Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Qantas & The 777  
User currently offline9V-SVE From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 2066 posts, RR: 2
Posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4054 times:

Why hasn't QF ordered the 777 although it was part of its development team? All seven other airlines of the team have (UA, CX, JL, NH, BA, AA, DL) but QF hasn't.

On a related note, wouldn't it be more cost efficient to codeshare with BA on half a leg of the Kangaroo route? Eg BA would operate the LHR-SIN/BKK leg while QF would operate the SIN/BKK-SYD/MEL leg vv?

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMCIB757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 280 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3976 times:

9V-SVE _ I have wondered the same thing about QF not ordering the 777 and was about to start a post about it, but you beat me to it. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Tom



"God bless catastrophe..."
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3949 times:

Qantas (along with Malaysia's) main interest in the 777 was actually for the C-market 777X... which at that time would have been powered by RR engines, each packing 104,000lb thrust; had a range of just over 8000nm; and would have been launched circa late 1997/early 1998.

As we know... it didnt play out this way. The stronger, longer-ranged 772LR was not launched until February 2000.

By this time, QF had already modified its business plan for N.America.... from various point-to-point destinations, to hubbing everything via LAX.... by ordering the A388.



User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3933 times:

QF just doesn't have a need for a plane that heavy.

They feel that, for the international routes they serve regionally (i.e. ones that don't require a VERY heavy plane like a 345 or 772LR) that the 333 and 332 offered the best combination of cost of acquisition and operation.

One could argue they could launch a North American expansion with 772LRs... but do they feel the need to? Right now it doesn't seem they do.

When they decide that DFW, ORD, MIA, and JFK are in their best interests to serve on their own metal, then they'll choose the 772LR or perhaps the 345. But I think they're well focused on what they're doing now.

N


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16367 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3874 times:

The QF 332/333 order was in conjunction with the 380 order. So, do not discount the purchase discounts that QF received.

A similar thread recently quoted a QF employee that QF was close to ordering the 772 until AI offered an unbeatable 330/380 combination.

Given the reported teething problems with the QF 332, perhaps Boeing could offer an unbeatable 772/7E7/739X deal to QF.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3778 times:

The MAIN problem QF is having with their A332s is the turnaround time. They require a longer time to turn around an A332 than B763... How can they expect the B777 to be any better if not worse? We already know the A332 carries more pax, thus more baggage, larger cargo hold (maybe more cargo also?) and a larger fuel tank thus longer refuelling time compared to the B763.

Other minor problems include the IFE systems, which, I believe are supplied by Rockwell Collins?

Another minor problem, the bad paint job on VH-EBC? I believe Airbus paid the expenses to rectify the peeling paint problem?


User currently offlineBehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4851 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3698 times:

I dont think so that QF is going to order the B 777 anytime soon. If it does, it would be a big shocker for AIRBUS.

Yes QF is stupid to not have thought that the A 332 would take longer turning around than a B 763 for which adequate reasons have been given above in previous posts!

Even an A 345 or B 772LR cannot fly JFK-SYD or even ORD-SYD nonstop! And in anycase, ppl do not like such long nonstop flights! Rather have the flight transit somewhere where more pax can be carried onward to JFK and ORD and YYZ!

CX wisely chose YVR for its enroute stop for JFK and has pax traffic rights for the YVR-JFK-YVR route.

Did EVA AIR have pax rights between SEA and EWR on its B 744s?


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

Even an A 345 or B 772LR cannot fly JFK-SYD or even ORD-SYD nonstop!

Eh. I think a weight restricted 345 could fly ORD-SYD. And I'm entirely positive that a fully tanked 772LR could fly both routes, although JFK would require a decent restriction. To determine this for sure will need more data on both aircraft, especially real performance data after they both fly.

The problem is that QF does such a bumper business, especially in cargo, that weight restricting flights doesn't work for them. That's why they upgraded to the 744ER on the LAX routes. The 744 has perfectly sufficient range, but they wanted to run with a decent payload year round.

And in anycase, ppl do not like such long nonstop flights!

Tourists don't. Business travellers do. They need to get there, and get it over with, so they can get home.

