Wirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1 Posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7704 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, 788 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7389 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 (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7318 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!
LUV4JFK From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 462 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7208 times:
Non-stop eastbound, very possible with light loads for the 345 & 777LR. Non-stop westbound, no way in hell is that going to happen, even with the 777LR.
LUV4JFK
John F. Kennedy International Airport: Where America Greets The World.
Jcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 43 Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6872 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.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6839 times:
S12PPL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6562 times:
UA744KSFO:
There is a plane....the A380 Even though I'm against the A380....I think it's the plane for LHR-SYD non-stop. That's one of the non-stops Airbus used in the hype it started for the plane.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6396 times:
Actually, if either of you morons ever paid attention... you'd realize I was talking about JFK-SYD
Perhaps if you had better thought out posts, ConcordeGirl, we'd not need to pay such cautious attention to understand you.
Horus From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 5230 posts, RR: 62 Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6318 times:
Isn't it abit weird that Boeing has been using this exact route, SYD-DFW, for nearly 5 years now to promote the range capabilities of their ultra long range 777s. mmm...
PUDFW From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 116 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6252 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.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6116 times:
Wasn't Qantas part of the "working together" team for the 777? It would be a major coup if Boeing signed Qantas for the -200LR and New Zealand for the -300ER. Maybe shared maintainance facilities?
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6019 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: 58 Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5895 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, 11951 posts, RR: 37 Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5850 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, 5217 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5792 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.
25 ANstar: Are there any other airlines that have been on 'working together teams' for aircraft that didnt end up purchasing them? It seems foolish to think just
26 ConcordeBoy: One reason is that they have the small pax oxygen system and as such cannot meet ETOPS requirements over the Himalayers Source? I've never heard of th
27 Ken777: The older you get the more painful long hauls are. For me the easiest way to go to SYD is to fly to LAX, spend the night and catch QF8 at noon the nex
28 VH-BZF: I predicted this a few weeks ago in a post on Airliners.net , great to see that my post was not all hot air! Also in regards to the A330-200's, I was
29 Gigneil: Also in regards to the A330-200's, I was told that the flooring is not strong enough to support the sky beds that QF are putting into the A330-300's.
30 Sydscott: I wouldn't be over extrapolating conclusions from this article. Just because Airbus was down here showing QF the A340-500 doesn't mean they are going
31 DfwRevolution: ..that, and you rarely hear of twinjets being allowed over the Himalayas at all. Just curious, but if twins cannot fly over the Himalayas what route d
32 Roberta: They will only need 6 planes max for SYD-DFW and LHR-PER unless they want to fly to FRA and CDG or whatever, so they will be looking for commonality w
33 ConcordeBoy: 345's are larger than 772's Too bad their relative pax capacity and payload will actually be more limited... not to mention a huge empty weight 345's
34 Sydscott: "They will only need 6 planes max for SYD-DFW and LHR-PER unless they want to fly to FRA and CDG or whatever, so they will be looking for commonality
35 EK413: I would love to see Qantas place an order for the A340-500 to operate this NEW Sydney-Dallas route... Go A345
36 Roberta: So with all the current programs that QF has they are going to buy 6 new planes to fly to DFW when did I say that "They will only need 6 planes max f
37 ClassicLover: The comments regarding Perth and the fact that Virgin were uncertain about premium markets to London tend to overlook the fact that Virgin Atlantic do
38 Tsentsan: One reason is that they have the small pax oxygen system and as such cannot meet ETOPS requirements over the Himalayers Source? I've never heard of th
39 Sydscott: "3 planes per route would offer a daily service on a plane which would probably be configured to 200" So you want them to buy less planes then. So in
40 ClassicLover: SydScott, with respect - Your entire argument seems to be - "If QF fly here, they will lose pax here!" Ever heard of developing new routes and new mar
41 Qantasclub: I agree with Sydscott on this one. PER-LHR will never happen because even though it is a fairly wealthy city (highest per capita concentration of mill
42 Roberta: So what's your problem, you seem to be arguing with everything for the sake of arguing. So you want them to buy less planes then. So instead of buying
43 PER744: Factoes for consideration far as PER-LHR is concerned (both positive and negative): * A large proportion of Western Australians were born in the UK, o
44 ClassicLover: Perhaps I am silly, but wouldn't it be assumed that if they were to open up SYD-PER-LHR that the aircraft would be an A345 the entire way, thus negati
