Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QF 380 Delivery Date Pushed Out 4 Years  
User currently offlinetayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1131 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 23844 times:

http://www.theage.com.au/business/qa...ending-by-400m-20120504-1y2ln.html

Quote:
Qantas delays A380 deliveries to cut spending by $400m

Qantas will cut spending by a further $400 million next financial year by delaying delivery of new A380 aircraft.
A review of the airline's maintenance operations had concluded, but a decision would not be announced until mid-May, Qantas said in a statement today.
The reduction cuts the carrier's planned expenditure on equipment in 2012-13 to $1.9 billion.
Qantas was to receive two new super jumbo A380s in early 2013, but will now take delivery of the aircraft in the 2016/17 financial year.
Another six A380s will be delivered to Qantas from 2018/19.

see link for rest of the article.

If the headline is correct, I guess it's now a lot clearer how much QF have purchased their A380s for (on a unit basis).

744ER on Dallas for a long while yet it seems...

178 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3624 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 23846 times:

Even though I am a big A380 fan, I think it is great, to see that the SYD-DFW route, is be handle by the last PA Clipper.

User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 23730 times:

There are release and presentations on the ASX website.

Also from the article;

"It will also bring back Boeing 747s on its Sydney-to-Perth route, plus more Airbus A330s on the Melbourne to Perth route."

He must now be keeping more 744's in the fleet. There is now way he can keep this schedule up, plus do SYD-PER, unless he does. So I wonder if we will see an announcement of more 744's to under-go the interior modification or whether maybe some early 787's will replace older 744's in QF mainline colours rather than go to Jetstar?


User currently offlineMilesDependent From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 23694 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 2):
"It will also bring back Boeing 747s on its Sydney-to-Perth route, plus more Airbus A330s on the Melbourne to Perth route."

Did not they just announce that they were getting rid of the 747s on SYD-PER? Seems a bit of a flip-flop strategy to me.


User currently onlinelegacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2077 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 23642 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 1):

Even though I am a big A380 fan, I think it is great, to see that the SYD-DFW route, is be handle by the last PA Clipper.


I'm a little confused, what do you mean " handled by the last PA clipper"



John@SFO
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4833 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 23446 times:

So no new A-tree-80 routes for QF. I'd imagine that HKG will increase possibly to daily with OQA now back.

With the deferment I wonder if QF plans to keep on an extra 2 744s now?



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3624 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 23434 times:

Quoting legacyins (Reply 4):
I'm a little confused, what do you mean " handled by the last PA clipper"





Well, the 747, was the last plane that Boeing design for Pan Am, from Juan Tripp special order. The 747 has a very prestigious blood line, which it shares with the Boeing 317 ( flying boat ), 307, 377 and 707. All these Clippers, are four engines powered, all are Boeing built, all was design for Pan Am and Juan Tripp. So the 747, has a truly amazing heritage, and it is great, to see an great airline like QF, ( well still great in my eyes) still using this great plane on one of their longest routes.


User currently offlineBA174 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 760 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23316 times:

The 747 was not really designed for PA. Boeing knew airlines such as QF, BA (BOAC), AF etc had the demand/interest for such a plane. PA was just one of many

User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23306 times:

Quoting MilesDependent (Reply 3):
Did not they just announce that they were getting rid of the 747s on SYD-PER? Seems a bit of a flip-flop strategy to me.

I don't think there was an announcement as such, just a quiet substitution happening in May to allow retirement of the 744's. With that now not happening that means at least 1 744 won't now be retired from the QF fleet. As I said in another thread QF will be short on 744 capacity even to maintain its current International network. So more than the 9 744's being refurbished must be sticking around.

I wonder if QF will keep some of the earlier 744's in older the 3 class configurations around while focusing on retiring the 4 class 744's?


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7229 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23281 times:

So does this illustrate the point that it is not always about how much more efficient a new frame is but the cost of financing of the new frame must always be considered, is QF attempting to replace the NWDC9 weekly threads 

User currently offlinekent350787 From Australia, joined May 2008, 965 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23233 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 2):
r whether maybe some early 787's will replace older 744's in QF mainline colours rather than go to Jetstar?

I thought they'd announced last year that some of the early 787s would got to mainline rather than all to Jet*?


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5665 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22885 times:

Quoting kent350787 (Reply 10):

I thought they'd announced last year that some of the early 787s would got to mainline rather than all to Jet*?

Did they? If so I didn't see it. I would be very interested if you could find the reference.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5586 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22821 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 11):
Did they? If so I didn't see it. I would be very interested if you could find the reference.

Me neither. I was sure the official line was that they were going to JetStar albeit that they were 'considering every possibility' - or something along those lines.

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
is QF attempting to replace the NWDC9 weekly threads

Haha out of interest are any other "majors" planning on keeping 747s beyond 2020? Admittedly the 74Es in QF's fleet are quite young compared to many other airline's frames.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 8):
I don't think there was an announcement as such

I think it was announced, but quietly slipped into the announcement re LHR and AKL-LAX.

Quoting tayser (Thread starter):
If the headline is correct, I guess it's now a lot clearer how much QF have purchased their A380s for

Not necessarily. They will probably pay (potentially significant) penalties for the deferment, unless they can convince Airbus to waive it in lieu of more compensation for Nancy or a big A320 order.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22760 times:

Maybe with all the domestic competition QF will put the 788 straight into domestic service to try and outdo DJ's new product. After all that's where QF claim their profit comes from.

Isn't it a waste of money removing the 744 from SYD-PER, only to re-instate it shortly after? And where will the extra domestic A330's come from?


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3031 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22745 times:

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 13):
Isn't it a waste of money removing the 744 from SYD-PER, only to re-instate it shortly after?

I'm sure it's just a matter of scheduling. Can't imagine there's any cost associated with it.


User currently onlineTruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22718 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 12):
Haha out of interest are any other "majors" planning on keeping 747s beyond 2020? Admittedly the 74Es in QF's fleet are quite young compared to many other airline's frames.

I would be surprised, and even though they are relatively young now, they won't be so in 2020!


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22699 times:

Although they save on costs, what do they loose in revenue?

The only logical explanation I can think of is that further 380's cannot be used profitably in the near future, otherwise Qantas would take them

Cheers

Ruscoe


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22689 times:

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 13):
Isn't it a waste of money removing the 744 from SYD-PER, only to re-instate it shortly after? And where will the extra domestic A330's come from?

The SYD-PER route. You'll note that they only said MEL-PER would be getting additonal A330 service so it makes sense for them to take the A333 that was operating some SYD-PER and stick it on MEL-PER instead.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 11):
Did they? If so I didn't see it. I would be very interested if you could find the reference.

The last presentation they made said that the 787's would be allocated based on where the best return was. Now the best return on an aircraft could be made by swapping an old 744 with a new 787. So it could be that some 787's make it into QF mainline earlier than we expect.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 12):
Not necessarily. They will probably pay (potentially significant) penalties for the deferment, unless they can convince Airbus to waive it in lieu of more compensation for Nancy or a big A320 order.

I think they've done their big A320 order and I'd not be surprised if part of that was allowing for further A380 deferments. Still, I would have thought QF could have used these 2 A380's on schedule but obviously AJ has another plan in mind.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3031 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22665 times:

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 15):
I would be surprised, and even though they are relatively young now, they won't be so in 2020!

They're likely low cycle though, no?


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5665 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22629 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 16):
The only logical explanation I can think of is that further 380's cannot be used profitably in the near future, otherwise Qantas would take them

It's not quite that simple. While not all the details are public we do know QF have a capital expenditure crisis, AJ said so. Therefore given the limited capital expenditure available it may be that QF would make more money by concentrating resources into the domestic market, so B787 get put into domestic service earlier than expected and don't get deferred and A380s get deferred and NOT put into the international market.

So it could be that the A380s could be used profitably, but B788 can be used more profitably and because of the capital expenditure limits QF can't have both at this time.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22605 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 19):
It's not quite that simple.

Yes I agree.
Maybe Qantas has used the financing they arranged for the 380's to get Jetstar Japan flying?
Pure speculation.

Ruscoe


User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 938 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22590 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 16):

Well, there's the financing aspect of it as well.

They could bring the new aircraft in, but it might require QF to go to the markets for additional finance. In the current climate the cost of money might be a little too high.

I suspect there are a combination of factors contributing to delaying delivery. Four years seems to be a long time though!

Has the success of Virgin Australia internationally impacted QF's plans?


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5586 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22572 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 20):
Maybe Qantas has used the financing they arranged for the 380's to get Jetstar Japan flying?

Or maybe a fleet of flying unicorns   

Seriously, QF couldn't use financing secured for an aircraft (which - presumably - would have that aircraft named as collateral) for anything else.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 22339 times:

This is a bit of a shock. Doesn't this mean that 744s will be making a stop in BNE from DFW for years to come, as well as probable under capacity on that route?

Is the outlook for the airline industry really so bleak that they shouldn't be buying what is the most efficient aircraft available? Clearly not if they can get the money for Jetstar Japan.

Triple sell recommendation on those Qantas shares. Virgin may be a buy by default.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 22283 times:

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 13):

I'm pretty certain the scheduling of aircraft doesn't ware any additional cost... The only issues I would say revolve around crew scheduling...

This 4 year delay certainly is a shock considering QF deferred the last 6 frames and now delay another 2...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineallrite From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 2084 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 22736 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 23):
Is the outlook for the airline industry really so bleak that they shouldn't be buying what is the most efficient aircraft available? Clearly not if they can get the money for Jetstar Japan.

It's the balance between operating costs (efficiency) and capital costs. I thought the Jetstar Japan capital costs were rather low (a few A320s which they can shuffle between the existing Jetstars), a joint venture and perhaps they can access different sources for it (Japanese banks?).



Applying insanity to normality
User currently offlineboeingfever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 53
Reply 26, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 22691 times:

I guess this gives QF the option if they do release a extended version or something else within the next 5-10yrs.

I guess til then to fill the gap for the old 744's they will order (6-10) 748's.



Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 23069 times:

Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 26):

Hopefully the delay would mean introduction of the A389 which is due in 2020...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 28, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 22946 times:

Quoting travelhound (Reply 21):
suspect there are a combination of factors contributing to delaying delivery. Four years seems to be a long time though!

Well they did put off the final 6 A380's for 8 odd years.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 21):
Has the success of Virgin Australia internationally impacted QF's plans?

I wouldn't have thought so. This is more about them trimming capex back a bit. Even with the A380 deferrals they will still be committed to $1.9 billion of capex in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. That's alot of $$$ in any market.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 20):
Maybe Qantas has used the financing they arranged for the 380's to get Jetstar Japan flying?

