Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QF To Defer 787s  
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12742 times:

Article from today:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...talks-to-delay-787-deliveries.html

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12679 times:

I still think that enough airlines do want early positions that Boeing won't sit on white tails too soon. Not surprising that airlines that operate A330s seem to be more relaxed in getting 787 than those that come from 767s.

User currently offlineJetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12580 times:

There's no doubt Qantas' international passenger traffic has been adversely affected by the downturn and most rcently the swine flu. And remember that the 1st 787 aircraft are earmarked for Jetstar (which is suffering particularly from the fall off in leisure travel)

That being said QF will not cancel any orders as such. They need to get rid of some aging fleet relatively soon. Right at the moment there's only scrap value in the 763 and 744 fleet they need to remove from ops.

But I just cant help wonder, after some teething issues with the A380 and to a lesser extent concenrs over the A330 fleet whether they would like to be further down the production line for the 787. The 787 is a radically new aircrfat in some respects. I know I would rather see somebody else fly them for a year or two before I took delivery.

In summary, a smart move on QF's behalf, all things considered.



Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12523 times:



Quoting Burkhard (Reply 1):
I still think that enough airlines do want early positions that Boeing won't sit on white tails too soon.

The question is do they want over-weight, and therefore less range, in 787-8's or would airlines rather wait for 787-9's? That is the dilemma here for Boeing in re-assigning these delivery slots to someone else.

Obviously the QF group doesn't need these aircraft now especially with JQ focused on building short haul international routes out of Australia, New Zealand domestic, allocating 3 more A320's to Jetstar Asia over the next 12 months and a big fall in Japanese traffic.

However these talks have been going on for some time and Boeing has had quite a bit of notice of QF's intent to delay so I'm surprised that talks have gone on this far. Either Boeing doesn't want a cancellation and wants to enforce the contract or the parties can't agree on compensation for the 787 delay as part of these talks to reduce the cost of cancellation for QF. It'd certainly be interesting to see QF have to take delivery of aircraft they quite clearly don't want because about the only place they could put them is in the domestic fleet as 767 replacements which isn't exactly ideal.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12443 times:



Quoting Sydscott (Reply 3):
It'd certainly be interesting to see QF have to take delivery of aircraft they quite clearly don't want because about the only place they could put them is in the domestic fleet as 767 replacements which isn't exactly ideal.

The 787 should be more economical than the 767 even on domestic flights. Dont forget the 763ER isnt built for shorter routes too.


User currently offlineTayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12199 times:

How many 787s would be required to replace the 767s which currently fly the half-hourly MEL-SYD route?

User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1259 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12074 times:

Why does QF operate both the A330 and 767? I know they fulfill different missions at QF, but everytime I have tried asking in this forum why airlines operate competeing aircraft, I never get a straight answer. I look forward to your insights.


Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineSmi0006 From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 1554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12071 times:



Quoting Jetfuel (Reply 2):
And remember that the 1st 787 aircraft are earmarked for Jetstar (which is suffering particularly from the fall off in leisure travel)

However once the rediculous media beat up that swine flu (and hopefully it will be soon, have we had an deaths yet in Australia?), is over I could see Jetstar being very useful for the QF group going to Europe and the middle-east in the current climate, when people feel they can't afford full service airlines.

Quoting NA (Reply 4):
The 787 should be more economical than the 767 even on domestic flights. Dont forget the 763ER isnt built for shorter routes too.

Indeed the 767 must have pretty high cycles on them, I think the 787s will be replacing them long before the A330s. The 767 are beginning to have a bad reputation as unreliable with QF pax. In reality I'm not sure whether it is the 767s or QF scheduling which is unreliable, perhaps someone could shed some light on this?


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11994 times:



Quoting Sydscott (Reply 3):
The question is do they want over-weight, and therefore less range, in 787-8's or would airlines rather wait for 787-9's?

 checkmark  And the second question that Joyce might be asking himself is do they really want 65 (ever) or indeed ever want 65 of anything. It all depends if you think that things will be all the same once the famous recovery comes. And I doubt Joyce is mad enough to believe that, so it rather depends on what differences he expects to become apparent.

The data on the 788 might also be (should be) making them wonder how much penalty they really want to pay with their medium haul fleet to Asia to allow the planes to be capable of long and ultra long haul. And rising fuel prices might be making them wonder at what range they want their engines optimized.


User currently offline76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 572 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11925 times:



Quoting AA777223 (Reply 6):
Why does QF operate both the A330 and 767?

