Wirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8931 times:
Fri "The Australian"
Qantas seeks range
By Geoffrey Thomas
March 26, 2004
QANTAS is examining the world's longest range aircraft - the A340-500 - for opening new non-stop routes such as Sydney-Dallas and Perth-London.
An Airbus Industrie spokesman would not confirm the presentations, saying it was the manufacturer's policy not to confirm details of sales campaigns.
The four-engine A340-500 has essentially an identical cockpit and systems to the twin-engine A330 in service with Qantas, thereby minimising introduction costs.
Rolls-Royce is understood to be offering an attractive maintenance package to offset the costs of introducing a new engine to Qantas - the Trent 500. The A340-500 can carry 313 passengers 8650 nautical miles, which would enable Qantas to operate non-stop services from Sydney to Dallas, the headquarters of its alliance partner American Airlines.
From the west coast of Australia the A340-500 would be able to reach London non-stop from Perth and enable Qantas to counter the increased competition from Emirates, which is expected to increase its services from seven a week to 10 in October. Emirates will introduce the A340-500 to Melbourne from June 1, offering non-stop flights to Dubai, and will also increase services to that city to 10 a week by August.
Last year, Richard Branson looked at operating from London to Perth non-stop using two A340-500s that had been deferred by Air Canada as a result of financial difficulties.
Virgin Atlantic was concerned about the size of the business class market for the service, although it was buoyed by the fact that Western Australia is home to Australia's second largest English-born population.
Boeing is also pitching its 777-200LR to Qantas.
The latest variant of the Boeing jet will fly early next year and promises an even greater range/payload capability than the A340-500.
Bartond From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 791 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8616 times:
Good article. I haven't heard much on the SYD-DFW route lately. I guess QF is still looking at it, which is good to hear. I'd piss my pants if I saw a QF plane coming into DFW a few times a week, even.
Who does everyone think is the frontrunner for QF's ultra long range business - Airbus with the A345 or Boeing with the 777LR? Should be interesting - QF already has the A330s but also has a good number of Boeing aircraft (744s), too. What, if any, similarities are there between the 744 and the 772s as far as mechanics, engineering, etc.? This seems to be important to airlines contemplating the purchase of new aircraft.
UA744KSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8545 times:
I know that DFW is an AA hub, but does it really need a nonstop to SYD? I think that it might be more beneficial to fly SYD-ORD (another huge AA hub) and maybe even SYD-JFK (if the aircraft has the range) and avoid the current stop in LAX. As far as PER-LHR, that would be awesome, but I'm still hoping that an aircraft will someday be developed that can do the SYD-LHR route non-stop!
Jcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8099 times:
ConcordeBoy quit being such a homer and Boeing honk. I know in your mind nothing will ever be better than the super-duper Airbus killer 777LR. LAX-SIN is actually a longer sector length than SYD-DFW, not only that, but the headwinds would usually be less on DFW-SYD than on a LAX-SIN sector.
PUDFW From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7479 times:
Qantas has long been wanting to get into DFW. Before 9/11 they planned flying AKL to DFW with a connection to SYD with the 747-400ER. In fact that seemed to be one of the main reasons behind buying that aircraft. However Qantas chose to go into ORD with a connection to LAX-SYD.
Bottom line though Qantas would rather serve DFW directly from SYD. One of the main reasons Qantas has stayed away so far, even with a rebounding economy, is that the current facilities at DFW are awful. However in less than a year now that will all change as Terminal D opens. Qantas wants to be there when it does or shortly thereafter. Thus the A345 works for that because the model is currently in production. The 777LR is not yet done and wont enter service until 2006. So unless Qantas wants to wait another year for this plane they will go with the A345. Honestly it probably makes more sense because of the commonality between that and the A333.
Some of you have questioned why DFW. First off its American's biggest hub and it always will be. Its only going to get bigger with Terminal D and American taking 19 gates there. Which means they will have over 80 gates at DFW. Thats huge. And with those 80 gates they will have over 700 daily departures. More connecting traffic goes through DFW than anywhere else on American's network. Internationally it is a logical place for connections from South America with American's extensive network in that region. Also Europeans would have another viable option instead of going through Asia.
Also DFW is a logical point to jump off from to go to Australia, more logical than OHare which is too far north (and out of range) That said it would be like one of the longest flights in the world and take over 15 hours.
I am pretty sure Qantas has taken a long look at the traffic of US citizens to Australia and sees that a lot of them come from the Eastern US. Thus its a lot easier to connect in DFW than LAX in my opinion. I could see this service being a daily one at some point.