The A320's are all leased financed so I very much doubt that.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 27):
Hopefully the delay would mean introduction of the A389 which is due in 2020...

That's the announcement I'm waiting for and would make logical sense for the final 6 A380's. But I guess they will decide that further down the track.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 24):
This 4 year delay certainly is a shock considering QF deferred the last 6 frames and now delay another 2

Realistically it reinforces what I, and some others, have always suspected which is that QF erred when they exercised their options for the last 8 A380's. They would have been better off replacing the remaining 744's with a combination of 787's, 777's or A350's and not have committed to the number that they have.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 23):
Doesn't this mean that 744s will be making a stop in BNE from DFW for years to come, as well as probable under capacity on that route?

Actually no. If anything this reinforces what Alan Joyce said a little while ago about DFW being an ideal 787 route. Sure it's a drop in capacity but could be made up for by an increase in frequency. I'd say this makes DFW even more of a candidate for QF mainlines first ULH 787 route.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 22719 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 28):
If anything this reinforces what Alan Joyce said a little while ago about DFW being an ideal 787 route. Sure it's a drop in capacity but could be made up for by an increase in frequency. I'd say this makes DFW even more of a candidate for QF mainlines first ULH 787 route.

When will the 787s reach QF mainline? I guess I am assuming the DFW route won't go to JQ, but I think that is a reasonable assumption. I'd also assume that the DFW route won't be the first one the 787s are used on.

I imagine if that is the equipment they will use, there will be a BNE-DFW flight as well as a SYD-DFW flight. What about MEL-DFW? The latter would likely be beyond the 788 and even the 789 might take restrictions.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 22726 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 28):
Well they did put off the final 6 A380's for 8 odd years.

Not quite. The 6 frames deferred to 2019/20 were 2014-2016 deliveries, so the deferment was only 4-5 years...

Anyway, this is disturbing news... There will have to be further route cuts to absorb this contraction in capacity, my prediction is FRA, with the night landing restrictions getting the blame. Perhaps we could also see early returned JQ A332's going to international, with a shift to 744 flying into PER to retire 767's??


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 31, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 22166 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 30):
Anyway, this is disturbing news... There will have to be further route cuts to absorb this contraction in capacity, my prediction is FRA, with the night landing restrictions getting the blame. Perhaps we could also see early returned JQ A332's going to international, with a shift to 744 flying into PER to retire 767's??

Disturbing indeed...

Dropping the SYD-SIN-FRA route certainly would mean a end of an era for QF in Europe with the UK only sole remaining route in their network connecting to the UK / Europe... Let's hope your predictions aren't true...

We can now only assume QF have seen the light and realise an aircraft is needed to fill the gap between the A330 and A380 once the B744 fleet is retired in 2020...?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineairvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 21842 times:

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 13):

Isn't it a waste of money removing the 744 from SYD-PER, only to re-instate it shortly after?

The 744 has not been removed from SYD-PER. OJD has been flying on 581/582 for the last 3 months. It was announced that the 744 would be removed from SYD-PER but that hasn't happened (yet).


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 756 posts, RR: 5
Reply 33, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 21743 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 8):
As I said in another thread QF will be short on 744 capacity even to maintain its current International network. So more than the 9 744's being refurbished must be sticking around.

The other alternative is that QF intend to further contract their loss making international operations and wont need to maintain/increase capacity.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 16):
The only logical explanation I can think of is that further 380's cannot be used profitably in the near future, otherwise Qantas would take them

I remember the 380's were originally going to be financed by existing cash flows - very healthy 5 to 10 years ago but not now (not for international at least).

Quoting EK413 (Reply 24):
This 4 year delay certainly is a shock considering QF deferred the last 6 frames and now delay another 2...

I think this confirms that QF are loosing interest in international long haul and want to concentrate on the Asian region.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 34, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 21571 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 33):
I think this confirms that QF are loosing interest in international long haul and want to concentrate on the Asian region.

Under which brand though...? QF, JQ or Red Q...?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 35, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 21565 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 30):
Anyway, this is disturbing news... There will have to be further route cuts to absorb this contraction in capacity, my prediction is FRA, with the night landing restrictions getting the blame. Perhaps we could also see early returned JQ A332's going to international, with a shift to 744 flying into PER to retire 767's??

I've just finished readying this;

http://www.4-traders.com/QANTAS-AIRW...rie-Australia-Conference-14312173/

There is a significant paragraph re the 744's;

"In the air, we have 12 Airbus A380s and 25 Boeing 747s, nine of which are in the process of being fitted with our award winning A380 kit and six of which are soon entering retirement."

So we have a total of 25 at the moment with 6 heading for retirement = 19 units remaining. 9 of those will be fited with the A380 interior in a 3 class configuration. We know that;

- New Interior - will be 6 x 744ER plus VH-OJS, OJT and OJU. So what does that leave?
- Retirements - VJ-OJB, VH-OJN and VH-OJO.
- 2 class 744's - VJ-OJD
- 3 class 744's - VH-OJA, OJC, OJE, OJI and OJJ
- 4 class 744's - VH-OJF, OJG, OJH, OJL, OJM, OJP, OJQ, OEB

So out of the 10 other 744's remaining in the QF fleet for the time being I'd not be surprised to see the 2 class 744 and the 5, 3 class 744's stay while they pare back the remaining 4 class 744's.

With the re-fited 744's and assuming they keep the existing 2 class and 3 class birds in the fleet that would see only 3 4 class 744's left to fill the gaps. That's more than sufficient to cover the network.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 21449 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 29):

The issue isn't 5 years down the track once the 787's have landed at mainline, the issue is next year and 2014. They simply don't have the planes to retain services, and it's going to be near impossible to make a comeback in 2015/16 if QF drops out of markets today. Other airlines will simply scoop up the traffic and fill up the market.

The 787 was due to reach mainline until the 789 arrives in 2014-early 2015. They are apparently very flexible, so they could potentially take 4-5 787-8's to use to DFW and potentially BNE-LAX or SYD-SIN-FRA or similar next year or early 2014, I guess. But JQ seems to be the priority, so I doubt it.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 31):
Dropping the SYD-SIN-FRA route certainly would mean a end of an era for QF in Europe with the UK only sole remaining route in their network connecting to the UK / Europe... Let's hope your predictions aren't true...

I hope so too! But based on the evidence, FRA appears to be the 744 route most likely to go. I can't see QF dropping LAX/DFW flights, JNB is supposed to be extremely strong, NRT wouldn't free up enough frames and SCL has only just started...

Quoting airvan00 (Reply 32):
The 744 has not been removed from SYD-PER. OJD has been flying on 581/582 for the last 3 months. It was announced that the 744 would be removed from SYD-PER but that hasn't happened (yet).

Actually, today is the last 744. Tomorrows flight is a 767 (as all Saturday's have been), and the flight doesn't operate on Sundays. Monday is still in the schedule as an A330...


User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 37, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 21343 times:

These birds must already be in early build stage so I wonder if someone else will announce a 2 plane A380 order shortly like the LH one last year for some of the other deferments

User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 21309 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 36):
I hope so too! But based on the evidence, FRA appears to be the 744 route most likely to go. I can't see QF dropping LAX/DFW flights, JNB is supposed to be extremely strong, NRT wouldn't free up enough frames and SCL has only just started...

How many frames are required to operate the FRA route 3 frames..? Probably another codeshare agreement in the pipeline with IB...?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5586 posts, RR: 5
Reply 39, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 21135 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 23):
This is a bit of a shock. Doesn't this mean that 744s will be making a stop in BNE from DFW for years to come, as well as probable under capacity on that route?
Quoting Sydscott (Reply 28):
Actually no. If anything this reinforces what Alan Joyce said a little while ago about DFW being an ideal 787 route. Sure it's a drop in capacity but could be made up for by an increase in frequency. I'd say this makes DFW even more of a candidate for QF mainlines first ULH 787 route.

The other option could be to make BNE-LAX a daily 787 (only requiring two frames) and then BNE-DFW-BNE 3x 747. That would require one frame, effectively freeing up a 747. That (to me) seems more likely than dedicating 4 787s to DFW (daily from SYD and BNE, eg) since it means they can get more 787s to JQ.

After all, unless they plan on pushing the 767s much further they need the JQ A330s at mainline.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinekent350787 From Australia, joined May 2008, 965 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 20845 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 11):
Did they? If so I didn't see it. I would be very interested if you could find the reference.

Searching I suspect I may have misremembered (possibly influenced by anet kite flying). Late last year AJ was talking about the flexibility to move the 787 between Jetstar and QF as needed, so perhaps I read this as something it wasn't


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 20735 times:

So who is happy to get these slots. EK?

User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 5
Reply 42, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 20802 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting qf002 (Reply 36):
I hope so too! But based on the evidence, FRA appears to be the 744 route most likely to go. I can't see QF dropping LAX/DFW flights, JNB is supposed to be extremely strong, NRT wouldn't free up enough frames and SCL has only just started...

QF's Senior Vice President for the Americas and the Pacific, Wally Mariani, recently gave and interview in Chile whereby he stated that QF's goal is to fly the Sydney-Santiago route daily in the coming months. It will be interesting to see if QF actually increases frequency on the route in the coming months.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 20652 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 36):
The issue isn't 5 years down the track once the 787's have landed at mainline, the issue is next year and 2014. They simply don't have the planes to retain services, and it's going to be near impossible to make a comeback in 2015/16 if QF drops out of markets today. Other airlines will simply scoop up the traffic and fill up the market.

Pretty much what I was saying. They may also defer some planned retirements, and they have some other planes on the way (330s & 737s), so it may not be quite as bleak as what you are thinking there, but still...


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 20594 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 41):
So who is happy to get these slots. EK?

Which slots are you indicating...? QF FRA slots...?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5586 posts, RR: 5
Reply 45, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 20397 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 44):
Which slots are you indicating...? QF FRA slots...?

I think he meant A380 delivery slots



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 46, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19909 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 45):

Cheers...

Hope there is no further cuts in the pipeline... I've heard MEL will have 400 engineering jobs axed... Can we confirm...?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 756 posts, RR: 5
Reply 47, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19684 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 34):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 33):
I think this confirms that QF are loosing interest in international long haul and want to concentrate on the Asian region.

Under which brand though...? QF, JQ or Red Q...?

EK413

I suspect it will be JQ initially then maybe some derivative of Red Q further down the track. I probably should qualify my original statement to QF losing interest on long haul routes that are marginal and are in competition against ME carriers. LHR has been reduced to 2 services daily - unthinkable only a few years ago. QF seems to have lost its appetite for Europe. I also get the feeling that QF are not just deferring 380 frames but they just don't want any more and will use 788/9's for further route development.

