it doesn't just translate into longer hours for less pay for you guys!

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-30 21:11:08 and read 6167 times.

NAV20,

I don't have any problem with you at all. Unlike others you don't perform the equivalent of barging into my living room, grabbing the Grange, frothing at the mouth about Boeing, farting, tripping over the Ming vase and then skatboarding into the garden, overlooking the fact that the glass door is closed.

Everyone was having a fairly civilised discussion compared to the other boards we monitor when I was suddenly shouted out, in part i guess because said person may have actually done some checking and found out that all is not going as well as might have been hoped.

If you want to start doing your own diligence on the 787 issues, I begin with the Teal Group in the US. Richard Aboulafia was the apple of Boeing's eye when he re-relased a 2002 study he made on the viability of the A380 earlier this year. But deathly silence has fallen over his comments at Le Bourget in June that the 787 would be delayed by up to one year, citing management and other technical issues. OK, was he right on one but not the other, right on both, or wrong on both.

It is important that Boeing do extremely well from the Qantas order in my view because if it doesn't Airbus will rape and pillage the market on a massive scale, and the air transport sector will be the poorer for it.

In one of this morning's papers, I forget which, it may have been the Sydney Morning Herald, Dixon says several vital things of parallel relevance to our discussions.

1. There will be no merger with SQ (Duh! Even I knew that from day one).

2. Jetstar 'international' will not be an add on. it will be a fully fleged airline in its own right, and with no constraints put on it.

3. Mark the no constraints bit carefully. The same words were used after the 04-05 financials came out to signal that Jetstar 'domestic' was now free to do whatever it wanted, and I'm sure it will, but without my tall and tottering frame...

4. Lamentably, business traffic is not what it used to be. The major profits are to be made from the major sector, ordinary people paying ordinary fares. There are twenty times more of them than us, and shock horror, they are the ones that now subsidise the nice little cabins up the front that we both inhabit.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: SunriseValley
Posted 2005-10-30 21:30:37 and read 6131 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 211):
grabbing the Grange,

Ah, I knew there was a reason why I must visit Canberra next time in Aus.
Seriously one of the best investments I ever made was the buying of 2 cases of the 1990 in the USA and taking them back to Aus in small lots and selling them on the secondary market.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: RedFlyer
Posted 2005-10-30 21:46:49 and read 6107 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 211):
If you want to start doing your own diligence on the 787 issues, I begin with the Teal Group in the US. Richard Aboulafia was the apple of Boeing's eye when he re-relased a 2002 study he made on the viability of the A380 earlier this year. But deathly silence has fallen over his comments at Le Bourget in June that the 787 would be delayed by up to one year, citing management and other technical issues. OK, was he right on one but not the other, right on both, or wrong on both.

Antares, I read a news article by Teal's Aboulafia around the same time; (I did a Google search but, unfortunately, can't find it right now). What I distinctly recall from it is that Mr. Aboulafia said the "up to one year" delay was only speculation based on his opinions only and NOT from any inside information or facts that he had come across. Specifically, he said among other things the airplane represents a revolution in design. Mr. Aboulafia said that past experience has shown that any revolutionary leap in technology usually results in some kind of delays.

Now, I'm not defending Boeing and, personally, I think their schedule does seem somewhat aggressive (I thought the 380's was as well). But, I wouldn't go around making it sound like the 787 is in fact a year behind schedule and that what Aboulafia said was fact based on inside information.

At this point, all you have is an industry analyst speculating that a delay may happen. His speculation may very well turn out to be prophecy but at this point it's only pure speculation. So don't repeat it as Gospel truth.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-30 22:22:49 and read 6060 times.

RedFlyer,

Valid points. But note, I was only pointing at what Mr Aboulafia said, not annointing it with holy oil so to speak. There is a tendency, no offence intended, in these discussions, to link the poster to what the poster is quoting, as if there is an automatic endorsement. Some people include this in the issue of 'externalisation' in corporate culture. You end with up with companies where proper and timely debate is curtailed because of an Inquisition like fervour to root out and destroy any mention on undesirable elements, extending as necessary to those who ever dare to mention certain names or thoughts.

This is very damaging in business, including the airline business. Mind must be open, not closed.

SunriseValley,

Omigod. You sold some 1990 Grange. That was so damn hard to get. And it won't even be ready to drink until, well, I'm not around to drink it. Actually we did a shocking thing some nights back. We DRANK after a semi religious process of decantation, a bottle of the special Bin 90A. It was readier than I think the 90 Grange would be. One of my family still has some Grange dating back to the late 60s, but had to get the corks replaced during a Penfold's aged wine clinic. I need a similar clinic for my head, however medical science and pharmaceuticals have yet to rise to that challenge in a world with rather more urgent needs that looking after stupid old buggers.

