Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The A340-500 Or A346 For QF  
User currently offlineQANTASBOY From Australia, joined May 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3882 times:

Would this be suitable on its SYD LAX AND SYD JFK routes, rather than a 744?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineThe Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3696 times:

Only if you're carrying a lot of cargo. B744ER better fit for SYD-LAX because of higher passenger capacity. Higher yields available with more F and J class space.


M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8017 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3581 times:

QF is interested in carrying more passengers, not more cargo. As a result, QF's future long-range widebody purchases will be either more 747-400ER's or more A380-800's.

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3572 times:

I'd say, neither.

QF is the sole remaining "Working Together" airline yet to place an order for their 777s... and they were (along with MH, AA, and NZ) one of the largest proponents for a C-class twinjet from Boeing.

772LR and 773ER... great combo with their A330s, as many airlines are proving today.


User currently offlineLhr001 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3487 times:

With Qantas purchasing the A330-200, perhaps the A340 is not such a unforseen purchase.

The A340-500, is fast becoming associated with luxury and range.

Please note Emirates, Gulf Air and Singapore Airlines.

The 777.. is played out!



User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3436 times:

Concordeboy,
how often you might repeat it and include it in your goodnights prayers, you won´t change the truth: a 777 would be an oddity in QFs fleet, a straightaway stupid decision among Airbusses in the class below (A330s) and above (A380s). Sizewise only the 744s makes real sense inbetween, some A340s maybe, but I don´t see a need for them right now.


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3393 times:

Okay guys
One thing may FORCE this.... That would be competition! If we see a Non-stop SYD-JFK flight from a competitor (and this would almost certainly be in the form of an A345), well, QF may have to run and get some very very quickly) afterall, QF charges a premium for its first and business products. Who on earth is going to pay the premium and be FORCED to stop in that hole LAX? It may be Air NZ.. It may be virgin... but sooner or later somebody else will do it. I think this aircraft would be will suited to Qantas' long haul ops anway, so if they do get it, i'd say they'd be sticking with it.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3318 times:

Na,
I realize you're not very well versed in the subject... but you cannot possibly be serious can you? Larger global airlines choose aircraft based on performance and price (acquisition and sustained)... not "loyalty", not "looks", and [contrary to what seems the gospel of a.net posters] with limited emphasis on commonality to other fleet types.

That's why you already see so many A330/777 operators as is. Also, lest you forget the A380 was a complete oddball in QF's fleet when first ordered as well.



SYD-JFK flight from a competitor (and this would almost certainly be in the form of an A345)

too bad an A345 cannot fly that route with any decent pax-payload  Big grin


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3266 times:

Concorde boy.... well it can't do the flights from Singapore proposed without restrictions either....

Frequent travellers, particulary those on business are going to be happy to pay a little extra for the non-stop service.... If it can work for SIA to that little island called singapore, which is really just a red dot on a map, there is no reason why Sydney can't support a premium service. The amount of high profile government traffic, ppl in the arts and theatre world and financial services alone are a very strong market for NYC-SYD flights.... now add in the Government and diplomatic traffic, and u have a very big market that is willing to pay a premium prices.... HENCE 7 abread A345 economy is ECONOMIALLY viable.

Now the market for Cargo in between JFK and SYD is nothing. Plus there is more than enough capacity through LAX. Continental's EWK HKG flights also operate on the basis that passengers would be willing to pay a little extra, to forgot the cargo.... and it works!


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3240 times:

Notice I didnt say restrictions... I said "with any decent pax-payload"


The A345's range is 9954mi

LAX-SIN is "only" 8770mi, and it needs a payload restriction for that.

With JFK-SYD being 9950mi, throw in a winter wind, and there's no way in Hades that the plane will be able to make the westbound with anything remotely resembling a profitable load; particularly if the 1stop via LAX is still operating alongside it.


User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

Your arguments are so flawed, ConcordeBoy.
As is your intro. You are so blinded by your shining 777 that it amuses me.

Don´t forget QF ordered the A380 together with the A330s, and now that they both will be reality (the A330 is) there´s nothing "odd" with them in QFs fleet. Now the decision is made I can´t help to repeat, a 777 would be, now and still in 5 years from now, and oddball down under.
Where do I say airlines choose by looks? Bull* that is.
And by saying airlines choose by price you don´t do the overpriced 777 a favour. Because exactly that is a killer argument AGAINST Boeings big twin.
And don´t forget commonality IS a money issue.
You´re not seriously denying that the 777 has a serious competitor in the A340, do you? You still try like Sysiphos, but that doesn´t make it true. Keep trying to amuse other a.net members.