Its a difficult call to judge which way QF are going - not too sure they know themselves.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7229 posts, RR: 8
Reply 48, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 18743 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 34):
Under which brand though...? QF, JQ or Red Q...?

If the decision is being made by financial experts they could care less, they see numbers not airline names, a/c types, traditions, spotters etc.


User currently offlineHeavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 18678 times:

G'day

Quoting par13del (Reply 48):
If the decision is being made by financial experts they could care less, they see numbers not airline names, a/c types, traditions, spotters etc.

And most important - A-nutters  

Cheers

Peter



"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5586 posts, RR: 5
Reply 50, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 18155 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 48):
If the decision is being made by financial experts they could care less, they see numbers not airline names, a/c types, traditions, spotters etc.

Or paying passengers?

I'm sure someone smarter than myself would crunch the numbers and figure that JQ is the right vehicle for Asia, but at the same time I know that a lot of people would opt not to fly them when there are full service alternatives.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 51, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 17440 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 34):
Under which brand though...? QF, JQ or Red Q...?

All of the above?

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 35):
So out of the 10 other 744's remaining in the QF fleet for the time being I'd not be surprised to see the 2 class 744 and the 5, 3 class 744's stay while they pare back the remaining 4 class 744's.

I think it's highly possible that they will keep a few more 744's on... They will most likely retire the 2/3 class birds though, and opt to reconfigure the existing 4 class frames, given that the 2/3 class frames are all already 21+ years old, -OJA is already 23... Perhaps retain 3-4 frames built in 1992-93, and give them a refresh. They'd last till 2015ish when they could be replaced by 787's (either -8's from JQ, or new build -9's). Their fleet would then stand at 12-13 planes, allowing them to retire 6-7 additional 1989-91 build 744's over the next year or so.

Quoting kent350787,reply=40Late last year AJ was talking about the flexibility to move the 787 between Jetstar and QF as needed, so perhaps I read this as something it wasn't][/quote]

I think you are referring to comments made by Lyell Strambi last September. He essentially stated that, although the plan as it stands is for JQ to get the 787-8's, the Group is extremely flexible in their plans, and that no final decisions had been made at that point. I imagine they can change their minds based on conditions/forecasts right up until the seats are being ordered and the plane painted, given that the fittings/options will be identical across both fleets for maximum efficiency.

[quote=SCL767
(Reply 42):
QF's goal is to fly the Sydney-Santiago route daily in the coming months.

Wow, interesting. I wouldn't have picked this route for such rapid expansion, but like you say, it will be interesting to watch.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 52, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16803 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 47):

I'm optimistic of JQ being the right product, probably short term as you have already mentioned and Red Q further down the track which more than likely is the right candidate for the mission...

Seems to me VA have bruised QF and this is just the beginning...?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently onlineTruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16647 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 52):
Seems to me VA have bruised QF and this is just the beginning...?

How though? If it were domestically, I would agree, but VA has had basically no significant international growth since the 777's first arrived. All they have done is partner up. Sure this would take away some of QF market, but not nearly as much as if VA flew the route/s themselves and therefore added extra capacity.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16594 times:

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 53):

I'll look at from the introduction of the new Virgin, VA as a new identity... QF till late had no real competition on the SYD-PER route... QF had the US of A routes to them selves until VA & DL jumped on the route and "rumors" of VA launching Asian routes... Let's not forget there's talk of VA dumping 18% capacity on the domestic market too...

These are just assumptions...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 5
Reply 55, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16544 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting qf002 (Reply 51):
Wow, interesting. I wouldn't have picked this route for such rapid expansion, but like you say, it will be interesting to watch.

QF is experiencing strong LFs on the route already, (exceeding that of QF's terminated SYD-EZE service). Qantas originally stated that it wants to serve SCL daily; however given QF's current situation, I wouldn't be surprised if QF only adds one or two additional frequencies on the route this year.

Quote:
In early 2012, Qantas will commence direct flights between Sydney and Santiago, one of Latin America’s main gateways and home port of Qantas’ oneworld™ partner LAN Airlines.* This service will operate three times a week, using a three-class Boeing 747 reconfigured with Airbus A380 product, and replace Qantas’ current direct flights between Sydney and Buenos Aires. Over time, Qantas will look to increase the frequency of Santiago services to daily.
Qantas to Fly to Santiago: Building a Stronger Qantas - New International Strategy


User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12187 times:

Am I mistaken or did Airbus recently announce it would take 4 years to design out all the cracking issues going on?

QF delays out 4 years?



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 938 posts, RR: 12
Reply 57, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11852 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 30):

They could simPly lease more A330's. I suspect the possibility to finance new aircraft purchases (ie A380's) to be problematic over the shorter term, where as the lessors could be having problems trying to place new build A330's (HGW). Could be a few nice deals out there warranting the change in plans.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4990 posts, RR: 5
Reply 58, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 11164 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 46):
Hope there is no further cuts in the pipeline... I've heard MEL will have 400 engineering jobs axed... Can we confirm...?

These would be domestic engineering jobs?


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4990 posts, RR: 5
Reply 59, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 11055 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 29):
I imagine if that is the equipment they will use, there will be a BNE-DFW flight as well as a SYD-DFW flight. What about MEL-DFW? The latter would likely be beyond the 788 and even the 789 might take restrictions

According to PIANO X when the 788 gets to 116t DOW it should do DFW-SYD which will be typically a 16hr sector, with a 242 passenger load . No room for anything much more except a tonne or two of fuel for a bad day. Fuel burn would be ~78.7t.
DFW-MEL is 77L territory.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 60, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 11001 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 58):

Heavy maintenance which is currently under review...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinetayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10106 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 59):
DFW-MEL is 77L territory.

and would be really nice if AA got some 77Ls to compliment their 77Ws.


User currently offlineJQflightie From Australia, joined Mar 2009, 982 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9974 times:

Quoting kent350787 (Reply 10):
Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 13):

Qantas has msade it very clear they dont want another 'Sub-Fleet' this would come at a cost, we will be waiting for the 787-9 as it does what QF wants very well... on paper...The 5 year plan is about streamlining ops, and getting rid of spending that is not needed... so you wont see a 787-8 in mainline colours.......



Next Trip: PER-DPS-LOP-CGK-KUL-PVG-LHR, LCY-MAD-VLC, BCN-LYS-TLS-IST-JED-KUL-SGN-CAN-MEL
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9841 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 59):
According to PIANO X when the 788 gets to 116t DOW it should do DFW-SYD which will be typically a 16hr sector, with a 242 passenger load . No room for anything much more except a tonne or two of fuel for a bad day. Fuel burn would be ~78.7t.

But the 789 would have some wiggle room on DFW-SYD then. Ok, thanks.

With nearly every seat being filled last time I looked at the stats, I'd say there is every reason to think that a daily 789 SYD-DFW + 3pw 789 BNE-DFW would be under capacity into DFW.


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5665 posts, RR: 6
Reply 64, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9721 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 63):
But the 789 would have some wiggle room on DFW-SYD then. Ok, thanks.

With nearly every seat being filled last time I looked at the stats, I'd say there is every reason to think that a daily 789 SYD-DFW + 3pw 789 BNE-DFW would be under capacity into DFW.

Seeing the longer range A380s have been deferred we COULD see B789s on :
SYD-DFW
BNE-DFW
MEL-AKL-DFW
All daily?

That will do!  

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9625 times:

I don't see much merit in MEL-AKL-DFW if they can't make AKL-LAX work. Indeed, a 744 (non-ER) has the range to make this work and they haven't wanted to do it.

I'm much more sceptical about AJ's strategy of cutting back on the international business than you. It will mean the A-scale employees remain and costs remain high unless they do some involuntary redundancies.


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5665 posts, RR: 6
Reply 66, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 9557 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 65):
It will mean the A-scale employees remain and costs remain high unless they do some involuntary redundancies.

From Sunrisevalley above the B789 can't do DFW-MEL so go via AKL, with MEL traffic behind it and no AKL-DFW competition (AKL-IAH has) it ought to work. With no A380 on SYD-DFW it'll be needed.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 65):
It will mean the A-scale employees remain and costs remain high unless they do some involuntary redundancies.

I don't follow this, could you explain what you mean a bit more, please?

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 67, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 9556 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 65):

I aint a great big fan of the guy but I must say his certainly calling the shots & turning our national carrier in the right direction... Concentrate on the key profitable routes & pass on the non profitable routes to JQ...

Fingers crossed the strategy works otherwise QF becomes history...

EK413

[Edited 2012-05-04 22:26:41]


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 68, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 9472 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 66):
From Sunrisevalley above the B789 can't do DFW-MEL so go via AKL, with MEL traffic behind it and no AKL-DFW competition (AKL-IAH has) it ought to work.

Flying MEL-SYD-DFW would be virtually the same length (ie there's about 60nm difference). SYD is more hassle to connect through, but the Master Plan should fix that by 2019. If QF can't make AKL-LAX work then starting a longer flight isn't the solution. The airline cannot command premium yields out of AKL, and these are needed for a route like this to work. NZ will probably get the advantage anyway, starting ORD as an early 787 route alongside a codeshare to IAH...

AA is far more likely, given it could be a potential 77E route, moving towards a 787 later this decade/early next.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 9457 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 66):
From Sunrisevalley above the B789 can't do DFW-MEL so go via AKL, with MEL traffic behind it and no AKL-DFW competition (AKL-IAH has) it ought to work. With no A380 on SYD-DFW it'll be needed.

Why not ask them to go via SYD/BNE? I don't reckon you will get enough NZ pax to justify the flight.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 66):
I don't follow this, could you explain what you mean a bit more, please?

What I mean is that the portion of crews on legacy employment conditions will be higher if the business is smaller so therefore the CASK will be higher than it would be if QF were bigger with more crews on QCCA conditions or whatever it is called.

Any clearer?


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5665 posts, RR: 6
Reply 70, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9269 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 69):
What I mean is that the portion of crews on legacy employment conditions will be higher if the business is smaller so therefore the CASK will be higher than it would be if QF were bigger with more crews on QCCA conditions or whatever it is called.

Thanks.

But is it accurate? All of the legacy crew I knew are gone, not a single one left, something to do with the old, old super scheme and age 55-60 retirement. What if they forced all legacy crew into domestic and expanded QCCA to cover all international?

I guess we don't really have enough information to make the call.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9258 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 70):
All of the legacy crew I knew are gone

What? Didn't they establish the multiple pay grades only about 4.5 years ago? If that is true it is news to me.


