Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QF To Stick With 744ERs On DFW Route  
User currently offlineQFA787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 17440 times:

As indicated in this article:

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/trav...r-longest-haul-20110914-1k961.html

It would appear that "today's" 380 is not capable of performing this route(I assume with an adequate payload) and possible "future" 380s may be in the longer term. A little bit unclear as to what that actually means but surely the 380 today should be capable of this route if the 744ER is. It's a strange one and a bit of a mystery to me.

82 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 17180 times:

Quoting QFA787380 (Thread starter):
It would appear that "today's" 380 is not capable of performing this route(I assume with an adequate payload)

Not sure where you're deducing this from (though I haven't watched the video) -- don't see it mentioned in the article at all??

Today's A380s have more range than the 744ER's, so I can't imagine what the problem is... I'm personally in favour of moving to daily 747s over the next 12 months, then upgauging to daily A380s in 2013/14 when they get those last 2 A380s (which will definitely be capable of the flight). Longer term, maybe move to a daily nonstop 789 in both directions to SYD then a 3-4 weekly BNE flight to maintain capacity but facilitate the SYD market better.


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3197 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 17053 times:

Quoting QFA787380 (Thread starter):
It would appear that "today's" 380 is not capable of performing this route(I assume with an adequate payload) and possible "future" 380s may be in the longer term

No it didn't imply that at all. What it stated was the route can support more than a 787, which is of course true, you're plugging into one of the biggest feed hubs in the world, from the world's largest economy. The problem with the A380 I would suggest has more to do with even higher demand elsewhere, particularly premium heavy. They are tied up elsewhere and any shift of them would mean either LHR or LAX has to miss out on their best 'first' offering plus the extra capacity. The 3 Class A380s coming are needed, most likely for either Brisbane to LAX or Singapore to Frankfurt. My money is on BNE-LAX, though nothing in the article said they wouldn't go to DFW. This is also a strong possibility, I wouldn't rule it out.


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 17015 times:

The A380 should be able to do this route as well or better than the 744ER in a purely range/payload respect. However, I suspect that the A380 is premium heavy, more so than the 744 and the DFW market is not yet ready for that. I look for the flight to become daily, as QF and AA use this route to feed the eastern US, bypassing LAX and leaving it for more OD traffic. Eventually perhaps an A380, but not in the near future.

UAL


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 16944 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 3):
However, I suspect that the A380 is premium heavy, more so than the 744

While there are a lot of F/J seats, it's actually not really when compared to the 744ERs. 26% of seats in a 744ER are F/J seats, while under 20% of seats in a QF A380 are F/J. There are roughly the same number of W seats in both. I'm not sure exactly what the cosmetic configuration for the SYD-DFW flight is (it's sold as 3 class on a 4 class aircraft), but I doubt that the A380 would be more premium heavy in comparison.


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2087 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 16751 times:

Quoting QFA787380 (Thread starter):
It would appear that "today's" 380 is not capable of performing this route(I assume with an adequate payload) and possible "future" 380s may be in the longer term.

The article does not say this, it does say however that the 744ER has to stop at BNE and has been diverted sometimes, because it cannot make it.

Quoting QFA787380 (Thread starter):
A little bit unclear as to what that actually means but surely the 380 today should be capable of this route if the 744ER is.

It means that you need to read an article without that Boeing bias, for some reason it changes the facts written to something completely different to you.

Quoting QFA787380 (Thread starter):
It's a strange one and a bit of a mystery to me.

Sadly, for us who have read your topics and replies it is the same ole, same ole and no mystery at all.


One thing it does say is that the route is planned to go 380 in the future, sorry for the bad news my friend.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 4691 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 16694 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 4):
I'm not sure exactly what the cosmetic configuration for the SYD-DFW flight is (it's sold as 3 class on a 4 class aircraft),

This was discussed about 2 weeks ago, but I've forgotten the specifics of what was said.

F is sold as J
Some (not all) J is sold as W
Some (/all?) W is sold as Y to Platinum FFs etc

Only a relatively small number of W seats are actually available for sale. 24 of the top of my head.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 16613 times:

Once VH-OQA returns to service, there should be 12 A380s in regular QF service. There may be deferred maintenance to catch up on (not sure on that one), but I figure they should have 2 which can rotate into maintenance. Could they live with only one plane out of route service at any one time until VH-OQM arrives in approx 2013?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29686 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 16571 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Range at MZFW for a (569t TOW) A380-800 is 6500nm compared to 6250nm for the 747-400ER, however with QF's lower-density four class configuration, I should expect the A380-800 would have no real problems with diversions.

