Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787  
User currently offlineZKOJH From China, joined Sep 2004, 1620 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 42804 times:

Some Harsh words from the Irish...


Qantas CEO Alan Joyce says he is "very pissed off" at Boeing over the delays to the 787 Dreamliner, which would have seen the airline enjoying significantly lower costs in fuel and maintenance compared to the Red Roo's current aging fleet.


Speaking with The Australian, Joyce expressed a frank degree of disatisfaction on the much-delayed Dreamliner and its impact on the airline's bottom line – especially for Qantas International, which last week flagged a loss of $450 million.


http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-v...-boeing-over-787-dreamliner-delays


NZ 787-9 flying between PVG - AKL ! CAN'T WAIT!!
190 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6271 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 42737 times:

This is a risk you run when you sign up for a paper airplane (which the 787 was when QF said "we'll take a few"). They will be compensated according to the terms of their contract with Boeing for the delayed deliveries.


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29700 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 42677 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well he was the one who decided to defer deliveries, allowing other carriers to move forward their own deliveries, so while he has a perfect right to be upset about the original delays, he could be close to having them now if he'd had chosen to.

User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8095 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 42661 times:

Can't blame Boeing for your airline sucking. Would the 787s have helped and is Boeing at fault for their delay? Maybe and yes. Does that have anything to do with Qantas posting a massive loss? Uh, nope.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8493 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 42589 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yawn! Join the queue Alan, a lot of other carriers ordered earlier and have waited longer than QF.


Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineTruemanqld From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 42558 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 3):
Can't blame Boeing for your airline sucking.

Wow, QF sucks does it? An airline that has been consistently profitable, never entered bankruptcy and never had an aircraft hull loss? Interesting.. also has much higher standards than any American airline.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 3):
Does that have anything to do with Qantas posting a massive loss? Uh, nope.

Wrong, jesus, do some research! They haven't posted a loss for many, many years, and won't post a loss this year. QF International will, but QF Domestic and JQ mega profits will counter it, and still leave QF in the black.

QF has been particularly unlucky, first the 787 and then the A380, but QF problems lay elsewhere as well, but certainly on time deliveries would have helped.


User currently offlineDan23 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 42414 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):

Yes that u-turn has probably cost QF just as much as the original delay. Why they ever pushed back delivery of their early 787's only to ask/wish for them back shortly after is an intriguing question.


User currently offlinepoLot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2049 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 42300 times:

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 5):
Wow, QF sucks does it? An airline that has been consistently profitable, never entered bankruptcy and never had an aircraft hull loss? Interesting.. also has much higher standards than any American airline.

Never had a hull loss with a jet...


I never understood QF's image here. You get completely contradicting reports on how good the service is (or the direction you are going) or what the (future) financial position of the airline depending on who you ask here. You would think many Australians would be proud of QF, yet there are a ton who think they do nothing right despite doing respectable.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18711 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 42188 times:

One wonders: is there room for a third WB manufacturer in the world? It seems that one issue is that neither A nor B really have competition except from each-other in the NB segment. The 787 has no real competitor. The A350 might face competition from the 777X series, but not for a while. The A380 has no real competitor.

Maybe the airlines need to goad an aerospace company into competing.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6742 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 42159 times:

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 5):
Interesting.. also has much higher standards than any American airline.

I assume this is related to the fact that Boeing is an American company or an American posters comment?

Quoting Dan23 (Reply 6):
Yes that u-turn has probably cost QF just as much as the original delay

However, that was their decision, Qantas fans could certainely be pi** at them for the deferal.

Ever get the feeling that folks who are p*** at OEM's for production delays seem to believe that they do so just to pi** off their customers?


User currently offlineTruemanqld From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 42163 times:

Quoting poLot (Reply 7):
Never had a hull loss with a jet...

True, my mistake, but still better than any other major, established airline. A real testament to QF and Australian aviation.