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5665 posts, RR: 6
Reply 72, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9268 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 68):
AA is far more likely, given it could be a potential 77E route, moving towards a 787 later this decade/early next.

Why? What can AA do that QF can't in NZL?
One of the reasons MEL-AKL-LAX was started was range issues with the B747 and it worked until they became irrelevant, see no reason it can't work again, unless the B789 (or something else QF buys) gains enough range, then of course it would go non stop.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 73, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9180 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 72):

What benefit is there for MEL passengers taking this flight over other options though? And what benefits are there for QF over directing passengers through SYD or BNE, helping to bolster loads on those flights at the same time? There is literally no time saving, and the flight probably wouldn't even be a same plane service (going by how QF approached the A332 ops for AKL-LAX). QF cannot making NZ work, given that they have now passed all but some of their Tasman business over to JQ, and there is no reason why a flight to DFW would work any better than their flights to LAX. The efficiency savings provided by the 787 is offset by the longer flight time, and QF simply cannot access the corporate and high end leisure travellers they need to sustain a service like this.

The introduction of MEL-AKL-LAX was a looong time ago, so it's really not a comparable example IMO. The industry and the company were both very different a couple of decades ago.

The logic behind my AA suggestion has a couple of layers.

1. They will probably have a much lower cost base than QF coming out of BK. QF would be crazy not to utilise this to maximise profits on marginal routes, given the two are in a JV across the Pacific.

2. AA has the right planes, and they have them now. They could start a DFW-AKL service in the next 12-18 months if they wanted to, using 77E's. QF realistically won't have 789 capacity available until 2016-18, assuming 2014-15 introduction, and remembering that there will be routes that are much higher on the list of priorities which will get the 787 first.

3. AA would provide a radically different brand to QF, which could prove very successful in NZ. I don't know how much truth there is in claims that NZers will favour NZ over QF in a comparison, but AA gets past any issues with marketing an Australian airline to NZers. Not sure how strong a point it is, but QF seems to get a bad rap in NZ, so AA might be a better brand to use...


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5665 posts, RR: 6
Reply 74, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9130 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 71):
What? Didn't they establish the multiple pay grades only about 4.5 years ago? If that is true it is news to me.

I don't know the details, but there was a difference in pay & conditions between long term staff and newer hire staff as far back as 2000, that's what I think of as legacy staff. This was from very, very senior cabin staff, at that time who are now all retired because of the retirement provisions. I was sure Jet Connect and QCCA or similar sorts of things, have been around since before 2007, I could have it all ballsed up though.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently onlineTruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9041 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 54):
I'll look at from the introduction of the new Virgin, VA as a new identity... QF till late had no real competition on the SYD-PER route... QF had the US of A routes to them selves until VA & DL jumped on the route and "rumors" of VA launching Asian routes... Let's not forget there's talk of VA dumping 18% capacity on the domestic market too...

The point in question was regarding internationally. No doubt VA have had impact on QF domestic (though to what scale, not sure). VA has impacted on the USA routes, no doubt, but that was many years ago, and there has been no impact since then. AUH has hardly been a raging success by all accounts and Asia routes, to be fair, have been rumoured for many years.


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5665 posts, RR: 6
Reply 76, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9031 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 73):

The introduction of MEL-AKL-LAX was a looong time ago, so it's really not a comparable example IMO.

I disagree. I think it is EXACTLY comparable, in the specific circumstances, applicable here.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 73):
They will probably have a much lower cost base than QF coming out of BK

Maybe, maybe not. That remains to be seen. If AA fails to abrogate their CBA's, they may not come out of BK! (Extreme, I know, but not impossible)

Quoting qf002 (Reply 73):

2. AA has the right planes, and they have them now

My understanding is that AAs B77E are pretty tight, given you would require 2 aircraft for daily service.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 73):
3. AA would provide a radically different brand to QF, which could prove very successful in NZ. I don't know how much truth there is in claims that NZers will favour NZ over QF in a comparison, but AA gets past any issues with marketing an Australian airline to NZers. Not sure how strong a point it is, but QF seems to get a bad rap in NZ, so AA might be a better brand to use...

Again, maybe, maybe not. The QF/NZ thing is part of the traditional Trans Tasman rivalry, I can't see AA being able to get much advantage from that. Aussies & Kiwis enjoys having a go at each other, but it's not that serious.

Three points you did not consider:
1) I doubt the route has enough pax to stand alone, which is one of the reasons why I coupled it with MEL.
2) Is there no where else more profitable that AA could deploy a B77E on than a stand alone service to AKL? I really doubt that!
3) Despite what some people on here say, the JBA would have to re-approved by the ACCC, either as an amendment or new approval if AA operate their own metal under it. I have read the decision, AA NOT operating their own metal was one of the basic reasons it was approved.

Who knows how it will all work out! The MEL-AKL-DFW suggestion was purely on the basis of the B789 not having the legs for MEL-DFW and we ALL know how Victorians hate connecting via SYD.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9029 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 74):
there was a difference in pay & conditions between long term staff and newer hire staff as far back as 2000

Sounds like history has repeated itself.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8994 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 76):
I disagree. I think it is EXACTLY comparable, in the specific circumstances, applicable here.

20 years ago, QF was flying tags all over Asia and the Pacific, so a flight like MEL-AKL-LAX fitted in well. These days it's all about taking advantage of major hubs to route traffic at the lowest possible cost to maximise profits. Given that there's little additional benefit to flying via AKL compared with SYD (the argument for flying out of BNE being time saved, for example), it just doesn't make sense in my mind given the route structure QFMhas been adopting.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 76):
My understanding is that AAs B77E are pretty tight, given you would require 2 aircraft for daily service.

There are still 77E's on order. Even if these are converted to the 77W, the combined total orders will see at least a dozen or so long range aircraft arriving over the next couple of years. Some may be used to replace old aircraft internationally, but that's a fair amount of growth whichever way you look at it...

Quoting gemuser (Reply 76):
1) I doubt the route has enough pax to stand alone, which is one of the reasons why I coupled it with MEL.

No reason why MEL passengers wouldn't be able to connect via AKL on a QF flight. If QF were to open MEL-AKL-DFW, the MEL-AKL leg would likely be a 738 with an equipment change to a 787 flown in from SYD, in the same way as the A332's have been operated to LAX. So really, no difference whether it's AA or QF flying the leg out of AKL.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 76):
2) Is there no where else more profitable that AA could deploy a B77E on than a stand alone service to AKL? I really doubt that!

Same argument can be made for QF, who have already madeit pretty clear that they cannot make money out of AKL with mainline services...

Quoting gemuser (Reply 76):
3) Despite what some people on here say, the JBA would have to re-approved by the ACCC, either as an amendment or new approval if AA operate their own metal under it. I have read the decision, AA NOT operating their own metal was one of the basic reasons it was approved.

I have also read all the relevant documentation, and didn't get that impression at all. I agree that the JBA was approved within the existing context, being an all-QF operation on the long haul sectors, and that the airlines would need to clear changes with the relevant authorities, but this would be a simply request for alteration to the terms. The JBA would not need to be reapproved at all, the ACCC (and relevant US department) would simply need to sign off on AA long haul flight being covered, which would be an extension of the existing JBA, and there's virtually no reason why they would have a problem with such a request. The application would clearly state the intentions of the airlines, with QF remaining the sole carrier out of Australia and AA supplementing in NZ...


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 79, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 8668 times:

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 75):

Is it safe to say the real damage has been caused not by DJ/VA but by airlines the likes of ooh let's say
E M I R A T E S...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineditzyboy From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 80, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8006 times:

Quoting airvan00 (Reply 32):
The 744 has not been removed from SYD-PER. OJD has been flying on 581/582 for the last 3 months. It was announced that the 744 would be removed from SYD-PER but that hasn't happened (yet).

They were removed in April I think. There is no 744 SYD-PER flying indicated in the online schedules that I can see. The Qantas press release even mentions recommence 747 flights to Perth.

Before this latest announcement, staff were told that the 747 581/582 flying was being replaced by 333s. This is the case as far as I can tell.


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 81, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7787 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 76):
My understanding is that AAs B77E are pretty tight, given you would require 2 aircraft for daily service.

With AA dropping India, plus other route re-alignments, they actually have 777 capacity that could be applied to Australia if they wanted to.

Of course those advocating the A380 for SYD-DFW discount the possibility, assuming yields are decent, of AA deploying the 77W onto the route to provide growth capacity if the J/V needs it.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 51):
I think it's highly possible that they will keep a few more 744's on... They will most likely retire the 2/3 class birds though, and opt to reconfigure the existing 4 class frames, given that the 2/3 class frames are all already 21+ years old, -OJA is already 23... Perhaps retain 3-4 frames built in 1992-93, and give them a refresh.

I disagree in relation to the 2 class bird as it's perfect for the SYD-PER-SYD flight and configured with 412 seats.

In relation to the rest of the 744's not being reconfigured, the difference between the 3 class 744's and the 4 class 744's in overall seats is only 18. Without knowing how many cycles and projected maintenance exp, we don't quite know which one's QF would be more likely to keep. Is anyone here privy to some info on that regard?

They will also have to do something with VH-OEB, the 747-48E, which will be the only plane in the low density 14F/66J/40W/187Y config after the A380 refurbishment program is done. I'd say that will be heading to Victorville sooner rather than later.


User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 82, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7719 times:

The failure of QF to order in the '00s any current gen long range widebodies in the 300-400 seat range continues to upset their business operations, I see. We can add to that ordering too many A380s, it now appears. Sad.


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 83, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7723 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 81):
I disagree in relation to the 2 class bird as it's perfect for the SYD-PER-SYD flight and configured with 412 seats.

You could put the same 412 seat configuration into an existing 4 class frame, which is 3-4 years younger than the existing 2/3 class frames. My point was that I wouldn't expect QF to specifically hold onto the 2/3 class birds because of their configuration, because they are the oldest in the fleet and probably have the highest cycles (given their use in regional operations in recent years).

QF would be more likely to retire the older planes and fit the higher density configuration into a newer aircraft. They could even go higher density if they wanted to, cutting J back to 40ish and fitting more Y. There must be plenty of spare J/Y seats floating around AVV at the moment, that it probably wouldn't be too expensive an exercise considering the additional revenue opportunities.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4833 posts, RR: 9
Reply 84, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7584 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 70):
But is it accurate? All of the legacy crew I knew are gone, not a single one left,

About 1/3 of QAL long haul crew have retired/taken voluntary redundancy packages. There are still more QAL crew than QCCA/JC/QCCUK crew



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5665 posts, RR: 6
Reply 85, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7573 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 84):
About 1/3 of QAL long haul crew have retired/taken voluntary redundancy packages. There are still more QAL crew than QCCA/JC/QCCUK crew

I presume that these are, over all, the younger members?