QF has deferred their last tranche of A380s (until the end of the decade?) so I am guessing they feel the 747-400 is the right amount of capacity on this route for the time being.


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5552 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 16489 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
QF has deferred their last tranche of A380s (until the end of the decade?) so I am guessing they feel the 747-400 is the right amount of capacity on this route for the time being.

Not quite.

QF have deferred 6 of the second order (which was for 8 total), they still have 2 of the first order to be delivered and 2 of the second order that are not deferred, giving a total of 14 at end of 2012/early 2013.

SYD/MEL-LHR will require 6 aircraft, SYD/MEL-LAX 4 aircraft (assumes second daily SYD-LAX stays B744) , for a total of 10. That leaves 4 for other routes/maintenance. Assume one aircraft for maintenance, that leaves 3 aircraft available. No body really known how they will be deployed, but some possibilities are:
2 on SYD-DFW
1 on SYD-AND OLD: Hong Kong - Kai Tak International (HKG / VHHH) (closed), China - Hong Kong">HKG
OR
3 on SYD-SIN-FRA

This leaves the B744ERs on SYD-LAX (2), SYD-JNB (2) AND SYD-SCL (1 +)
This leaves the B744s on SYD-BKK/NRT
Everything else is A330/B787

So it's quite feasable that SYD-DFW could be A380 by sometime in 2013. But who knows!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12420 posts, RR: 100
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 16447 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
QF has deferred their last tranche of A380s (until the end of the decade?) so I am guessing they feel the 747-400 is the right amount of capacity on this route for the time being.

I suspect the cash flow business case told QF that buying more A380s is too expensive short term.  

It could also be the aircraft availability. The best economics will be with daily operation of one aircraft type. I just do not see where/how QF could release the needed A380s for a daily SYD-DFW. I do see how the 744ERs will become available.

Ghad, I found old links noting that QF should have received their first 787s in 2008!
http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...-eight-787-deliveries-forward-0714

I'm happy to see the 787 finally delivered. 2014 for the first in QF's full colors (the 2012 deliveries will be JetStar per the links I found).

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineQFA787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 16300 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 1):
Not sure where you're deducing this from (though I haven't watched the video) -- don't see it mentioned in the article at all??
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 2):
No it didn't imply that at all.
Quoting col (Reply 5):
The article does not say this, it does say however that the 744ER has to stop at BNE and has been diverted sometimes, because it cannot make it.

well how do you all interpret this direct from the article?:

"Mr Strambi said the route may be served longer term by an Airbus A380 capable of making the 13,804-kilometre journey across the Pacific."

I will acknowledge that this is confusing but certainly can be read as the 380 now doesn't have the range for this route. Is he saying they may use the 380 at a later date and it is already capable for this route or is he saying they need a longer ranged 380 for this route in the future? My information is that one way or the other and it's not due to lack of capacity, is that QF are not comfortable with the 380 on this route.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 16259 times:

Quoting col (Reply 5):
One thing it does say is that the route is planned to go 380 in the future, sorry for the bad news my friend.

No it doesn't. It simply indicates that there is a possibility that the A380 will be well suited to the route.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 6):
This was discussed about 2 weeks ago, but I've forgotten the specifics of what was said.

I remember reading about it -- in the QF8 diversion thread I think (cbfed to go trawling for it). I still seem to remember it was around 60+ J seats overall including the F seats, which would mean it's still got more premium seats proportionately.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 7):
Could they live with only one plane out of route service at any one time until VH-OQM arrives in approx 2013?

They need 10 at bare minimum to take SIN-LHR and LAX to daily from SYD/MEL. There has been rotating mx ongoing at FRA (about 6 weeks iirc) so without OQA that's the capacity of the fleet. There's no way in my mind that they can fit a daily DFW rotation in with the initial 12. A380 to DFW is only going to happen in 2013-14 in my eyes.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
QF has deferred their last tranche of A380s (until the end of the decade?) so I am guessing they feel the 747-400 is the right amount of capacity on this route for the time being.