Quoting poLot (Reply 7):
You get completely contradicting reports on how good the service is (or the direction you are going)

I think QF service is usually very good, but on the odd occasion, as on all airlines, when it is bad, it is really bad. Obviously something they need to work on, but there domestic competition isn't exactly great either, when it comes to service that is.

Quoting poLot (Reply 7):
(future) financial position of the airline depending on who you ask here

I think most agree that QF is in trouble, but some here will gladly predict the death based on very little actual facts. The next 2-3 years will really test Alan Joyce and QF to see how there International Ops are going to survive. Domestically, and JQ wise, they are doing fantastic (though some believe they are rorting the figures... but based on absolutely no facts) and will continue to do well, DJ is expanding domestically but won't reach QF any time soon.

Quoting poLot (Reply 7):
You would think many Australians would be proud of QF, yet there are a ton who think they do nothing right despite doing respectable.

Most Australians do feel a sense of patriotism towards the national airline, there is nothing better than sitting half way around the world and seeing the flying Kangaroo. However, QF is no longer a government controlled airline, and therefore cannot please everyone, so this does put some Australians offside. However, QF is still very well liked, and the percentage in the general population that do like QF is much higher than it is on A.net.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 42161 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 3):
Can't blame Boeing for your airline sucking. Would the 787s have helped and is Boeing at fault for their delay? Maybe and yes. Does that have anything to do with Qantas posting a massive loss? Uh, nope.

   - even with TruemanQLD's comments. They did post a massive loss in international.

The 787s would have helped QF, but they would have also helped the competition.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Well he was the one who decided to defer deliveries

That was of the A380s though wasn't it? I think he figures that A380s are replacing 744s and 787s replacing A330s and 767s. It's a little simplistic, because there is carry over, if you know what I mean.

He cancelled some of the 787s a few years back. It's quite odd that he's now blaming the lack of these aircraft.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 42116 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Well he was the one who decided to defer deliveries

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. If he was the one who initiated that change, then he did it very quickly -- he became CEO late November 2008, with the deferment announcement within 8-10 weeks, which included Christmas/New Year breaks.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 3):
Does that have anything to do with Qantas posting a massive loss? Uh, nope.

Absolutely it has. A 20% increase in fuel costs this year would have been offset by the 787's 20% lower fuel consumption. It would appear that QF is either just breaking even or just below breaking even on most of their international routes, so a cost base just a few % lower makes all the difference.

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 5):
never had an aircraft hull loss?

In the jet age... In any case, QF blows most airlines out of the water. Their product is up there with SQ etc when executed properly by the staff.

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 5):
QF International will

And QF International has been performing poorly for years. Soaring fuel costs have reversed a small profit to become a (relatively) small loss.

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 5):
QF has been particularly unlucky, first the 787 and then the A380, but QF problems lay elsewhere as well, but certainly on time deliveries would have helped.

  


User currently offlineqf340500 From Singapore, joined Oct 2011, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 42064 times:

Hey, N766UA, isn't the whole point of buying (and developing) new, more efficient planes to save costs and increase profits for airliners? So i think Mr. Joyce has a right to say that his airline would be in a better shape if the initial delays with the 787 and would have not happened... Thats why you buy new planes, to be more profitable, or am i wrong here?

I can only agree with Truemanqld and poLot....

i would always prefer to fly QF, rather than SQ and even more than AA or UA... sorry, just my opinion.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4775 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 42027 times:

Quoting ZKOJH (Thread starter):

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce says he is "very pissed off" at Boeing over the delays to the 787 Dreamliner, which would have seen the airline enjoying significantly lower costs in fuel and maintenance compared to the Red Roo's current aging fleet.


Speaking with The Australian, Joyce expressed a frank degree of disatisfaction on the much-delayed Dreamliner and its impact on the airline's bottom line – especially for Qantas International, which last week flagged a loss of $450 million.