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4833 posts, RR: 9
Reply 86, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7504 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 85):

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 84):
About 1/3 of QAL long haul crew have retired/taken voluntary redundancy packages. There are still more QAL crew than QCCA/JC/QCCUK crew

I presume that these are, over all, the younger members?

Gemuser


Most QAL crew remaining are on average in their 40's there are however plenty in their 50's and 30's. I don't think there are any in their 20's as QAL hasn't hired for several years before QCCA started.
As for QCCA/JC/QCCUK, most are in their 20's. There are plenty in their 30's but not many older than that.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineairvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7486 times:

Quoting ditzyboy (Reply 80):

They were removed in April I think

It was still going on Friday the 4th of May (I posted my comment on the previous day)


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 88, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7402 times:

Quoting brons2 (Reply 82):
We can add to that ordering too many A380s, it now appears. Sad.

Actually there was a good article today about how they did actually want A380's 13 and 14 but because of financial constraints they had to defer. It's the domestic business that is making QF mainline money so that's where the resources are going to get allocated including refurbised F-100's for network, new 738's and deploying International standard A330's and 744's. So the deferral decision isn't a reflection of anything more than QF's financial reality at this tage.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 83):
My point was that I wouldn't expect QF to specifically hold onto the 2/3 class birds because of their configuration, because they are the oldest in the fleet and probably have the highest cycles (given their use in regional operations in recent years).

I do concede that. My point was, if the cycles are right and a large amount of maintenance isn't requried on them they'd be more likely to keep the 3 class config'd birds to save the money in the refurb. It's interesting that retirements have been spread pretty evenly with 2 x 1992, 3 x 1991, 1 x 1990 and 1 x 1989 744 now retired. And if VH-OJP is going to be the next retirement then that will make 3 x 1992 744's retired. The other thing driving this is that the later build 744's would probably have a better re-sale value as well. But realistically I'm not an expert and leave it to other more knowledgeable here to correct me.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 89, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7358 times:

Quoting ditzyboy (Reply 80):
Before this latest announcement, staff were told that the 747 581/582 flying was being replaced by 333s. This is the case as far as I can tell.

Today was the 1st QF581/QF582 service utilizing the A333...

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 81):
They will also have to do something with VH-OEB, the 747-48E, which will be the only plane in the low density 14F/66J/40W/187Y config after the A380 refurbishment program is done. I'd say that will be heading to Victorville sooner rather than later.

More than likely off to VCV considering VH-OEB is the white whale in the QF B744 fleet...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2715 posts, RR: 25
Reply 90, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7254 times:

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 37):

These birds must already be in early build stage so I wonder if someone else will announce a 2 plane A380 order shortly like the LH one last year for some of the other deferments

As per the discussions in the German aviation forums yes, the huselage sections for MSN 091 are already built. The discussion is now if these fuselage sections can be used for another opaerator, something which has been done before with two airframes initially foreseen for MH but now flying for SQ.


User currently onlineTruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7068 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 79):

Agreed, QF has been hurting Internationally, everyone knows, I was merely stating that very little credit for that can be given to DJ

Quoting brons2 (Reply 82):
We can add to that ordering too many A380s, it now appears.

I disagree, I think it works perfectly the current number and will replace the 744ER's one for one in a few years time. IF they did order too many A380's then they would require a fleet of another 12+ 777's to fill the gap (remembering the A380's should have arrived 2+ years ago and well before the A350 is available) and we all know that QF won't order the 777.


User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2981 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7047 times:

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 91):
Agreed, QF has been hurting Internationally, everyone knows, I was merely stating that very little credit for that can be given to DJ

I agree. VA/DJ may have strengthened their own case, but the main competition has come from many other sources over the years. VA/DJ have a long way to go themselves.

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 91):
I disagree, I think it works perfectly the current number and will replace the 744ER's one for one in a few years time. IF they did order too many A380's then they would require a fleet of another 12+ 777's to fill the gap (remembering the A380's should have arrived 2+ years ago and well before the A350 is available) and we all know that QF won't order the 777.

I agree that the airline did not order too many A380's, but is purely balacing the financial constraints of such capital expenditure and the current operational requirements.

In some ways the 787 delay has come in handy for QF, and been a headache in others, but eventually it will be something that will require significant capital expenditure.


User currently offlineditzyboy From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6882 times:

Quoting airvan00 (Reply 87):
It was still going on Friday the 4th of May (I posted my comment on the previous day)

Thank you for the correction. It always had an end date though. And now it is being reintroduced   . No date has been mentioned, nor has the schedule. Will it be double or triple daily ex-SYD and double daily ex-MEL, as was the case with the -300s? The 581/582 rotation always baffled me - it is not really a peak time for domestic travel (although demand on East Coast-PER does not fluctuate as much throughout the day as other Cityflyer markets). There is always a tonne of international connections ex-SYD onto the 581.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 94, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6786 times:

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 91):
and we all know that QF won't order the 777.

and we all wish QF ordered the 777...

Quoting ditzyboy (Reply 93):
There is always a tonne of international connections ex-SYD onto the 581.

Correct... Large number of onwards connecting passengers transfer to the QF575 however most cases miss the flight and flow onto the QF581...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5665 posts, RR: 6
Reply 95, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6768 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 94):
and we all wish QF ordered the 777...

Not ALL of us! IMHO terrible aircraft   Well not as good to fly in as the B747, A380 or A330!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 96, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6629 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 94):
and we all wish QF ordered the 777...

Some of us would have preferred the A340!


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 97, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6376 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 89):
More than likely off to VCV considering VH-OEB is the white whale in the QF B744 fleet...

I definitely agree. Another bird for the wrecking balls.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 92):
In some ways the 787 delay has come in handy for QF, and been a headache in others, but eventually it will be something that will require significant capital expenditure.

It already is requiring significant capex as QF makes progress payments. They have an additional $1.9 billion slated in for next financial year and, given the A380 delay, the majority of the aircraft related capex would be for the 787.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 96):
Some of us would have preferred the A340!

I can remember being an advocate for that. A fleet of A340's based out of Singapore flying to Rome, Athens, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris etc. A pipe dream then, but could become a JQ Asia/787 reality once Europe starts to move.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6215 times:

If construction of #13 & #14 had already started, doesn't that mean that QF would have made a progress payment to make that happen? It isn't getting that money back, surely.

User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 99, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6187 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 98):
If construction of #13 & #14 had already started, doesn't that mean that QF would have made a progress payment to make that happen? It isn't getting that money back, surely.

It probably depends on whether Airbus can shift them to other customers.

As an interesting aisde, I wonder whether QF will reconfigure the 4 International A332's. They have 36J/199Y which is more J seats than the A333's have. It'd probably make sense to reduce that number to say 24 and pull out 2 rows of J behind door 2. You could then probably fit another say 4 to 5 rows of economy and add another 28 to 35 economy backsides into it. (24J/227Y). That'd probably make them less handy out of PER on domestic runs since the Domestic A332's have 36 seats but is probably better suited to flying PER-SIN or SYD-CGK or even PER-HKG.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 100, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6105 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 99):
As an interesting aisde, I wonder whether QF will reconfigure the 4 International A332's.

Are you thinking about updating the product at the same time? A straight reconfiguration would make more sense, given that these aircraft will move back to the domestic fleet pretty quickly once the 789's start arriving, so would probably then need another reconfiguration within the next 5 years to bring them to domestic standard.

The A333's, however, will probably remain in the international fleet until they are retired from 2020. So putting in the Mk2 Skybed, a few rows of W and the new Y product would make sense, especially if they are going to be flying some of the more important Asian routes (given the 747/A380 fleet constraints) such as SYD-HKG, SYD-NRT.

They could probably fit 4 rows of J in the forward cabin, and then another (secluded) one behind D2. Then 4 rows of W (28 seats) and fill out the rest of the plane with Y. Probably a bit of a drop in overall seating (down to about 270), but offset by a far superior J product and the addition of W. They might also be able to fit an extra row of Y in using the new product, but not 100% sure. Some galley/toilet movement might also allow them to squeeze seats in. They could also pull out a row of J and go for 24 seats in the forward cabin, and putting an extra 2-3 rows of Y.


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 101, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5966 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 100):
Are you thinking about updating the product at the same time?

Nope. As you say, they'll be moved back to the domestic fleet so it's probably not worth the reconfiguration costs. In the domestic market the skybed mark 1 is arguably superior to Virgins domestic business product so why not just leave them in, redo economy with panasonic IFE and then the A332's can be put on either domestic or international until something comes along to replace them.

The more interesting question is what they'll do with the JQ A332's when they come back into the domestic fleet. QF would have spare Skybed Mark 1's sitting around plus none of the JQ birds are outfitted with IFE. So, assuming QF wants a consistent product, they would have to upgrade them.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 100):
The A333's, however, will probably remain in the international fleet until they are retired from 2020

You're probably right and I'd agree with putting Premium Economy in the A333's.


User currently offlineallrite From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 2084 posts, RR: 4
Reply 102, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5915 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 101):
QF would have spare Skybed Mark 1's sitting around plus none of the JQ birds are outfitted with IFE. So, assuming QF wants a consistent product, they would have to upgrade them.

Except for those ex-Qantas JQ A332's with the weaker floor that can't support the Skybed. (I think I've got that right). Or would they just get stuck on shorter domestic runs that don't need a Skybed?



Applying insanity to normality
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 103, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5902 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 101):

The A333 probably would be the right candidate for a refit with W class considering the current configure is 30J267Y... Sacrifice a few Y/C seats...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 104, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5877 times:

Quoting allrite (Reply 102):
Except for those ex-Qantas JQ A332's with the weaker floor that can't support the Skybed. (I think I've got that right). Or would they just get stuck on shorter domestic runs that don't need a Skybed?

I'd say they will get stuck on shorter domestic runs or maybe retired in favour of retaining some 767's until the 787's arrive to QF mainline? Depends on what the cost/benefit analysis is at the time.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 103):

The A333 probably would be the right candidate for a refit with W class considering the current configure is 30J267Y... Sacrifice a few Y/C seats...

It would also make sense given the key A333 ops are to meet A380's in SIN and BA services in BKK and HKG. (Along with some O&D). QF needs the same product on all of their Asia services.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 105, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5851 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 101):
The more interesting question is what they'll do with the JQ A332's when they come back into the domestic fleet. QF would have spare Skybed Mark 1's sitting around plus none of the JQ birds are outfitted with IFE. So, assuming QF wants a consistent product, they would have to upgrade them.
Quoting allrite (Reply 102):
Or would they just get stuck on shorter domestic runs that don't need a Skybed?