That's not necessarily true. They've deferred 6 because they've essentially cut 6 planes worth of flying in the BKK/HKG routes, so simply do not need them while they still have the newer 747s flying.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
I suspect the cash flow business case told QF that buying more A380s is too expensive short term.

Yet they can afford to be ordering 100+ A320s? If they needed the planes then they'd have taken them, but they just don't need to spend that money at this stage.


User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 824 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 16186 times:

Quoting QFA787380 (Thread starter):
It would appear that "today's" 380 is not capable of performing this route

Glad you brought this up, as I thought the same thing when I read the article.

If we go back to the arguments QF were having with Rolls Royce about the engine failure on the A380, QF stated the A380 was payload restricted on the SYD-LAX route with standard thrust settings on the Trents. This is why they have higher thrust version of the engine (Sorry, tried finding an article and couldn't).

If this is the case than it is plausible the A380 might not have the MoJo for the longer SYD-DFW route. Goes against our A.Net convention, but it might be the case.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 16150 times:

Quoting QFA787380 (Reply 11):
well how do you all interpret this direct from the article?:

"Mr Strambi said the route may be served longer term by an Airbus A380 capable of making the 13,804-kilometre journey across the Pacific."

I will acknowledge that this is confusing but certainly can be read as the 380 now doesn't have the range for this route. Is he saying they may use the 380 at a later date and it is already capable for this route or is he saying they need a longer ranged 380 for this route in the future? My information is that one way or the other and it's not due to lack of capacity, is that QF are not comfortable with the 380 on this route.

I interpret that as exactly what he says. That the route may end up with an A380 some time in the future. It doesn't say which A380s would be used -- it could easily be the current ones taking up the route in 2 years time.

The article also talks about their desire to bring the flight to daily first, so I think he's ruling out an A380 serving DFW until such a time that the capacity has reached a level where it can support the A380 -- effectively ruling out an A380 till at least the end of next year/2013 anyway...


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3197 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 16035 times:

Quoting travelhound (Reply 13):
If this is the case than it is plausible the A380 might not have the MoJo for the longer SYD-DFW route. Goes against our A.Net convention, but it might be the case.

Not quite as simple as that. The runway length at LAX is also a factor. They need the extra thrust to be able to carry the full payload + the extra fuel... otherwise they wouldn't get off the runway in time. DFW on the otherhand is a ginormous airport (I love that word but I don't think it is proper english!) and it has 4 runways that are over 4 km's long.(and additional smaller ones too!) LAX doesn't have any runways close to that length. Both cities can get very hot in the middle of summer and of course this effects take off performance. Hence the need for the extra thrust out of the big bird.


User currently offlineQFA787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 16025 times:

Quoting travelhound (Reply 13):
Glad you brought this up, as I thought the same thing when I read the article.

Thanks for your support! All I was trying to point out was the apparent double meaning here.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 14):
I interpret that as exactly what he says. That the route may end up with an A380 some time in the future. It doesn't say which A380s would be used -- it could easily be the current ones taking up the route in 2 years time.

Well, we interpret it differently. But if the 380 was really suited to this route I think there may have been something more decisive from QF before this.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 15946 times:

Quoting travelhound (Reply 13):
might not have the MoJo for the longer SYD-DFW route. Goes against our A.Net convention, but it might be the case.

Also goes against the official figures published by Boeing and Airbus regarding the range of these aircraft...

Quoting QFA787380 (Reply 16):
Thanks for your support! All I was trying to point out was the apparent double meaning here.

Sorry if we shot you down!! I can see where you're coming from, but this isn't a direct quote from Qantas and seems a bit far fetched for me. I think the wording is just the result of a journalist who doesn't know about the significance of the wording of that statement.


User currently offlinelegacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 15936 times:

[quote=QFA787380,reply=

I also concur with you. Strambi stated " The route may be served longer term by an A380 "capable". To me, this means that it is "incapable" at this time.

No need to throw up stats on the A380 capabilities.



John@SFO
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 15818 times:

Quoting legacyins (Reply 18):

[quote=QFA787380,reply=

I also concur with you. Strambi stated " The route may be served longer term by an A380 "capable". To me, this means that it is "incapable" at this time.

But that's not a direct quote in the article. It's a paraphrase by a reporter who has zero idea of the significance of what he's written (for heavens sake, in the video he claims that QF is "Customer Number 2" for the 787!)