Because they got them for free as compensation for the A380 delays.
 duck 

[sorry, couldn't resist]


User currently offlineDecromin From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11886 times:



Quoting 76er (Reply 9):
Because they got them for free as compensation for the A380 delays.
duck

[sorry, couldn't resist]

Certainly they were not free, but I'd suggest QF did get a very good deal on them nonetheless. i think QF had different plans for the 330's though than what they ended up using most of them for.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 11859 times:

I don´t know if this is true but I have read once that one reason why they have ordered the A330 was that they wanted to get experience with Airbus technology before they introduced the A380.


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 11594 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It was what, three or four weeks ago that JQ and Boeing reached an agreement to take deliveries starting in May 2010?

Has Swine Flu savaged JQ that badly?

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 3):
The question is do they want over-weight, and therefore less range, in 787-8's or would airlines rather wait for 787-9's?

JQ's first birds would have been the Second Tranche (ZA120 onwards) which will be very close to spec empty weight. Boeing is adamant that even the First Trance (ZA100-ZA119) birds will meet performance guarantees, even with the empty weight and SFC misses.

And again, a month ago JQ and Boeing reached agreement to take deliveries in May 2010. So the plane is not the problem - JQ's traffic collapse is.

[Edited 2009-06-09 09:28:01]

User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 11554 times:



Quoting Smi0006 (Reply 7):
Indeed the 767 must have pretty high cycles on them

The QF 767s are late 80s/early 90s vintage, and must be rather high-cycled for 763ERs. A few years back I had some flights on some of QFs 767s. The flights were absolutely fine, but the aircraft looked old to me.
Their replacement is surely more urgent than the replacement of the first batch of 744s which could be shifted up to around 2015 if necessary.


User currently offlineTISTPAA727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 331 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10321 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Sydscott (Reply 3):
Either Boeing doesn't want a cancellation and wants to enforce the contract or the parties can't agree on compensation for the 787 delay as part of these talks to reduce the cost of cancellation for QF. It'd certainly be interesting to see QF have to take delivery of aircraft they quite clearly don't want because about the only place they could put them is in the domestic fleet as 767 replacements which isn't exactly ideal.

I don't see anyone talking about a cancellation here. QF will not have to take delivery of any plane they don't want as long as they provide enough notice (or pay a steep enough penalty) to Boeing.



Don't sweat the little things.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9684 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Sydscott (Reply 3):
However these talks have been going on for some time and Boeing has had quite a bit of notice of QF's intent to delay so I'm surprised that talks have gone on this far.

It'd certainly be interesting to see QF have to take delivery of aircraft they quite clearly don't want...

You must have missed the QF press release from around four weeks ago stating they had worked with Boeing a plan to begin 787-8 deliveries in May 2010 and accelerate them so they could have the entire 787-8 order in the fleet within 18 months.


User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1669 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9012 times:



Quoting Smi0006 (Reply 7):
However once the rediculous media beat up that swine flu (and hopefully it will be soon, have we had an deaths yet in Australia?), is over . . .

I don't think people realise the hugely damaging potential that H1N1 swine flu has. True, there have been relatively few deaths . . . as yet. But the experts are clear that this is still the very early stages of the pandemic - indeed, WHO was reported only this morning as saying that they were only now on the verge of raising the threat level from Level 5 (currently) to Level 6 (full-blown pandemic).

The 1918 flu pandemic killed approx 50 million out of the 500 million it infected. Forget Tamiflu or Relenza - there's nowhere near the ability to produce enough globally to make a serious difference, and you're only protected while you're actually taking a course.

For the airline industry, the consequences could be catastrophic - even if a pandemic is only relatively short-lived (12-18 months?). But then don't forget the H5N1 bird flu - that hasn't gone away either and according to researchers may be only one mutation away from a global pandemic itself. Imagine the possibility that we might have two such pandemics simultaneously.

Hopefully, neither of these scenarios will unfold. But it's not a "ridiculous media beat-up" and the airline industry will be for sure making contingency plans - and they're right to do so. Even if international travel dropped by only 10% as a result of this I predict it will push many airlines that are already struggling as a result of the financial crisis completely over the edge. If I had an order for 65 new wide-body jets, I'd be sweating . . .



This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8961 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 16):
I don't think people realise the hugely damaging potential that H1N1 swine flu has.

So far, H1N1 seems to be most dangerous to people who have other significant health issues. The highest-risk segment of the population at the moment appears to be the morbidly obese, mainly because they have other issues like diabetes, heart disease and other serious medical issues that H1N1 can exacerbate.