The A380 definitely has no opponent unless Boeing launches the 747NG (and even then less than 777 vs.A340), so QFs decision was a logical step here based on capacity issues.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3161 times:

I'm not one to readily confuse knowledge of a subject with aggression theretoward... spare yourself  Laugh out loud

By oddball, I meant QF was an all-Boeing operator for years before the A330s made it into their fleet... they being a thow-in addition to the A380 order.


Where do I say airlines choose by looks?

who accused you of saying it?


And don´t forget commonality IS a money issue

So is performance, often outweighing it in terms of consideration.



And by saying airlines choose by price you don´t do the overpriced 777 a favour.

Wrong. While the 777 is generally listed as having higher acquisition cost; it's resale value is significantly higher than its competitor, as is its longterm operational/maintenance costs generally lower.


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3114 times:

a few things

Etops restrictions.... A345 more suited to Qantas large pacific operation,
but I think the most interesting point here is the way SIA have configured it.

Lets say QF basically copy the layout, using their new business sleeper seats and 7abread econ. You basically have the existing capacity of QF business class, and about 120 economy seats. With that kind of load....that is, less than 200 people on board, well i think it can easy make the trip westward.
The existing business class is very full.... But i think QF can go onestep further, add a full First class sleeper and cut economy back even further, to maybe just 100 seats, and u easy have a lot of money. QF transpacific business class and first class runs EXTREMELY full. It could turn out a big money maker.


User currently offlineJoleb From Belgium, joined Oct 2003, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3097 times:

No A345 or 346

if they would buy more it would be 744ER or A380

maybe if they want longer range destinations they would buy 777-200LR
and thats a plane by the way.

If it would be me I would go with the longest non stop plane in the world (777-200LR) but then thats me  Smile


User currently offlineRupertvander82 From France, joined Dec 2002, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

Well, for SIA, currently commonality is more important than the performance? Abusing of 777s in Asian routes...

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

Etops restrictions.... A345 more suited to Qantas large pacific operation

What ETOPS restrictions?

ETOPS180 operations are more and more common south of the equator with countries such as the USA (et al) opening now allowing it. Also, ExtendedRange and LongerRange 777s are expected to begin ETOPS330 qualifications/certification next year, meaning that the Antarctic mainland will be the only ETOPS noFly zones remaining.


Well, for SIA, currently commonality is more important than the performance? Abusing of 777s in Asian routes...

Not really.

When SQ purchased most of those 777s; the Asian Economic Crisis was over and neither SARS, 9/11, nor the general worldwide slowdown had occured. They figured they'd need them on such routes by then.

They obviously figured incorrectly... hence the current RFP. Rejection of the proposed A335 goes further to corroborate the point.


User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

Why would Qantas want to introduce a new airplane type into the fleet? What is more common to a 747-400ER then a 747-400ER.

Now if Qantas did order a 777, there would be nothing odd about it. Qantas already operate a whole bunch of 747s and 767s, and I don't think the 747s are going anywhere any time soon.


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...
QF And The A340-500 posted Thu Mar 25 2004 15:41:08 by ANstar
The A340-500...will It Be Profitable For Airlines? posted Sun Mar 7 2004 07:13:38 by CPDC10-30
SIA Signs For The A340-500 posted Thu Oct 3 2002 04:28:20 by Ejazz
Where Is The A340 - 500 VIP Qatar? posted Tue Aug 2 2005 09:42:07 by Dennys
A340-500/600 , A380 For JET Airways? posted Wed Jun 15 2005 20:23:36 by FCKC
Status Of The A340-500 & 777LR/F posted Tue Jun 14 2005 18:52:26 by Quig
Etihad And The A340-500? posted Sun May 15 2005 14:46:13 by B742
2nd Deck Of The A340-500 posted Wed May 11 2005 16:17:41 by JCS
THAI´s New "Royal Silk Class" On The A340/500 Pics posted Thu Mar 17 2005 16:16:15 by LX001
Questions On The A340-500/600 posted Thu Jun 3 2004 03:03:24 by CO737800