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24325 posts, RR: 47
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 15814 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 15):
LAX doesn't have any runways close to that length. Both cities can get very hot in the middle of summer and of course this effects take off performance. Hence the need for the extra thrust out of the big bird.

You cannot compare atmospherics between inland DFW and coastal LAX as they are two vastly different situations.

LAX rarely seems temps above 25-30C as its at the ocean. Matter of fact with QF near midnight departures are much lower - tonight a summer evening its only 18C as of 9pm at the airport.
DFW temps at QF departure time can still be close to 40C - last night it was 36C at QF8 departure time of 10pm.

LAX has 12,000ft runways which are plenty including for other carriers on even longer ULH flights. DFW has the long runways for a reason - they know performance is killed by its slight altitude and high temps - even an MD-80 going to the West Coast (2.5hr flight) can struggle on the warmest days.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3197 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 15705 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):
You cannot compare atmospherics between inland DFW and coastal LAX as they are two vastly different situations.

True, just like some other hot places, like DXB also need 'extra' distance. But the runway length specifically was the reason why QF ordered the higher thrust version of the RR trent that LH and SQ didn't need. The other long flights operated out of lax either aren't quite as long has Sydney, or are on smaller lighter aircraft not needing quite as much runway as the big bus. That being said, outside the very hottest part of summer, that extra distance at DFW should help the 380 be able to make it to Australia. During the very hottest part...the A380 is obviously, like the 744 also...subject to some additional performance restrictions. It's really only an issue for the very largest of aircraft pushed to the very limits of their performance... like Australia- USA flights often do... and only under certain weather conditions. Not saying there is a problem with LAX's runways... just the 380 needed the extra thrust. If they were only flying it to Auckland, not pushing it as far as Melbourne, it wouldn't have been an issue.


User currently offlineeaglefarm4 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 395 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 15573 times:

As i have previously said on another airliner net post BNE-LAX will become a A380 flight 3 times a week from mid 2012.
Management contacts at QF BNE have been aware of this for past 6 months.Sure plans can change but as of a month ago they hadn't.

So Lufthansa i agree.



tourismman
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 15573 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 21):
But the runway length specifically was the reason why QF ordered the higher thrust version of the RR trent that LH and SQ didn't need.

So then we can eliminate the possibility that QF has 569t A380s? No one has actually known the answer to that so far.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 12):
They need 10 at bare minimum to take SIN-LHR and LAX to daily from SYD/MEL. There has been rotating mx ongoing at FRA (about 6 weeks iirc) so without OQA that's the capacity of the fleet. There's no way in my mind that they can fit a daily DFW rotation in with the initial 12. A380 to DFW is only going to happen in 2013-14 in my eyes.

I was thinking of a 3pw SYD-DFW-SYD A380 flight combined with the 4pw SYD-DFW-BNE-SYD 744ER flight, for a daily flight SYD->DFW and DFW->Oz. That would only require 1 A380 to be allocated to the route.


User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 824 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 15559 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 15):
The runway length at LAX is also a factor.

Yes, I now remember that as being a factor for the higher thrust engines.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 17):
Also goes against the official figures published by Boeing and Airbus regarding the range of these aircraft...

Yes, but those numbers are generic and not mission specific. In either case both aircraft are at the limits of their range. Theoretically, one more than the other!

Quoting QFA787380 (Thread starter):
It would appear that "today's" 380 is not capable
Quoting legacyins (Reply 18):
I also concur with you
Quoting qf002 (Reply 19):
But that's not a direct quote in the article.

Regardless, of how we interpret the article it does pose the question.