For people who are "healthy", H1N1 seems to be more an annoyance then a life-threatening event.


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8732 times:



Quoting NA (Reply 4):
The 787 should be more economical than the 767 even on domestic flights. Dont forget the 763ER isnt built for shorter routes too.



Quoting Tayser (Reply 5):
How many 787s would be required to replace the 767s which currently fly the half-hourly MEL-SYD route?

If the 787-8's are allocated to QF mainline domestic they will fly transcons rather than MEL-SYD. Otherwise you'll have the same issues that they had with turning around the A332's on such short time frames.

Quoting 76er (Reply 9):
Because they got them for free as compensation for the A380 delays.

Actually, from what I understand, it is the A320/A321's coming in for JQ that QF got a great deal out of Airbus for A380 delays.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
And again, a month ago JQ and Boeing reached agreement to take deliveries in May 2010. So the plane is not the problem - JQ's traffic collapse is.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
You must have missed the QF press release from around four weeks ago stating they had worked with Boeing a plan to begin 787-8 deliveries in May 2010 and accelerate them so they could have the entire 787-8 order in the fleet within 18 months.

Yet here they are talking about further delays. Clearly QF don't want the 787's yet due to traffic conditions and a re-focus on short haul expansion.


User currently offlineTayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7922 times:



Quoting Sydscott (Reply 18):
If the 787-8's are allocated to QF mainline domestic they will fly transcons rather than MEL-SYD. Otherwise you'll have the same issues that they had with turning around the A332's on such short time frames.

So you reckon the 767 will keep on flying for another 10-15 years or they'll downgrade to 737 - yet QF will have this large stockpile of 787s sitting around doing nothing?

Remember they've ordered 65+ 787s and have 30 odd 767s, QF in its wildest dreams can't expect that much growth internationally or between MEL/SYD-PER in the next 5-6 years to be carried on their new 787s all the while CityFlyer on the East Coast remains on 767s...

your reply lacks a certain degree of logic.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7868 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

QF ordered the 787-8s for JQ. As I understand it, QF will replace the 767s with JQ's A332s.

The 787-9s are for QF to launch new international services (or increase frequencies on existing).


User currently offlineAirvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7817 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
As I understand it, QF will replace the 767s with JQ's A332s

JQ only has 6 332's

There are 29 763's to be replaced (mainly on short haul intensive BNE-SYD-MEL)


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6999 posts, RR: 63
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7759 times:



Quoting 76er (Reply 9):
Because they got them for free as compensation for the A380 delays.

I think you are joking. (I hope you are!) But, for the record, Qantas ordered their first A330s in 2000 (the first was delivered in 2002) l-o-n-g before any delays to the A380. Subsequent top-up orders were more than likely connected to A380 delays but the A330 was a plane that Qantas wanted and ordered on its own merits.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7548 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 21):
There are 29 763's to be replaced (mainly on short haul intensive BNE-SYD-MEL)

Well they could always order the 787-3.  Wink

Or get together with NH and JL and push for a "787-8D".


User currently offlineTullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7550 times:

My understanding is that due to the delays in the 787 program QF can cancel their order without penalty. Clearly they do want to take most of thier order at some point but given the situation in the airline market at the moment and with QF's credit rating under threat they would prefer to wait.

I do not believe QF would be particularly interested in taking 788s for domestic use at this stage. As has been stated, they stand to have the same turnaround issues as experienced with the A332s as well as probably being an expensive option. Yes, they are lighter than the 763s but the 763s are largely fully depreciated so their cost to the bottom line is actually less than a brand new 787. The 788 will have a broader wingspan than the 763s so they will not be able to use all of the 763 gates in MEL and SYD meaning there would probably be scheduling hassles during peak times when QF are operating MEL-SYD every 15 minutes or so.