Well should have ordered the 777 way back when, but thats another issue.

So far as this thread is concerned, AJ says this.... is this the same AJ that plans to give the first 15 787s to Jetstar??? How is giving the first 15 787s to Jetstar (who have a fairly new fleet of A330s already BTW) going to help QF/"Red Roo" to lower its costs and reduce maintenance??

Basically its just AJ starting to feel the heat so looking for someone to blame. Yes Boeing should have delivered the 787 earlier. That is a risk airlines take with a new type. QF didn't even have to buy 777 they could have leased them until such time as Boeing delivers on the 787. By that time they would have seen how good they were and ordered more to fill the gap between the 787 and the A380 (as SQ/EK/etc etc) have done.



54 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinepoLot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2049 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 41988 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 12):
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. If he was the one who initiated that change, then he did it very quickly -- he became CEO late November 2008, with the deferment announcement within 8-10 weeks, which included Christmas/New Year breaks.

He may not have initiated the change, but 8-10 weeks is plenty of time to defer any possible change on the status of the order until he was sure that it was necessary.


User currently offlineburnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7504 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 41988 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 12):
Absolutely it has. A 20% increase in fuel costs this year would have been offset by the 787's 20% lower fuel consumption. It would appear that QF is either just breaking even or just below breaking even on most of their international routes, so a cost base just a few % lower makes all the difference.

If every aircraft in their fleet was a 787 thats true, but otherwise a few frames would not have had a significant impact on the bottom line. AI and QF are just looking for scapegoats. Every airline in the world deals with the increase in gas prices and just about all of them don't have 787s.



"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16984 posts, RR: 48
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 41963 times:

He certainly has a right to be pissed at a company that chronically mismanaged a high profile program, and a right to contractual compensation--I think everyone that ordered the 787 feels the same.

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
Ever get the feeling that folks who are p*** at OEM's for production delays seem to believe that they do so just to pi** off their customers?

Boeing blew the program to the point it trained everyone--carriers, analysts, press, everyone--to have a pavlovian response of disbelief to any official Boeing PR.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29700 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 41819 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting qf002 (Reply 12):
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. If he was the one who initiated that change, then he did it very quickly -- he became CEO late November 2008, with the deferment announcement within 8-10 weeks, which included Christmas/New Year breaks.

QF Group was literally changing it's mind on a weekly basis back in early 2011, first saying they would take them, then saying no, then saying yes - but for JQ, then saying no.

Ben Sandilands posted recently that he's heard JQ and QF have 787s starting assembly.   

NH today stated they're seeing over a 20% reduction in fuel burn on NRT-FRA with their sub-par 787-8s compared to their 767-300ERs, so perhaps that triggered Mr. Joyce's comments.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21419 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 41183 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Well he was the one who decided to defer deliveries, allowing other carriers to move forward their own deliveries, so while he has a perfect right to be upset about the original delays, he could be close to having them now if he'd had chosen to.

Yep, when you F-up, blame the supplier!

Quoting qf002 (Reply 12):
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. If he was the one who initiated that change, then he did it very quickly -- he became CEO late November 2008, with the deferment announcement within 8-10 weeks, which included Christmas/New Year breaks.

He would be a worthless CEO if he didn't feel he had the right to make a course change even in week 1. Look what happened when QR bought into Cargolux. They asserted themselves immediately.

And once again, QF should have ordered 777s 15 years ago. Not having them left them with only one option for long-haul: Jumbo (now superJumbo as well). That's not Joyce's fault, but it is QF's fault.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 797 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 41074 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Eeveryone's 787s are late except the ones in service with NH and a handful of others. Therefore, most competitors are at the same economic disadvantage. It's not like ALL of ALan Joyce's competitors have been flying around in airplanes enjoying a 20% reduced fuel burn this year, leaving him the only one sucking wind with old iron.