45 Sydscott: "Your entire argument seems to be - "If QF fly here, they will lose pax here!" Ever heard of developing new routes and new markets?" Have you ever he
46 DfwRevolution: The way I see it, it's just swapping one hub for another. LA and California has HUGE pull for Aussies, both from a tourism and business point of view,
47 Gigneil: Apparently the SIA SQx B777s have oxygen systems that are unable to support over-Himalayas operations and thats why they are not-allowed to perform an
48 Sydscott: "What if this is a hub split? As in, trade 4 flights into LAX for 2 into LAX and 2 into DFW? DFW basically cuts the distance a connecting flight must
49 Qantasclub: Hehe.. Texas is the 2nd largest state with over 20 million people. It's also the highest exporter in the United States, in your face California, and
50 Wirraway: Dfw Revoulution said Texas is the 2nd largest state with over 20 million people. It's also the highest exporter in the United States, in your face Cal
51 Roberta: The problem is that the A340-500 will only carry premium passengers and very few economy. only if you configure the aircraft with very few economy, n
52 Sydscott: "Hmmm, that equates to the entire population of Australia, If QF can't fill an aircraft from there it should get out of the airline business, why the
53 ClassicLover: Sydscott, you're completely correct in what you say about Qantas being a reactive airline rather than a proactive one. However, you're basing that ent
54 KEno: Flying to LHR via PER is further than via SIN. SYD-PER-LHR 11,050 mi SYD-SIN-LHR 10,672 mi
55 DfwRevolution: I'm sure once the "next" generation aircraft can reach DFW direct from Sydney that QF will put a service through. But it will be a 747 sized aircraft,
56 ClassicLover: I guess that it may exceed range requirements when it comes into service, or there'll be the usual Boeing -ER/-LR offered once it's in service. That's
57 Sydscott: "If you did that all the time, you probably didn't forsee Qantas taking over Impulse, Qantas creating Australian Airlines, Qantas creating Jetstar, Q
58 ClassicLover: Qantas doesn't have a monopoly on the LAX route to use the true meaning of the word - though I do agree with your comments Sydscott - and isn't it gre
59 Sydscott: ""Qantas is disappointing / bad because they're doing these things" - why?" No I dont think they're bad but I do think they are disappointing in the s
60 Beno: Hey Sydscott, If QF did as you say and added new aircraft and extra European destinations such as ATH, FCO ect all of which are very marginal. The nex
61 Danialanwar: Whilst a PER-LHR nonstop would really look nice, bear in mind that if it's meant to be a SYD-PER-LHR flight, it is actually quite a bit longer than sa
62 Horus: Well if its gonna take an extra hour, then there really isn't a point of operating the route, especially since many have highlighted the limited PER-L
63 Sydscott: "extra European destinations such as ATH, FCO ect all of which are very marginal" "QF flies routes where they know they can make money no matter what
64 Roberta: Give me 1 good reason why QF would buy NEW aircraft to fly these routes when they have perfectly adequate 747-400's Last time i remebered the 747er co
65 YUL332LX: Something of note, the current range listed for the 7E7 Base is 8500nm with no payload restriction. DFW-SYD is 8578nm. American is bound to be a major
66 Gte439u: If there is enough business traffic between the 2 cities, then the route may be viable but you will not get Australian tourists choosing to hub at Dal
67 Dutchjet: Qantas, over time, needs to open more US gateways, as traffic between Australian and the United States is growing, and, at a certain point, having eve
68 ConcordeBoy: Okay, so my RR rating of '0' doesn't do much for you, but it doesn't lessen the respect! Actually, it does But I dont care, your respect is much appre
69 Jupiter2: In respect to QF code sharing with other airlines to Europe it already does, Swiss to ZRH, Finnair to HEL, Cathay to FCO and Gulf to ATH. If the marke
70 ANstar: No one seemed to have an answer to my question above so I'll ask again. Has any other airline been ona design commitee (working together) for an aircr
71 Aussie747: It would be interesting to see what the configurations would be for these services if launched. As these are not payload restricted, they would not ha
72 ANstar: I guess we could also see a route such as PER-LAX if they did order them?
73 Kaitak: Very interesting debate. I know PER is a smallish market, but don't forget that the likes of EK, SQ, MH, TG etc. fly there on a regular basis and whil
74 ConcordeBoy: Has any other airline been ona design commitee (working together) for an aircraft and not purchased it? LH was consulted (and participated) on the 777
75 Sydscott: Give me 1 good reason why QF would buy NEW aircraft to fly these routes when they have perfectly adequate 747-400's Last time i remebered the 747er co
76 ClassicLover: All Qantas needs is an international LCC flying out of Australia and they'll fall over themselves to compete. Isn't that what you've been saying all a
77 ConcordeBoy: All Qantas needs is an international LCC flying out of Australia and they'll fall over themselves to compete. Ya mean like Australian?
78 Gemuser: ConcordeBoy back in post 26 asked for my source (gees go away for a day or two!): A QF B763 Captian and his B742/743/74SP mate (former B763 Captain an
79 Sydscott: "All Qantas needs is an international LCC flying out of Australia and they'll fall over themselves to compete. Isn't that what you've been saying all
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Even though I'm against the A380....I think it's the plane for LHR-SYD non-stop. That's one of the non-stops Airbus used in the hype it started for the plane.
From Puerto Rico, joined Aug 2003, 354 posts, 
From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 5230 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11951 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