N


User currently offlineUAL777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1564 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3313 times:

Gigneil,

That is doubtful at best. The name of the game is revenue, and no airline wants to fly a plane with few seats on a VERY long route. That flight would be 16 plus hours. This is all assuming the plane can even make it.



It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
User currently offlineMotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3335 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Where would the 777 fit in their fleet with the A380 above it and the A330 below it? Another cockpit type as well as maintenance type and freight type. Surely the smart money would be on the A346.


come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

That QF failed to order the 777 was a big disappointment for Boeing, as QF was on the design team for the 777 and it was always assumed that QF would buy the type. For a few years, QF was in a rather passive mood regarding aircraft purchases, they picked up a few 2nd hand 744s and some additonal new build 744s (the ERs), but nothing really agressive and the 777 order never came. Later, when QF was looking at the A380, QF also placed an order for the A332 and A333 - the reasoning was that the A330s would give QF experience with an Airbus FBW type (it will, the only Airbus type previoiusly operated by QF was the A300B4 (not-FBW) inherited from the original Australian Airlines and by most accounts, it was not a good experience for QF) and the A330s were well suited for both the domestic Australian and regional markets (see below).........the untold reason is that Airbus gave QF a hell of a good deal on the A330s since the order was combined with the A380 purchase.

Was the A330 a good choice for QF? Even if the A330s were acquired at bargain prices, its only a good bargain if you got the right product. My opinion is that QF make a mistake here (and its just my personal opinion). I think that the A330 is simply too much aircraft (in either variant) for the domestic Australian market.....its remarkable that QF is complaining that turn around times for the A330 are too long, well of course they are, the A330 is a big plane not really designed for hourly shuttles between Sydney and Melbourne. QF also plans to operate the type on routes from Australia to points in Asia.....and on these routes I think that the opposite will be true, the A330 will be too small in many cases - on some routes the A333 will be used to replace 747s, and most flights in the region already operate with high loads and lots of cargo.

I think that QF made a bold and good choice with the A380 - but I think that QF would have been far happier with the 772 for regional routes and the 753 or 764 for intra-Australian and trans-tasman routes. The A330 is a great airliner, I think that the A330-200 is the "best of the bunch" in the original A330/340 family, but its just not the right type here.



User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9210 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2940 times:

The B 747-400ER was being ordered along with the A 380/A330

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2887 times:

Considering the plethora of airlines who've preferred the performance of the A330 + 777 instead of the packaged A330/A340 combination... it's still not outside of the realm of possibility to see a 772/773 order from QF, particularly if:

  • neightbor and competitor NZ orders the 773ER with positive results
  • the ETOPS regulations on the 777NGs are granted as is expected

  • User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
    Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2835 times:

    UAL777 - Yeah I know, I said so in my post too.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

    Its definitely not outside the realm of possibility for QF to order the 772LR. I can't see 773ERs.

    I can also see A345s, but not really 346s.

    Future not so certain is what a magic 8 ball might say.

    772s or 772ERs for the regional international routes would be a HUGE upgrade from the 763s they're operating now. The 332 and 333 offer a good mix of capacities to match demand on the Asian routes.

    QF is a very cautious grower.

    N


    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

    Printer friendly format

    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    Qantas & The 777's...? posted Fri Oct 12 2001 23:39:09 by CPH-R
    Qantas & The A380 posted Wed Oct 4 2006 06:53:52 by AeroplaneFreak
    Qantas & The B777...Is It Going To Happen! posted Wed Jun 21 2006 08:36:08 by EK413
    Qantas & The Australian Flag posted Sat May 27 2006 02:11:57 by Monkeyboi
    Qantas And The 777, How Soon? posted Mon Sep 19 2005 00:08:43 by Georgiabill
    Have Qantas Ordered The 777-200LR? posted Sat Aug 13 2005 13:48:22 by EZYAirbus
    Qantas And The 777 posted Tue Mar 15 2005 14:02:21 by Razza74
    LH & The 777-200LRF/777-300ER posted Mon Nov 15 2004 04:47:32 by CX747
    Aeroflot & The 777 posted Wed Jun 30 2004 18:56:20 by Quig
    Qantas And The 777 posted Fri Feb 20 2004 02:47:40 by QF744