It has been really difficult for each of the airlines. All of them went to their respective boards to receive the go ahead to purchase newer frames based on cost reductions they all hoped to be enjoying for the last 2+ years now. But at this point the pain is being felt fairly evenly (perhaps, with the exception of those who were willing to take the subpar early frames) by most airliners.

We are going to continue to hear allot of outrage, posturing, etc, as all of the airlines want greater compensation to compensate operational losses due to higher fuel costs (consumption and price).



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlinePHXA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 40998 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
NH today stated they're seeing over a 20% reduction in fuel burn on NRT-FRA with their sub-par 787-8s compared to their 767-300ERs, so perhaps that triggered Mr. Joyce's comments.

Stitch you beat me to it .... From MarketWatch :

"As the launch customer of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, ANA took delivery of the first of its 55 B787s on order in last September, and is now operating seven of the aircraft on domestic flights and one on an international route between Tokyo Haneda and Frankfurt. Mr. Ito said the 787 twinjets, which carry around 220 to 250 passengers, help the airline save around 21% of fuel consumption on each flight"

I am really excited to see what the later build birds can do with the additional PiPs. As for QF ... I would only think it is fair to point out that QF has bet its future on 2 aircraft that have struggled with their entry and obviously its hurting.

Did Boeing mess up - yup.
Did Airbus mess up - yup.
Did QF mess up - yup.

Will QF be just fine - probably.


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6338 posts, RR: 39
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 40920 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 14):
So far as this thread is concerned, AJ says this.... is this the same AJ that plans to give the first 15 787s to Jetstar??? How is giving the first 15 787s to Jetstar (who have a fairly new fleet of A330s already BTW) going to help QF/"Red Roo" to lower its costs and reduce maintenance??

So that the A330s can go back into QF's fleet and replaced 744s  

It just sounds like a big circle.. AJ wants someone to blame other than himself for acts he is responsible for and what better way to do that than to blame the manufacturer. At least the unions won't get up in arms about that one!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 19):

Yep, when you F-up, blame the supplier!

   The easiest way to go about it!



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4695 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 40827 times:

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 20):

What puzzled me was the fact QF is crying wolf due to the B787 delays and on the other hand you had AI demanding compensation and refusing delivery of the aircraft which apparently will be the savor of the flying kangaroo...

I've said it once before and it's been said many times before, QF could've benefited by ordering the B77L & B77W as opposed to placing all their eggs in the one basket... This case it was the A380 & B787 basket...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3601 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 40701 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting qf002 (Reply 12):
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. If he was the one who initiated that change, then he did it very quickly -- he became CEO late November 2008, with the deferment announcement within 8-10 weeks, which included Christmas/New Year breaks.

I wouldn't be surprised if Alan Joyce made or pushed for a decision on the deferral of their early 787s. The industry was facing pressure from rising fuel cost, the global financial crisis, and a downturn in travel. Qantas needed to save money and they chose to defer the 787 deliveries. Also, Alan Joyce would have had intimate knowledge of what was going on with the 787 order prior to becoming CEO at Qantas. He was the CEO at Jetstar, who was supposed to have received the first 15 deliveries of the Qantas order.


User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4947 posts, RR: 28
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 41345 times:

QF has every right to be pissed at Boeing. Boeing did not deliver as said. Boeing royally made a mess of the 787. Boeing should compensate all airlines that ordered the plane. I have no sympathy for how Boeing handled the 787. Boeing ouchsourced so much, it nearly destroyed the program. I am in full support of QF and the frustration. QF has been a heck of a Boeing customer, and Boeing should take care of their customer.


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12444 posts, RR: 100
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 41499 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ZKOJH (Thread starter):
Joyce expressed a frank degree of disatisfaction on the much-delayed Dreamliner and its impact on the airline's bottom line – especially for Qantas International, which last week flagged a loss of $450 million.
Quoting PHXA340 (Reply 21):
Mr. Ito said the 787 twinjets, which carry around 220 to 250 passengers, help the airline save around 21% of fuel consumption on each flight"

Wow. Something is off in my model of the 787 if that is indeed the case.