I thought that the plan was to use the A332's to replace domestic 767's. I don't imagine this has changed, given the 767's needed to be retired yesterday, so I'd have thought a thorough refresh with a new (or the newest) domestic product will be in order, to bring them to the 304 seat capacity of EBO/P. So red leather seats, AVOD, hopefully the new red fabric in Y (if this ever actually happens) etc.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 104):
It would also make sense given the key A333 ops are to meet A380's in SIN and BA services in BKK and HKG.

That's a good point which I hadn't thought of... Fitting the A333's also means QF can add W to the PER and ADL markets.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 106, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5849 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 104):

So it's safe to say QF's International operations would consist of A380's & B787's (once delivered) while Domestic will consist of B738, A332 & A333

Speaking of A333s we await the 1st to wear the scheme...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 107, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5815 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 106):
So it's safe to say QF's International operations would consist of A380's & B787's (once delivered) while Domestic will consist of B738, A332 & A333

   There's a very good chance that the A333's will remain international until they are retired in the early-2020s, when they will be replaced with either later 789's or the 7810.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5586 posts, RR: 5
Reply 108, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5761 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 107):
There's a very good chance that the A333's will remain international until they are retired in the early-2020s, when they will be replaced with either later 789's or the 7810

Also QF has indicated that some 767s will be around until 2019 IIRC. Obviously the -336s will be gone straight away, but some of the "newer" 767s could stay, alongside the 332s.

How old is the youngest 767-338?



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 109, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5745 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 107):

Was the fleet renewal plan to phase out the A333 fleet by 2020...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 110, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5744 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 105):
So red leather seats, AVOD, hopefully the new red fabric in Y (if this ever actually happens) etc.

It'll be interesting to see if that happens or whether QF believe that in order to maintain their superiority on transcons they need a Skybed. It depends on what damage VA can inflict on Corporate Pax in the coming year or so until 787's start arriving.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 105):
That's a good point which I hadn't thought of... Fitting the A333's also means QF can add W to the PER and ADL markets.

It also means they can rotate W equipped aircraft on transcons. They could seat full fare economy flyers and platinums etc there if there isn't space in business to upgrade them.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 106):
So it's safe to say QF's International operations would consist of A380's & B787's (once delivered) while Domestic will consist of B738, A332 & A333

As QF002 says, I doubt we'll see the A333 fleet dedicated to the domestic market although we will see services from them on transcon services.


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2715 posts, RR: 25
Reply 111, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5756 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 98):
If construction of #13 & #14 had already started, doesn't that mean that QF would have made a progress payment to make that happen? It isn't getting that money back, surely.
Quoting Sydscott (Reply 99):
It probably depends on whether Airbus can shift them to other customers.

Sources say that the parts for MSN 091 are already in such a production stage that shifting the parts to another customer will be more complicated than back in 2006, when the parts for the two first MH-airframes became SQ-airframes. However, they say it's still possible.


User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 5
Reply 112, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5707 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 108):
Also QF has indicated that some 767s will be around until 2019 IIRC. Obviously the -336s will be gone straight away, but some of the "newer" 767s could stay, alongside the 332s.

How old is the youngest 767-338?

VH-OGV is almost 12 years old. VH-OGU is the second youngest B-767-338ER in QF's fleet and is almost 14 years old!


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 113, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5654 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 110):
As QF002 says, I doubt we'll see the A333 fleet dedicated to the domestic market although we will see services from them on transcon services.

Cheers  
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 111):
Sources say that the parts for MSN 091 are already in such a production stage that shifting the parts to another customer will be more complicated than back in 2006, when the parts for the two first MH-airframes became SQ-airframes. However, they say it's still possible.

Is this due to each individual customers configuration requirements?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2715 posts, RR: 25
Reply 114, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5607 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 113):
Is this due to each individual customers configuration requirements?

Yes (position of supports for galleys, kitchens, LH's super first class etc.)


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 115, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5596 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 114):
Yes (position of supports for galleys, kitchens, LH's super first class etc.)

Cheers... Hope the penalty QF pay Airbus outlays the cost's of taking delivery then again who am I to judge the decision...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2715 posts, RR: 25
Reply 116, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5453 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 115):
Hope the penalty QF pay Airbus outlays the cost's of taking delivery then again who am I to judge the decision...

I raised a similiar question when QF decided to postpone delivery of their A 380 # 9 and #10 in 2008 (remember, they were even much more further in production, had already accomplished their first flights and were then stored without engines in TLS) and at that time an Airbus employee answered me something like "the most important thing for Airbus is to keep their customers happy so they are willing to swallow a lot of our sour grapes...".

However, I am convinced that what the Airbus people are saying internally about this new postponement is something you cannot post here because it would be deleted because of unappropriate language      


User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5268 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 33):
I think this confirms that QF are loosing interest in international long haul and want to concentrate on the Asian region.

Its certinly looking like that, I think in 10 years time QF will just been seen in SE Asia and LAX, it will be JQ that becomes our national flag carrier to the UK and maybe other parts of Europe. I realy realy hope that the 787 will not become a white Elephant and not be able to do what Boeing has said it would, the delays of the 787 has nearly put a stake through Qantas's heart

Quoting brons2 (Reply 82):
The failure of QF to order in the '00s any current gen long range widebodies in the 300-400 seat range continues to upset their business operations, I see. We can add to that ordering too many A380s, it now appears. Sad.

Yes, sad but true they put all their faith in to aircraft that were only just on the drawing board, and of cause by the time those aircraft came to being, they were delayed by a few years costing QF big time. Shhhh everyone dont mention the 777.


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 118, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5232 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 116):
However, I am convinced that what the Airbus people are saying internally about this new postponement is something you cannot post here because it would be deleted because of unappropriate language

Realistically Airbus is losing money on the A380's anyway while making it on the A320. I'm sure they'd rather keep the 110 A320's QF have on order rather than make alot of noise about a couple of A380's.


Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 117):
Its certinly looking like that, I think in 10 years time QF will just been seen in SE Asia and LAX, it will be JQ that becomes our national flag carrier to the UK and maybe other parts of Europe.

I don't think it's as dire as that. If they haven't cut LHR and FRA by now then they must be in it for the long haul. Not to mention JNB and SCL.  
Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 117):
Yes, sad but true they put all their faith in to aircraft that were only just on the drawing board, and of cause by the time those aircraft came to being, they were delayed by a few years costing QF big time.

If only the 787 were delivered on time. QF/JQ would currently have 40 odd of them in their fleet.


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2715 posts, RR: 25
Reply 119, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5199 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 118):
I'm sure they'd rather keep the 110 A320's QF have on order rather than make alot of noise about a couple of A380's.

That's exactly what I tried to say in the first section of my reply no. 116.


User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 120, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5198 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 118):
I don't think it's as dire as that. If they haven't cut LHR and FRA by now then they must be in it for the long haul. Not to mention JNB and SCL. Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 117):
Yes, sad but true they put all their faith in to aircraft that were only just on the drawing board, and of cause by the time those aircraft came to being, they were delayed by a few years costing QF big time.

Yeah I forgot about JNB and SCL,

If only the 787 were delivered on time. QF/JQ would currently have 40 odd of them in their fleet.

Yes that is very true, man I hope the 787 works for them.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 121, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5010 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 94):
and we all wish QF ordered the 777...
Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 117):
Yes, sad but true they put all their faith in to aircraft that were only just on the drawing board, and of cause by the time those aircraft came to being, they were delayed by a few years costing QF big time. Shhhh everyone dont mention the 777.

As you can see I beat you to it lol  
Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 120):
Yes that is very true, man I hope the 787 works for them.

I hope so too!

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5586 posts, RR: 5
Reply 122, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4818 times:

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 117):
it will be JQ that becomes our national flag carrier to the UK and maybe other parts of Europe

I don't think it is that dire, but we will all probably need to get used to the idea of flying BA. If this "rightsizing" doesn't work then I honestly think that QF will terminate all services in SIN, and BA will add a couple of extra daily flights LHR-SIN (and cut SIN-SYD - my step-sister would be devastated ).

In all honesty it make SO much more sense for them to meet half-way than fly their own metal the entire way. In fact part of me thinks that the main reason that QF is still at LHR at all is that right now BA are short of aircraft. After they've pulled their remaining 747 from the desert (August IIRC) then they'll have no slack in their fleet at all until the 380s and 787s come rolling around.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently onlineTruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4758 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 122):

I never quite got this argument. If QF can fill the flights to LHR, then why does it make sense to hand them to BA?


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3255 posts, RR: 1
Reply 124, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4685 times:

What's that about BA bringing a B744 back from VCV? Where did you hear that? G-BNLH I assume?

User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5586 posts, RR: 5
Reply 125, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4681 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 124):
What's that about BA bringing a B744 back from VCV? Where did you hear that? G-BNLH I assume?

A thread about BA, although now I think about it I can't remember what it was about. Maybe 2 weeks ago?

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 123):
If QF can fill the flights to LHR, then why does it make sense to hand them to BA?

Full flights may not equal profitable flights.

These routes (for both QF and BA) are very expensive to operate given the low aircraft utilisation and higher crew costs brought about by long duty pattern. (although this is less of a problem for QF with their LHR base. IIRC the BA crews are away for 7-9 days for LHR-SYD)

While QF's J/F fares are normally among the highest to LHR, they also have much higher operating costs than SQ, EK etc. This - coupled with the added costs of flying the route - put them at an even greater competitive disadvantage relative to their competitors.

In the end, even if the flights are profitable would it be more profitable to use 1 A380 for SYD-SIN-SYD and 2 for SYD-DFW-SYD than 3 for SYD-LHR? The economic case for operating these flights is, unfortunately, slim.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 126, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4622 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 125):

Makes more economic sense to free up the 3 frames from LHR, utilize 2 frames SYD-DFW, 1 SYD- HKG (daily)...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 127, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4651 times:

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 123):
I never quite got this argument. If QF can fill the flights to LHR, then why does it make sense to hand them to BA?
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 125):
In the end, even if the flights are profitable would it be more profitable to use 1 A380 for SYD-SIN-SYD and 2 for SYD-DFW-SYD than 3 for SYD-LHR? The economic case for operating these flights is, unfortunately, slim.

This is the biggest issue here... Especially considering that fares to the UK are not much more expensive than those to North America. With the 6 A380's dedicated to 2 daily services to LHR, QF can fly 3 daily services to North America, adding at least 50% to their overall profit, assuming the fare difference is proportional to the difference in operating costs (they probably make more profit per seat to LAX though, so the increase might be more -- this is a veeery basic example).