My modest collection by the way is somewhat further south of Canberra.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Jasond
Posted 2005-10-31 01:21:42 and read 5960 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 211):
3. Mark the no constraints bit carefully. The same words were used after the 04-05 financials came out to signal that Jetstar 'domestic' was now free to do whatever it wanted, and I'm sure it will, but without my tall and tottering frame...

What utter nonsense!!! Why no JQ in PER then??? Jetstar fills the gaps the mainline can't and so will the international version too.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-31 02:09:13 and read 5919 times.

Jasond,

In that case it QF's utter nonsense, not mine. Did I not read somewhere that JQ will be on the Perth route in the very near future?

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Jasond
Posted 2005-10-31 03:01:10 and read 5879 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 216):
In that case it QF's utter nonsense, not mine. Did I not read somewhere that JQ will be on the Perth route in the very near future?

Yes I read that too!!! I read it at the JQ launch last year and was slated for introduction for early to mid 2005. The only significant (westwards) addition to the JQ network was Adelaide which as you know occurred recently. To elaborate on my ealier comments QF may attempt to give the impression that JQ's operations are / will be independant but the reality at the board level is quite different. Extensive market research has shown that if the travelling public has the impression that there is a 'choice' they are more likely to flex their wallets. QF is in the enviable position to be able to leverage two different business models on any route. They now have the opportunity to find the right 'blend' between the mainline operation and JQ. The board will certainly not allow one to impinge on the profitability of the other. Western Australia is a good example of this. QF is getting great yields off the back of increasing population growth and a resource sector boom and I believe this is the reason why we haven't seen JQ here yet because quite frankly they are doing great business here with their current operation. In much the same way as it is difficult to get an international flight out of PER at the moment it is next to impossible to a secure a domestic booking within 24 hours here also, believe me I have tried!!! The only reason JQ will fly here is if capacity needs to increased and there is an identifiable need to cater for strong market sectors such as tourists and families etc. Yes there will be some degree of independence BUT not exclusivily or contradictory to QF's core business.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-31 03:14:21 and read 5856 times.

Jasond,

Maybe the board should speak to Mr Dixon more forcefully, as he keeps giving interviews about Jetstar being unconstrained.

But your comments seem pretty logical to me, it is just that the cadre that runs Qantas isn't going to listen to any of us, and will continue to say what they like for whatever agenda internal or external serves their purpose.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Dalecary
Posted 2005-10-31 04:06:43 and read 5808 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 211):
Everyone was having a fairly civilised discussion compared to the other boards we monitor when I was suddenly shouted out, in part i guess because said person may have actually done some checking and found out that all is not going as well as might have been hoped.

Not true at all Antares. Am still expecting pretty much what I have been told for the last several months. This order is basically 787 v 350 with both likely to win at QF/JQ respectively. That is not new. What has happened over the last few months is the 747 replacement has been delayed( so a 773ER/346 order is unlikely, or in small numbers only to accompany a 772LR/345 order). More emphasis has been put on "hub-busting", with Boeing reportedly offering QF a 772ULR with lightened interior and extra aft hold tanks and the 787-9HGW with a 20.7t higher MTOW to increase both payload/range.
3-4 months ago I was expecting a big 773ER/783/8 order. Now I am expecting a small 772LR order(maybe with a small number of 773ERs) and a big 788/9/9HGW order. The 783 appears to be on the outer because it is too range limited, making it less versatile if the need arose to transfer to longer international sectors. I believe the Seattle Times was very close when they said QF was offered 45 787s and 5 772LRs as part of the Boeing deal. What I didn't agree with, was the said article also saying Boeing had offered 20 773ER and 20 747Adv as part of the deal. To be fair to the article, it did state the order could be in several parts over the next year or so. I, personally don't see much need for all of the 747Adv/773ER/A380 to be in the fleet. A380 will of course stay, and one of 773ER/747Adv will be ordered IMO. I still fancy the 773ER, but I'm not sure on this component of the fleet renewal.
JQ seems to be heading down the A359 path and an order for around 10 + options would not surprise.
So, why don't you regale us with your thoughts Antares. I'm very happy and content with my QF sources. You obviously are as well.
Zeke, thanks for your tone, it is much appreciated. Whilst JQ International looks like it could be in for some big expansion plans, I think you will find the bulk of this order will be for QF mainline. In fact, I'm almost certain that is the case. Dixon seems committed to growing the QF/JQ brands both domestically and internationally.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-31 04:58:05 and read 5775 times.

DaleCarey,

I'm never happy with any Qantas sources, apart from the one that prints the cheques.

There could be a race going on between the expansion plans for Tiger and the newly unconstrained international Jetstar, but that is a guess. I'd be less than frank if I claimed much success with guesses.

I'm most interested in the aviation review, due very soon. That is the key to just about everything that is likely to happen before the end of the year. I wonder if there are two sets of recommendations being drawn up at Qantas. A modest one, if the equity cap remains in place, and something more exciting if it gets lifted.