25 Post contains images col : "Mr Strambi said the route may be served longer term by an Airbus A380 capable of making the 13,804-kilometre journey across the Pacific." "Due to hea
26 Lufthansa : Cheeky! especially when you consider the dialect spoken to our north, particularly from the Singapore and Malaysian chinese is known as singlish and
27 Post contains images qf002 : They are coming in 2013/14. It has always been very publicly stated that the second order for the last 8 were for 569t aircraft -- frames 13 and 14 a
28 Post contains links cbrboy : Ditzyboy said at reply 156 to my post on QF8 that "the cosmetic config for this flight is 66J/26W/215Y".
29 Post contains images lightsaber : As an engine nut I should have remembered that detail. Of course the A388 would be a bad choice until the highest thrust is available and *known* to
30 qf002 : Cheers, couldn't be bothered to find it for myself!! That equates to about 21.5% of seats being sold as J -- still exceeding the proportion of F and
31 Post contains images RyanairGuru : In which case I think the myself and qf002 should be proud of our vague recollections about W and J
32 as739x : Can today's A380's make DFW-SYD? This route is longer the DXB-SFO, which EK stated hey are waiting for newer model A380's to fly. So if the A380 can't
33 Stitch : Yes, but with a significant payload reduction from the maximum rating. Probably on the order of 25-35 tons depending on how bad the winds are. So fig
34 gdg9 : When might that be?
35 thegeek : February 2011 IIRC. I don't have a link though. That's the critical issue. If this flight continues to perform well, it could be worth it. It may yet
36 gdg9 : 6 months from now? Wow.
37 lightsaber : EK's fittings should be heavier than QF's. Note: I do not know for certain. That will impact the payload/range as heavier fitttings are effectively n
38 Post contains images qf002 : TBH I don't know, and it certainly wouldn't have been one of my picks while they still have plenty of 747s (and like you said, it's only at 6 weekly)
39 eoinnz : I highly doubt that there are plans to fly it out of Brisbane from next year. The 12 aircraft that QF will have by the end of the year allow all the
40 qf002 : But there should also be capacity to add another flight of some sort. If they didn't want to add the complexity of another destination, then thinking
41 eoinnz : Aircraft 13 and 14 are arriving in 2013. Also next year will see the start of the reconfiguration of the first 12 aircraft (still with F but less J a
42 thegeek : Correct. Doh! I think that accounts for all the available A380s then. Until this is completed, I doubt we will see regular A380 service on any partic
43 jcs17 : I'm shocked they are not selling F on this flight. It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me as DFW has access to a lot of major markets wher
44 qf002 : I was thinking about #11 and #12 -- I thought that QF was expecting to take delivery of one aircraft (#12) early in 2012? I might be completely wrong
45 thegeek : ^ Good point. If there aren't A380 crew in HKG you can't have an occasional service. Unless it can be sustained for a while there is no point in posit
46 QF762 : How does NRT work when they fly both the B744 and A333/A332 there? (seemingly randomly at times) Does that muck-up crew scheduling?
47 qf002 : You wouldn't need to -- even though it would only be 3/wk, the rotation of crews in LAX (ie a SYD inbound crew flying the return BNE flight) would el
48 thegeek : Sorry, but you would unless you plan to shorten the slips at times that the BNE-LAX A380 flight is running. Which may affect your ability to respond
49 SUNRISEVALLEY : I believe the DOW spread on the A380 is in the order of about 8t with EK at the high end at about 300t.and probably QF close to the low end.
50 eoinnz : For pilots they would stay until the next aircraft they fly comes back up. For cabin crew, since they are endorsed on both, if a 747 went up with say
51 qf002 : I can't claim to be a scheduling expert, but but in my mind it would work in the same way as the NRT flights where there are 4 744's a week and 3 A33
52 thegeek : But you are talking about a variable frequency flight. I am sure that every time they have varied the frequency or aircraft type on SYD-NRT they have
53 eoinnz : In the case of occasional ops, the aircraft would still have 4 hours in HKG. Qantas would pax a crew up to operate the return the day before, and the
54 qf002 : No I'm not, I'm talking about a rumored 3x weekly BNE-LAX flight, which would be regularly scheduled on three days a week with 744s taking up the sla
55 eoinnz : Well you were talking about occasional, not regular services and I was just explaining how it would work, if they were to do it. As you can tell, it'
56 thegeek : However, that is no different the 744 service. I can see that. Ok, then what should be done with the 12th A380 then?