Another point -- the JV means that QF can make as much money to LHR passing passengers off to BA in Asia. So really, they can get the best of both worlds, retaining passenger numbers to LHR by working with BA while freeing up all that extra capacity for other flights to add revenue.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 128, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4627 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 127):

Totally agree and I wouldnt be surprised if QF concentrate their A380 operations on the Pacific routes and hand over European routes to JQ while BA take on the premium passengers...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5586 posts, RR: 5
Reply 129, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4600 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 127):

Great point. I'd forgotten that Aus-LAX and Aus-LHR are pretty much on par, despite one being significantly longer.

As much as I prefer flying QF, when all is said and done (especially with the deferment) I'm not sure what the future is to Europe.

Maybe keep SYD-LHR for "prestige" but free up the MEL-LHR frame?



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 130, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4545 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 125):
In the end, even if the flights are profitable would it be more profitable to use 1 A380 for SYD-SIN-SYD and 2 for SYD-DFW-SYD than 3 for SYD-LHR? The economic case for operating these flights is, unfortunately, slim.

It's also a network question as well. We know that you get more bums on seats flying your own metal to places. So for QF to give up on London it would also be giving up Corporate Accounts, Frequent Flyers etc as well. QF needs London in it's network. Without it, if you're a frequent flyer why would you bother with the QF Frequent flyer program? Why not just fly SQ and earn Virgin points? It makes that Virgin question a whole lot easier.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 127):
Another point -- the JV means that QF can make as much money to LHR passing passengers off to BA in Asia. So really, they can get the best of both worlds, retaining passenger numbers to LHR by working with BA while freeing up all that extra capacity for other flights to add revenue.

Again, you lose pax from your network because your brand isn't out there itself. So far from it being a good move I'd argue that it would be a near disaster for an airline that virtually invented the Kangaroo Route to give up on it.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 127):
With the 6 A380's dedicated to 2 daily services to LHR, QF can fly 3 daily services to North America, adding at least 50% to their overall profit,

But that then puts so many eggs into the US basket in terms of QF's profits. The point of having a diversified network is that while some parts may lose money, others will make it. We know that Europe is economically depressed now but if QF isn't there when the upturn starts it will miss out big time. That's why maintaining LHR and FRA service is essential to the QF network as as maintaining the codeshare with AF to CDG and with CX to Rome. QF has to cover these 4 cities in Europe at a minimum and we know the only reason they're not in CDG in their own right is because of the restrictive bilateral currently in place.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 129):
Maybe keep SYD-LHR for "prestige" but free up the MEL-LHR frame?

If anything QF needs more Melbourne service not less. Can you imagine the howls of protest from Victoria if QF were to pull the LHR service in favour of, well, nothing? Currently QF in its own right only flies to LAX, SIN-LHR and HKG from Melbourne. All the rest is Jetconnect or Jetstar. QF needs to grow MEL services, not reduce them further.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5586 posts, RR: 5
Reply 131, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4496 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 130):
It's also a network question as well. We know that you get more bums on seats flying your own metal to places. So for QF to give up on London it would also be giving up Corporate Accounts, Frequent Flyers etc as well. QF needs London in it's network. Without it, if you're a frequent flyer why would you bother with the QF Frequent flyer program? Why not just fly SQ and earn Virgin points? It makes that Virgin question a whole lot easier.

Or fly BA and earn QF points?

The JBA is metal-neutral so they are basically the same airline for the purposes of the route.

It shouldn't be too hard to get the corporate contracts onto the BA flights from SIN, BKK or HKG to LHR. If they want to fly Qantas, then they will regardless of what that entails.

At the end of the day it shouldn't make much difference at all.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 130):
Can you imagine the howls of protest from Victoria if QF were to pull the LHR service in favour of, well, nothing?

But it would make no meaningful difference!?! It will be a one stop regardless. Whether it is the same plane is practically irrelevent.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 132, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4498 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 130):

100% agree. I don't think QF will remove itself from Europe altogether at all. They can still make money flying to LHR, and it's a very important destination for them to maintain into the future...

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 130):
If anything QF needs more Melbourne service not less. Can you imagine the howls of protest from Victoria if QF were to pull the LHR service in favour of, well, nothing?

Would Victorians prefer a single daily service to LHR, or for those aircraft to be used to provide three daily Asian services, to SIN, NRT and PVG (or any combination of cities) plus the existing HKG service? Access to LHR service would be identical to what it is today (or perhaps increased, given the greater opportunity to access BA services from other points in Asia).


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 133, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4389 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 131):
Or fly BA and earn QF points?

The JBA is metal-neutral so they are basically the same airline for the purposes of the route.

Yeah but it's still not the same. Just ask the Corporates who will fly on the Qantas A380 over the BA Boeing 772's. And in the UK Qantas loses its own presence in an historically important market where it's Alliance Partners have the largest share of Premium traffic to drive onto its network. Not to mention QF's own pulling power. It just doesn't make sense for QF to withdraw.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 131):
It shouldn't be too hard to get the corporate contracts onto the BA flights from SIN, BKK or HKG to LHR. If they want to fly Qantas, then they will regardless of what that entails.

At the end of the day it shouldn't make much difference at all.

But it does make a difference. The Corporate accounts, not to mention the frequent flyer program, are there to drive traffic onto QF's network. You can't take Heathrow out of there because those two things depend on QF having its own metal going in to sell the brand and pickup the higher yielding pax. The fact that QF still has first class twice a day to Heathrow, and they'll be keeping it that way, should tell you enough about the importance they put on maintaining service on the route.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 132):
Would Victorians prefer a single daily service to LHR, or for those aircraft to be used to provide three daily Asian services, to SIN, NRT and PVG (or any combination of cities) plus the existing HKG service?

But that's the thing, you can't take those aircraft out to do that with. The A380 is too much aircraft for most of those places. Not forgetting that QF tried MEL-NRT/PVG prior to the GFC and couldn't make them work. I agree they should try them again but it's the A332 or the 787 they should be trying with and not an A380.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 134, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4318 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 133):
But that's the thing, you can't take those aircraft out to do that with. The A380 is too much aircraft for most of those places. Not forgetting that QF tried MEL-NRT/PVG prior to the GFC and couldn't make them work. I agree they should try them again but it's the A332 or the 787 they should be trying with and not an A380.

Of course! I am not talking about a one-for-one move at all, but rather overall fleet allocations. The A380 could be allocated to replacing higher capacity (existing 747) routes that are 787 candidates (ie SYD-DFW, BNE-LAX) to allow incoming 787's to be allocated to new routes to Asia from all the major cities.

The 787 will likely make the difference in the viability of previously failed regional operations -- AJ said towards the end of last year that the 787 would allow QF to open more direct Asian routes... IIRC his exact words were "more routes, more frequency". Some of this might be JQ, but I'd be very surprised if a lot of the Australia-Asia growth isn't with QF, given the heavy corporate links...


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 135, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4260 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 134):
The A380 could be allocated to replacing higher capacity (existing 747) routes that are 787 candidates (ie SYD-DFW, BNE-LAX) to allow incoming 787's to be allocated to new routes to Asia from all the major cities.

But again, you run into the issue of neither SYD-DFW nor BNE-LAX needs as many premium seats as the A380 has. Neither of those 2 routes are daily either. DFW is heading there on the 744 but that needs to be carefully managed to ensure LAX profitabilty isn't impacted. And throwing an A380 onto BNE-LAX 6 times a week isn't ideal either. I think BNE-LAX was made for the 789 and that's what it will end up being. SCL and JNB also aren't really the right size market for an A380 and again too many premium seats to try and sell.

As for the 787's, I agree that they would be ideal for a range of routes not least of all MEL-NRT/PVG, SYD-SFO/BOM, BNE-DFW/PVG etc etc.


User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 5
Reply 136, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4206 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 135):
SCL and JNB also aren't really the right size market for an A380 and again too many premium seats to try and sell.

IMO, QF will continue to operate the SYD-SCL route with the B744ER until QF retires them. The SYD-SCL route will continue to develop and LAN is heavily supporting QF's new route. Perhaps QF will operate the SYD-SCL route with the A380 by 2018/2019, that is if QF doesn't drop the SYD-SCL route in the future, only time will tell. LAN plans on introducing the B-787-9 on the SCL-AKL-SYD route during 2014.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 137, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4157 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 135):
But again, you run into the issue of neither SYD-DFW nor BNE-LAX needs as many premium seats as the A380 has. Neither of those 2 routes are daily either. DFW is heading there on the 744 but that needs to be carefully managed to ensure LAX profitabilty isn't impacted.

SYD-DFW will be daily in 6 weeks. The 787's won't be here for another 3-4 years, so I see no issue with the route being ready for the additional capacity by then. The premium seat increase isn't all that great over the new 744ER's, only 8 additional J seat, but with F seats to fill (this could be an issue, unless QF plans to have the final 8 delivered as three class, which is a strong possibility given that their delivery dates are now clumped together, and given the aircraft they are replacing).

BNE-LAX was just an idea. These changes are still at least 4 years away, like I said, so I don't think it's a completely remote scenario, especially if the final aircraft are three class. I don't see any issue with BNE remaining 6 weekly with the change -- it hasn't impacted profitability thus far, and I see no reason why it would in the future (unless some proper corporate competition arrives, ie more than VA's measly 3 weekly).

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 135):
SCL and JNB also aren't really the right size market for an A380 and again too many premium seats to try and sell.

Wait what? JNB goes out 100% full for many parts of the year, and is a prime A380 route IMO.

SCL, maybe not yet. But QF is going to have nothing else to serve the route with past 2020 unless CASA makes a big u turn (same issue for JNB). If LA were to cut back to AKL, or fly to BNE or MEL (or even PER), leaving all the SYD traffic for QF then it would be viable in 8 years IMO. The A343's go out full in the high season, and aren't exactly empty in the lower season as it is, and the airlines are charging strong fares so profitability must be pretty high.

So basically, I don't think QF will have much trouble finding something for 3 extra A380's to do.


User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 5
Reply 138, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4118 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting qf002 (Reply 137):
SCL, maybe not yet. But QF is going to have nothing else to serve the route with past 2020 unless CASA makes a big u turn (same issue for JNB). If LA were to cut back to AKL, or fly to BNE or MEL (or even PER), leaving all the SYD traffic for QF then it would be viable in 8 years IMO. The A343's go out full in the high season, and aren't exactly empty in the lower season as it is, and the airlines are charging strong fares so profitability must be pretty high.