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,310,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,AT
25 Sydscott : QF won't have a large stockpile of 787's sitting around. In fact mainline won't have any until 2012 at the earliest. So by the time the replace the A
26 Par13del : I thought the A330's were originally purchased to replace the B-767, the only reason the full replacement did not take place was due to the "issues"
27 Sydscott : The 10 A333's were bought to replace 767's on Asian regional routes however the 4 original A332's were acquired for the domestic Cityflyer services.
28 The Coachman : Big problem with these routes going 787. It's called ETOPS...
29 Babybus : Doesn't sound very logical really. I'm surprised they aren't waiting with open arms for the new plane. It's small and can fly far. Maybe they are hav
30 Smi0006 : What was the cause of the slow trun times? I remember reading it was the fuel couldn't be pumped onboard fast enough is this true? Is there any reaso
31 Jadawin : I'm sure QF will figure out a creative solution rather than just defering or cancelling these orders. They do have the option of leasing these aircraf
32 DavidByrne : If QF intended to use the 787 on domestic routes, why would they use an ultra-long range 788 or 789 when they could use a 787-3 that is tailored for s
33 A350 : That's why I hope too see Airbus offering and QF purchasing GTF-powered A343s one day I'm fully aware of the low probability that this will happen. A
34 Post contains images Zkpilot : ETOPS is all but history... this aircraft will likely enter with 330mins divert. Sure the aircraft will have to take a Northerly Route that would add
35 TN486 : I have this very vague memory of reading somewhere that Boeing contracts specifically prohibit airlines selling their delivery slots. Is that so, or
36 Baroque : Would not even 400 nm get the 787 fuel consumption per pax close to that of the 346?
37 A350 : But what to do if you have to avoid a thunderstorm or just strong headwinds but you are already at the border of a no-go area? This may bring the deto
38 QFMel : Sad but true- while QF has been good at focussing on it's strengths with respect to it's route network, such a weighty order book lends itself to mor
39 Stitch : The FAA has effectively eliminated ETOPS restrictions for carriers who have a certain level of proven track record and level of emergency equipment a
40 Zkpilot : The types of storms that occur in the Southern Ocean whilst large and powerful aren't usually the type to affect flight ops significantly... ie lack
41 Tayser : current: 744: 24 744ER: 6 763ER: 29 332: 12 333: 10 on order/on the way: 380: 20 788: 15 789: 50 I think it's safe to say the A380s are going to repl
42 DavidByrne : Agree absolutely, but this was with 763s that were already in the fleet and significantly depreciated. If you were buying brand new aircraft, why wou
43 Tayser : 767s: ~250 seats. 788s ~210-250 seats & 789s ~250-290 seats. 33Xs: ~300 seats (no Skybed config).
44 Sydscott : Not really. QF have already expressed a wish to serve DXB, have served PEK/DEL/BOM before and have said in the past that they wish to serve Paris dai
45 Post contains links SunriseValley : If you are interested in reading the Australian EDTO standard you will find it here.. http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/ops/edto/nfrm0608os.htm
46 QFMel : Take your point, I was just being a tad sarcastic. Wasn't suggesting for a second that they'd purchase 788s/9s specifically for that purpose, agree t
47 Post contains links VirginFlyer : " target=_blank>http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/ops/...s.htm I'm pretty sure that this has now been implemented in the Civil Aviation Orders now. CAO
48 Sydscott : I think SIN-CDG is almost a certainty on QF mainline as soon as Open Skies with Europe is resolved. I'd also hazard a guess that it wouldn't effect t
49 Spkyflyer : I concur here, one only has to spend 15 minutes in Sydney to realise les francais(es) have arrived! Seriously though, the JV between BA and QF works
50 Sydscott : I did SYD-HKG-CDG-LHR-CDG-HKG-SYD on QF/AF last year and was surprised by the number of Australians connecting to AF's service. If it's the same in S
51 BoeingVista : Obviously not just Qantas, I was on an Emirates A380 yesterday SYD-AKL, load factor of about 20%, we could all have fitted on an E190.
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 To Charge People For Exit Row Seats posted Mon May 25 2009 15:43:27 by Trent1000
Cathay To Defer 330, 777 And 747 Planes posted Fri Apr 17 2009 06:26:59 by RedChili
Odds On Qantas To Defer 787 Deliveries posted Fri Mar 27 2009 09:11:23 by Baroque
QF To MEX Late 2009?!?! posted Sun Dec 7 2008 09:05:28 by Thestooges
Qatar To MEL / QF To Dubai posted Thu Oct 30 2008 03:41:49 by DJMEL
MEA Seeks Up To Eight 787s Or A350s posted Thu Oct 23 2008 13:41:20 by BA
Horizon In Talks To Defer 11 Q400 Deliveries posted Tue Oct 7 2008 17:59:50 by LAXintl
APA Asks DOJ To Defer OneWorld ATI Decision posted Wed Sep 17 2008 14:14:53 by WorldTraveler
QF To Shed 1500 Jobs. posted Wed Jul 16 2008 19:19:08 by Zkpilot
DL To Defer JFK-BOG posted Thu Jul 10 2008 07:33:50 by MasseyBrown