57 eoinnz : There is a Brisbane longhaul base. No deadheading required.
58 Post contains images qf002 : Oh I 100% agree that BNE-LAX would be a silly thing for them to do. I think that there are far better routes that the aircraft could be dedicated to
59 FlyboyOz : Doesn't QF put all A380s in SYD only? I know it's cos it has a huge hangar for A380 only. Doesn't QF use A380 to carry domestic pax from SYD to MEL an
60 thegeek : Sorry, I was thinking of flight crew, rather than cabin crew. Regarding cabin crew, there is an option of crewing SYD-LAX-BNE-LAX-SYD. No deadheading
61 eoinnz : Ah yes of course! They would pax a bit Yes Perfectly plausible trip. You would most likely to have 2 nights in Brisbane. The trip would probably look
62 qf002 : They are all based in SYD, and rotate in either LHR or LAX. There are also limited domestic ferry flights, but never revenue ones... The A380 has nev
63 gemuser : But have they ever operated them on domestic tags to international flights which carry domestic pax to/from international terminals? Gemuser
64 thegeek : I guess it depends on if deadhead to operate + operate to deadhead would be acceptable for the cabin crew. If you needed to overnight in Brisbane any
65 Airvan00 : I would say No. The flight numbers used are 6017 and 6018 so they are training/ferry flights
66 Post contains images qf002 : Nope. They gave up doing domestic tag style flights a while ago with the dropping of the SYD tag from the BNE-LAX flight, the only ones that still ex
67 ditzyboy : An A380 has operated a saleable BNE-SYD (international terminals) sector after the QF32 diverted to BNE the previous evening. A friend of mine worked
68 qf002 : It seems that I am mistaken then -- just out of curiosity when was this?
69 ditzyboy : 22 June was the BNE-SYD flight. Departure was 1245. It was operated by the cabin crew who brought it in from Singapore (they overnighted on the Gold
70 FlyboyOz : I know it's due volcano ash - but how can QF be able to sell the tickets so quickly for the A380 in the last minutes??? We didn't know that. I really
71 qf002 : I doubt that they actually sold many new tickets -- it would mainly have been rebooked pax who hadn't been able to get on other flights due to the ma
72 eaglefarm4 : July pax figures out 18 flights in July 2,788 got off in BNE and 2,128 in SYD SYD-DFW had 5,067 pax depart. Qantas announcement today stated imminentl
73 qf002 : No doubt this is true -- but did you have a link or something to this announcement? I can't find anything on the QF website, with a quick google sear
74 Post contains links eaglefarm4 : Sorry http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...antas/story-e6frg95x-1226152113513 8th paragraph. My info i posted a few weeks back was daily from 01 Dec
75 qfa787380 : and still no news of when the 380 may be plying this route.....................?
76 Post contains links qf002 : Cheers -- just found it on AusBT. Looks like it's the final authorisation of the AA JBA that's triggered this -- hopefully if they announce it in the
77 ZuluAlpha : Guessing when QF93 becomes daily with A380 equipment, we will see the increase of of the DFW flights.
78 5MillionMiler : Is DFW A380-ready yet? Seems to be conflicting reports. Now with several airlines there who are current or future 380 operators at DFW maybe it is wor
79 Post contains images qf002 : I think the airport itself is, but there are only double airbridge gates -- none of the three bridge gates that one would expect to see installed bef
80 jfk777 : DFW new international terminal is just a few years old, it was definitely designed for A380, this Texas where big is better. DFW is huge in terms of
81 5MillionMiler : Yes it would make sense to equip the "new" terminal with a third aerobridge. Wonder if they could make one that could go up to an A380 upper deck or d
82 Post contains images qf002 : Would be cool, but I doubt it would be compatible. The extended reach bridges are basically pretty inflexible in terms of length, and it would be exp
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...
AA 465 Return To BOS With Equipment On Stand-by posted Sat May 16 2009 05:25:55 by Dr.DTW
DL Decides To Stick With Its FC Meal Service posted Mon Mar 23 2009 07:12:41 by Burnsie28
Volvo Aero To Partner With P&W On GTF posted Mon Jul 14 2008 03:13:01 by EBGARN
EVA To Codeshare With ANA On New LAX-KIX Service posted Tue Feb 12 2008 11:24:30 by LAXintl
QF To Codeshare With EY? posted Tue Jun 26 2007 10:16:19 by ANstar
Click To Stick With Fokker Fleet posted Sat Jun 9 2007 12:59:31 by AMSSFO
QF To YVR Re-starting On Friday posted Tue Nov 28 2006 06:32:32 by Ktachiya
NWA Replacing DC10's With A332 On Mumbai Route posted Wed Sep 13 2006 09:51:28 by BOEING787
Thai Airways Going To Be Using A346 On JNB Route posted Sat Jul 29 2006 11:58:05 by SA744
El Al To Codeshare With DL On ATL-TLV posted Sun Feb 5 2006 15:18:52 by El Al 001