LAN is not going to drop SYD as a destination period. Given QF's track record on its previous routes between SYD and South America, there's a greater chance that QF will drop the SYD-SCL route in the future; (and right now I'm sure that QF's SYD-SCL service is operating in the red). Also, it's quite possible that LATAM may operate quads in the future. However, as of now LAN plans to operate the B-787-9s into SYD by 2014:

Quote:
CHILE'S LAN Airlines expects to eventually service Australia with its fleet of Boeing 787 Dreamliners and has backed Qantas optimism about the growth potential for travel to and from South America.
LAN upbeat on growth potential for travel to and from South America


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 139, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4054 times:

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 138):
Given QF's track record on its previous routes between SYD and South America, there's a greater chance that QF will drop the SYD-SCL route in the future

Why wouldn't LA drop SYD in the future? The two airlines could apply for a JBA, with QF operating connections on this end, plus SYD-SCL, with LA handling connections on their end plus SCL-AKL or SCL-AKL-MEL/BNE.

I'm not just arrogantly sticking to my argument here, I'm genuinely interested in other reasons that LA would never drop SYD.

I disagree with the suggestion that they are not making mney to SCL. They were making a small profit to EZE (apparently), so there's no reason why they wouldn't make at least the same amount into SCL. If it were a totally new route, I'd agree with you, but they're not forging a brand new market here... It's also worth noting (and this is second hand information from another member -- it might have been you) that QF is extremely optimistic about their services, and wants to add additional services soon. Hardly the attitude of an airline that sees no future for the route. QF isn't exactly going to have spare capacity come next year (let alone spare capacity capable of making this flight), so every route they fly has to make them good money, otherwise it will be scrapped for something else.


User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 5
Reply 140, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4025 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting qf002 (Reply 139):
Why wouldn't LA drop SYD in the future?

It's a cargo intensive route for LAN and a OW hub. LAN already offers connections to ADL, BNE, CNS, MEL, etc. via AKL on QF. A JBA with QF is irrelevant at this moment since LAN is in the process of finalizing the combination with TAM.


Quoting qf002 (Reply 139):
I disagree with the suggestion that they are not making mney to SCL. They were making a small profit to EZE (apparently), so there's no reason why they wouldn't make at least the same amount into SCL.

SYD-EZE was not profitable; if it was why did QF drop it? Given current oil prices and QF's high cost structure, and with QF offering fares on sale for 1200USD; do you think it's operating profitably?

Quoting qf002 (Reply 139):
It's also worth noting (and this is second hand information from another member -- it might have been you) that QF is extremely optimistic about their services, and wants to add additional services soon. Hardly the attitude of an airline that sees no future for the route. QF isn't exactly going to have spare capacity come next year (let alone spare capacity capable of making this flight), so every route they fly has to make them good money, otherwise it will be scrapped for something else.

Those statements are from QF's management; not LAN's management...


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 141, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4005 times:

QF had planned to phase out 6 old 744s this year, 2 of which have already been parked in the past weeks (OJB and OJO). Will the decision about the A380 give some of these planes a longer life?

User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 142, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3955 times:

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 140):
It's a cargo intensive route for LAN and a OW hub. LAN already offers connections to ADL, BNE, CNS, MEL, etc. via AKL on QF.

I guess that's a consiration. A JBA would easily overcome this issue though.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 140):
A JBA with QF is irrelevant at this moment since LAN is in the process of finalizing the combination with TAM.

I'm looking longer term here -- 2018/19, which is when QF would realistically need to have plans in place by for the implications of the final 744 retirements. There will also likely be more competition in the market by then -- namely NZ.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 140):
SYD-EZE was not profitable; if it was why did QF drop it

The same reason they dropped SFO to move to DFW. They openly stated that SFO was profitable, but they saw a better future in DFW, this clearly being because it is a massive AA hub. EZE wasn't going to develop into anything, but that doesn't mean it wasn't profitable. They moved to SCL because it integrates the airline better into the broader OW network, which is part of their big consolidation plan at the moment.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 143, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3971 times:

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 136):
Quoting SCL767 (Reply 138):
Quoting SCL767 (Reply 140):

No idea on your sources but for your information QF dropped EZE not due to the route being operated at a loss, was dropped in favor of Oneworld LA hub in SCL which makes perfect sense! Same reason why the SFO route was dropped to support AA hub in DFW...

Assumptions with no source to support your information...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 5
Reply 144, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3905 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EK413 (Reply 143):
Assumptions with no source to support your information...

A quick google search will reveal many sources. Also, it's my understanding that QF's international restructuring was to eliminate unprofitable routes.

Interesting analysis from CAPA mentions QF's SYD-EZE route: http://www.­centreforaviatio­n.­c...-­competition-­increases-­65483


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 145, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3819 times:

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 144):

QF's restructure was to eliminate both unprofitable routes & realign the network with OW partners which certainly made perfect sense... no idea why SCL wasn't selected from the beginning...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 146, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3793 times:

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 144):
A quick google search will reveal many sources. Also, it's my understanding that QF's international restructuring was to eliminate unprofitable routes.

Could you please post some links? I'm having a hard time finding anything...

Meanwhile, this Half-Yearly report from Qantas tells a different story.

I'm quoting from page 8...

While QF has a paragraph on the "elimination of unprofitable flying", this refers only to the LHR cuts (this was pre-BOM/AKL-LAX).

However, in the next paragraph, the SYD-SCL flight is grouped under the tag "strengthening alliance partnerships and optimising the network" alongside flights to DFW and the introduction of the A380 to HKG...

From this, I'd say it's almost crystal clear that QF didn't make the move to SCL because EZE wasn't making money... It moved because they can make more money at SCL, now and in the future...


User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 5
Reply 147, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3742 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting qf002 (Reply 146):
While QF has a paragraph on the "elimination of unprofitable flying", this refers only to the LHR cuts (this was pre-BOM/AKL-LAX).

This article mentions AKL-LAX, BOM, EZE, HNL as possible cuts to QF's route network aimed at stemming losses from its international operations. I wonder if FRA will be next.  http://www.smh.com.au/business/qanta...ome-us-flights-20110724-1hvc9.html

Quoting qf002 (Reply 146):
From this, I'd say it's almost crystal clear that QF didn't make the move to SCL because EZE wasn't making money...

It was a loss maker for QF, plain and simple.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5586 posts, RR: 5
Reply 148, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3698 times:

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 147):

Hmm, greatest of respect but that isn't the best source!

I remember that article back when it was released, and I'm 90% sure that it was written after some journo read A.Net!!!

I draw your attention to this statement in particular: "Top of the list of services to be axed are those between Los Angeles and New York."

Umm no  


I do, however, agree with you that EZE was underperforming (whether it was breaking even I'm not sure).

This article is quite illuminating: http://www.centreforaviation.com/ana...hadowed-by-change-resistance-57810

Go to the bit sub-titled "Santiago delivers opportunities Buenos Aires failed to".

"Group executive for commercial Rob Gurney had a firm line that Argentina failed to deliver expected network and economic projections."

"failed to deliver economic projections" might well be spin for loss making.

It points out several reasons for the under-performance of EZE:

- Sluggish Argentinian economy
- Chile has overtaken Argentina in terms of market size
- QF anticipated code-sharing with LAN Argentina for connections for EZE to Brazil. That failed to eventuate.

Whether EZE was profitable or not, SCL will definitely be more so.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 5
Reply 149, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3650 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 148):
I draw your attention to this statement in particular: "Top of the list of services to be axed are those between Los Angeles and New York."

It also mentions HNL; however QF/JQ still operate into HNL.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 148):
I do, however, agree with you that EZE was underperforming (whether it was breaking even I'm not sure).

It has been since the Argentine economy is "lack luster". Meanwhile domestic and international traffic continue to grow rapidly in Chile.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 148):
QF anticipated code-sharing with LAN Argentina for connections for EZE to Brazil. That failed to eventuate.

That is due to the current Argentine policy in place to protect AR's EZE-Australia route. However, LAN continues to increase frequencies into both GRU and GIG from SCL. LA/JJ will soon offer 7 daily flights between SCL and GRU and LA will offer 3 daily flights between SCL and GIG. Not to mention QF pax can connect to 9 daily flights between SCL and LIM and 15 daily flights between Chile and Argentina, (SCL-BUE is 10x daily).


User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4015 posts, RR: 13
Reply 150, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3626 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 142):
I'm looking longer term here -- 2018/19, which is when QF would realistically need to have plans in place by for the implications of the final 744 retirements. There will also likely be more competition in the market by then -- namely NZ.

NZ does not have critical mass in AKL to construct a large set of connections. They will only be able to serve the larger markets.

By the end of the decade there should be enough traffic that LA and QF can have a joint venture and both have service SCL-SYD.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 5
Reply 151, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3603 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting incitatus (Reply 150):
By the end of the decade there should be enough traffic that LA and QF can have a joint venture and both have service SCL-SYD.

They both already have services between SCL and SYD. LA has a one-stop service via AKL and LA will not drop AKL as a destination for a variety of reasons. Also, LAN will need to operate quads on the SCL-SYD route.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 152, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3515 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 146):

& once again backs my theory the QF17 SYD-EZE was not dropped due to route not being profitable... Route was dropped in favour of a stronger market on the SCL sector with onward connections on LA...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 153, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3422 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 137):
Wait what? JNB goes out 100% full for many parts of the year, and is a prime A380 route IMO.

Don't forget the reason for it being full is the joint agreement with SAA. Once the SAA traffic gets dropped off in PER and put onto VA services instead, we'll see just how QF goes. This goes back to QF needing to be back on PER-JNB and if that happens it won't need the A380 on either route.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 142):
The same reason they dropped SFO to move to DFW. They openly stated that SFO was profitable, but they saw a better future in DFW, this clearly being because it is a massive AA hub

Personally I think it was a dumb move to leave SFO to United & Air New Zealand. The bay area, and Silicon Valley, are places where QF, and American for that matter, should be able to write good business in. They should be operating to both DFW and SFO alongside LAX. Hopefully when the 787 arrives QF will correct that.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 152):
once again backs my theory the QF17 SYD-EZE was not dropped due to route not being profitable... Route was dropped in favour of a stronger market on the SCL sector with onward connections on LA...

I thought I had read that both Load Factors and yields were higher on the SCL route that they had ever been on the EZE run. Certainly the anecdotal evidence I've head from FA's who've done both on the QF services say there are far more people on the SCL flights than there were on the EZE flights.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 149):
It also mentions HNL; however QF/JQ still operate into HNL.

Routes to American from Australia were never going to be cut by QF because they're in a great competitive position in all the markets they serve. BOM, EZE & AKL-LAX were all expendable and I'd expect BOM to reappear on a QF 787 at some stage.