Meanwhile someone in the office says they heard the ABC saying Oz Jet had been granted an AOC. This could provide us with some comic relief.



Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: NAV20
Posted 2005-10-31 05:19:29 and read 5760 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 211):
I don't have any problem with you at all.

The feeling's mutual, Antares - two old fogies together Smile

Must admit, I've been waiting or some real 'diehard' Airbus fan (not you!) to bring up Aboulafia's comments. Looking forward to telling them that they were quoting the views of a leading member of the Gellman Team!

I gather that Aboulafia was quite frank that his views were based on deduction, not any factual analysis. Apparently on some military contracts using composites, difficulties have been encountered merging parts in the production phase, and quite a lot of time-consuming redesign has been required late in the programmes. He based his views on the fact that Boeing can hardly expect to be immune to such mishaps. Particularly because a lot of the parts are being out-sourced.

IMO it comes down to the Boeing production engineers having done their homework - or, more precisely, having done the right homework, correctly identifying possible 'choke points' and clearing them in advance.

If you don't mind a digression, I once encountered a similar problem in a different field - the first time we used readimix concrete in a UK project. As you'll know, readimix was pioneered in Australia, where you don't often encounter freezing temperatures. In the UK it's different - if concrete freezes between pouring and curing, you're in real trouble. People were used to dealing with that problem when mixing on-site - but there was a lot of doubt as to the wisdom of relying on a third-party supplier getting the timing right as well. We carried out a number of dry runs, briefed everyone right down to the (self-employed) delivery drivers as to the consequences of not keeping to schedule, and set up some dedicated communication links. Plus, of course, wrote plenty of 'fire and brimstone' terms into the supply contract, balanced by some extra money. Pleased to say that it all worked out.

One has to hope that the Boeing engineers get it right. My money's on them doing so.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Jasond
Posted 2005-10-31 05:25:38 and read 5747 times.

Just to put this back on topic to a degree I don't think the next order will see the A340 figure significantly. The topic title was in fact about Airbus pitching a long range version which in itself is a 'niche' machine to an extent. I think personally that the 777LR / ER will figure prominantly as will 787 / A350. The only question in my mind about the A350 is whether past QF experience with the A330 will dictate here as I did hear (happy to be corrected) that there have been some problems, i.e the Sky Bed issue for one.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-31 05:58:22 and read 5734 times.

NAV20,

Yeah. I can't just imagine a cement truck frozen through. Blimey, that must have been a very timely exercise in detecting and avoiding risk.

Jasond,

Sort of thinking the same thing. It may be that there is no ultra long range component in the order at this stage. As for the Skybeds, I think the biggest issue of all is the fact that it took Qantas so long to bring them in that they were obsolete by the time they arrived, or in a few cases, haven't yet arrived.

To be fair, I think the specifications are superior to those of the LH and AF product, and because I'm long, actually better than the current soon to be replaced BA product (which disappointed me muchly) and probably equivalent in different ways to SQ and CX, but not in the hunt against VS and NZ.

The QF decision to slash seat numbers in the A380 bodes well I think. They have probably decided they need to do a truly flat sleeper rather than a sloper.

When you look at the original A380 555 seat plan, which may still be up on the Airbus site, it was pretty squalid in my view. Something around the 470 seat mark seems much more realistic, given that the 744 ER is down to around 343 seats from as high as 416 or thereabouts when it was introduced.

All I can say from my experiences of the A330s when encountered on domestic routes was, ugh, it was not good, either in handling the jet, or the diminished quality of seating in the pathetic 7 abreast business class. But I'd probably come to the same conclusion in any large unit size jet, such as a 777, running into the demands of a high frequency Cityflyer schedule.

We need something with a high wing and an extra set of main doors for fast turnarounds when they replace the 737/A320 fleets, and I don't mean a C-130 either.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Jasond
Posted 2005-10-31 06:13:14 and read 5716 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 223):
As for the Skybeds, I think the biggest issue of all is the fact that it took Qantas so long to bring them in that they were obsolete by the time they arrived, or in a few cases, haven't yet arrived.

You have eluded in part to what my understanding of the Sky Bed issue was. My understanding was that they could not be fitted to some A330's which caused some concern in relation to QF's longer term service plans. Specifically I have heard that one issue was structural i.e the floor beams could not support them in the planned configuration. I did hear however that this was more a planning issue within Qantas and no fault of Airbus.

I think a lot of domestic seating configuration(s) across the world leave a lot to be desired but in my experience QF was more superior to Virgin Blue. I will never fly Virgin Blue again as a result of two very bad experiences, they will never get my money again, period.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-10-31 06:27:23 and read 5705 times.