Anyway to review, both international and domestic connections, new facilities (the best in the world I might add) LAX overcrowding and American Airlines are all huge reasons why Qantas will add DFW to the map.
Bartond - yeah I agree with you, when I see the Red kangaroo flying into DFW I am going to piss my pants too.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (11 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7246 times:
Its interesting that the DFW-SYD route is a hot topic again.....before 9/11 and the financial downturn, the introudction of nonstop service between these 2 cities was very much discussed.
Way back than (seems like 100 years ago, doesnt it?), there was a rumor that AA would fly the route with its 777s (AA was looking at the LR version or the -100ER verison that was dropped by Boeing).....many thought that AA and not QF would fly the DFW-SYD service.
Later, QF was looking at the DFW-AA), New Zealand">AKL-SYD route, to be flown with 747-400ER aircraft, but determined it was not a good move......QF/AA wants to offer onestop service to Sydney from US east coast/US gulf coast/US midwest cities.....thus, adding AA), New Zealand">AKL to the itinerary is a non-starter.
So we are back to DFW-SYD nonstop with QF - which aircraft? A335 or B777-200LR. I am going with Boeing. Why? Boeing and Qantas have a long relationship that both want to protect. QF is the only member of the 777 working together design team yet to purchase a 777. I think that the 777LR will have a bit more range than the A345, and for this route they need every mile, and, I do not think that the commonality between the A330 and A345 fleets is such a big deal.....a new engine type must be introduced in any case and QF has seemed to become very comfortable with GE powered aircraft. Just my guess, may the best plane win.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (11 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7122 times:
Exactly, ConcordeBoy.......one stop service is now available to MAJOR markets, but a DFW-SYD nonstop would allow AA/QF to offer onestop service to Australia from secondary markets thru out the US as well......there are far more connection possibilites on AA at DFW than offered at LAX.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12780 posts, RR: 34
Reply 23, posted (11 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7077 times:
I agree with Dutchjet; DFW has a very central location, which makes it as ideal for Florida as it does for the north east. JFK would stay, but we all know that JFK isn't the best for connections (and AA would have a seizure if QF decided to do business with JetBlue!)
The A340-500 makes a lot of sense to me. Ultimately, I think there will be n/s from Australia to the UK and the 345 may well be the aircraft to do this. However, I think this issue has been dismissed too easily in the past. I think we can all agree that SYD-LHR, n/s, is a non runner, so there's going to have to be an en route stop; most airlines make this SIN, BKK or KUL (VS is an exception, OK), but the route from Asia to Europe - over India, the Middle East and/or Russia is very busy. Surely, if it were possible, it would make more sense to fly that route via PER? You'd have the Indian Ocean all to yourself and even when you hit Europe, you'd be away from the main Asia - Europe route.
Bear in mind that this didn't work for Branson, because he wouldn't have rights between PER and SYD (although DJ would!). QF, on the other hand would have rights all the way and of course, with a nonstop, QF would steal a march on the likes of EK (which it would love!), SQ, TG, MH etc.
It's still slightly outside the 345's range, but give it time and perhaps a little tweaking and it will be a possibility. In the meantime, the 345 will allow frequencies to be increased on some 744 routes, such as JNB, maybe bring on new routes (like DFW). There's a lot it could do for QF.
However, I still think QF could use its 332s more effectively; just flying them to Asia and back doesn't seem to stretch them enough and QF could take on the likes of EK more effectively if it were to launch some flights from BKK to Europe; the 332 would be ideal for this. Cities like MAN, DUB, AMS, ZRH and one or two others, unsuitable for 744s, could be added.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5935 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (11 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7019 times:
>However, I still think QF could use its 332s more effectively; just flying them >to Asia and back doesn't seem to stretch them enough and QF could take on >the likes of EK more effectively if it were to launch some flights from BKK to >Europe; the 332 would be ideal for this. Cities like MAN, DUB, AMS, ZRH and >one or two others, unsuitable for 744s, could be added.
Are the A332 suitabley equipted to do this? You cannot assume they are! QF B763 CANNOT operate to Europe from SE Asia because they are not equipted for it. One reason is that they have the small pax oxygen system and as such cannot meet ETOPS requirements over the Himalayers (they cannot fly high enough, long enough and still let the pax breath!) ETOPS does not just apply over water!
Sure they could operate around the mountains, but a what cost? I doubt the A332 were suitabley equipted to fly to Europe as there were no plans to do so when they were ordered.