Jasond,

Misunderstood your reference. Yes the A332's were ordered with the wrong floor to take Skybeds, and for one, I'm uncertain what is being done, whether they will fix them at great cost as originally proposed, or transfer them to Jetstar for long haul single class, or just sell them to someone else.

Virgin Blue is benefiting hugely from the JQ factor in my view, since Qantas really had a hide trying to dump its business travellers on those routes, who mostly fly full economy, on JQ. But JQ might change its way of treating people once its cost efficiencies are tgranslated deeper into the Qantas structure.

On the occasions I've used Virgin Blue I quite liked them, and the jet.

Opinions and experiences will vary. My view is that they offer a better economy class experience than Qantas shorter haul, but decidedly not for transcontinentals. I'd like to see the live seat back video. If I can really watch digital business channel on Foxtel they've got me to a point, in that I like space, and Virgin Blue really doesn't offer much.

What I really think about Virgin Blue will depend on whether they can in the future structure their shares to capture the superior margins they earn on domestic routes to Qantas.

That is an uncertain call like anything else in the sector at this stage.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Jasond
Posted 2005-10-31 12:24:42 and read 5558 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 225):
Opinions and experiences will vary. My view is that they offer a better economy class experience than Qantas shorter haul, but decidedly not for transcontinentals. I'd like to see the live seat back video. If I can really watch digital business channel on Foxtel they've got me to a point, in that I like space, and Virgin Blue really doesn't offer much.

My main complaint was really with the crew, everything else was as per expectations. I took the family to BNE (via MEL) recently and found out that if you didn't fall into a clear business model category (18 - 35, no kids, single and not hungry) they pretty much couldn't care less. I can afford the alternative but chose them for the experience. I could rant for hours on this but I will leave that to another post.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Dalecary
Posted 2005-10-31 22:30:03 and read 5144 times.

Additionally,

the A330/340 x-section is not wide enough for the std QF Skybed and a modified narrower version is fitted. Antares will no doubt pooh-hoo me, but my information is that QF want to standardise international seating in all classes based on the A380. He tends to think the 787 will be packed with seats and I don't know why, as it will be operating in normal QF international configuration. Why pack the 787 to the rafters and not the 744/A380s is the obvious question to ask him???
Obviously, any new type JQ order for their proposed 2-class international routes will have a higher seating density than QF, but that's just plain obvious.
The 330/340/350 x-section is a big negative at QF, and yes, I know the 350 has squeezed a couple of inches of extra cabin width by using new/narrower insulation.

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-11-01 09:37:25 and read 5042 times.

DaleCarey,

I don’t think I’ve ever claimed to know how Qantas will configure whatever it is that it buys, other than recently repeating info about the alleged A345 offer that on reflection, is probably incomplete or concocted, and I sure wouldn't bet on them buying any of that particular model.

You seem to have much better information than any of us.

Claiming to know anything that Qantas doesn’t release in accordance with the rules would be a very big call to make, because the moment anyone here posts something that really comes straight from the horse’s mouth the airline will be obliged to notify the ASX so that the market is fully informed.

That is not to say people can’t make reasonable guesses or that your guesses are wrong in full or in part. You are probably pretty spot on since you say sensible things if readers bother to cut through the frothing at the mouth bits, but aviation is one of the least logical industries you can deal with, so maybe being sensible will get all of us nowhere.

I’m not a fan of the cabin cross section of the A330/340 family for economy travel, and think Airbus has made a big error in not matching the amenity of the 787 in their A350s.

At the moment I’m more interested in being around when the new jets come into service than trying to imagine what they will do inside them, although if history is any guide, airlines will pack ‘em in where the market offers most growth, which is leisure travel, and compete ferociously where the richest pickings are getting proportionately rarer, which is in first or business.

If we are in speculative mood, the premium economy sector is interesting.

But we could be speculating about an area where many carriers, probably including Qantas, would have fleet planners working on primary and secondary options they may not have to make until closer to entry into service, especially for models that tout their configurational versatility.

See, I’m speculating about what the people Qantas pays to speculate are speculating about. Pretty stupid really. Like my choices in this afternoon's Melbourne Cup, great race though that it was.

Antares

Topic: RE: Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas
Username: Dalecary
Posted 2005-11-01 12:00:32 and read 4966 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 228):
I don’t think I’ve ever claimed to know how Qantas will configure whatever it is that it buys, other than recently repeating info about the alleged A345 offer that on reflection, is probably incomplete or concocted, and I sure wouldn't bet on them buying any of that particular model.

Well check back. I have mentioned the standardisation of the international product on this forum before and you have basically said they will pack 787/777 to the rafters. Not quite sure what you mean by this compared to today's configurations, which can be regarded as fairly tight in the Y cabin, which is my enforced class of travel.
I am very confident of my info I receive re QF. Nothing has been signed on the dotted line yet, but I have a pretty good idea where it is all heading(I think!!!).


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/