These are triple spool engines we are discussing. A triple spool has a nice climb advantage over the 767's twin spool engines... I do not know *exactly* how good the T1000's climb advantage is, but this indicates better than I believed. In other words, it pushes out the range of a *at spec* T1000 has the same fuel burn as an *at spec* GEnX. In other words, the range where the GEnX's planned better cruise fuel burn comes out ahead of the T1000's superior climb fuel burn.

We all know both engines are below spec (but the GEnX is more below spec than the T1000). But if ANA is saving 21% in fuel (on a short mission), than the 787 is doing very well in fuel burn.

Note: I assume that is fuel burn per passenger? (The question mark as I am not certain.)

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24652 posts, RR: 86
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 41637 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 14):
Well should have ordered the 777 way back when, but thats another issue.

I think Qantas should have ordered the original A350 back then. A main reason they didn't was because Boeing "found"earlier delivery slots for the 787 - in 2008.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...triumphs+in+twinjet+tussle-203664/

"Qantas chief executive officer Geoff Dixon says that a guarantee from Boeing of first deliveries in 2008 was a “big determinant” in its selection – the A350 is not available until mid-2010 at the earliest."

That didn't work out so well.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4947 posts, RR: 28
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 41531 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 3):
Can't blame Boeing for your airline sucking. Would the 787s have helped and is Boeing at fault for their delay? Maybe and yes. Does that have anything to do with Qantas posting a massive loss? Uh, nope.

Qantas has every right to blame Boeing for the bottom line loss. Had Boeing delivered on time, the 787 could have really impacted Qantas and the financials. As for Qantas sucking? Really? Qantas might be having some financial issues at the moment, but they are one fine airline.

Airlines have to take care of passengers when a delay is something the airline has control over. Boeing should compensate its 787 customers, since the delay was all Boeing's fault. It is good business, and Boeing should do the right thing.



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2703 posts, RR: 59
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 41310 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 27):
I think Qantas should have ordered the original A350 back then. A main reason they didn't was because Boeing "found"earlier delivery slots for the 787 - in 2008.http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...triumphs+in+twinjet+tussle-203664/"Qantas chief executive officer Geoff Dixon says that a guarantee from Boeing of first deliveries in 2008 was a “big determinant” in its selection – the A350 is not available until mid-2010 at the earliest."That didn't work out so well.

"That didn't work out so well."

I see. So what you're saying is that it is your belief that instead of the 787, QF should have ordered an aircraft that was later cancelled. Of course, those orders would have switched over to the A350XWB, which is now also coming to market late (and later than QF will be receiving 787's).

Why, exactly, does this make sense?

I'm sorry, but Stitch nailed it at the get-go: QF deferred delivery of their 787's. Did Boeing cock-up the program? Of course. But bi*ing now about delayed deliveries when you chose to delay them even more is asinine.

I've long had great admiration for QF. They have a tremendous historical reputation, and for very good reason. However, I honestly don't think they have the same 'mojo' they once did.


Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlinewedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5831 posts, RR: 5
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 41149 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It almost sounds like this thread is slowly turning into an A vs. B contest. Everyone understands that Boeing hasn't been very good at meeting their commitments in regards to the 787. The A350 is already 2-1/2 years late and they haven't performed static testing. What about QF's disappointment in A380 with the recurrence of wing cracks???

QF could have improved their bottomline by replacing their 763's with more A330's and perhaps retire some of their 744's for 777-300ERs.

The big difference today is that the 787 is a certified airplane in revenue service. The A350 is still cracking the ice in strength testing. We'll see how good the A350 will turn out to be.

You're all right!!! QF has the right to be pissed off at Boeing for the 787 delays. Who isn't? But all you armchair CEO's out there, how can you say the delay on 787 has all to do with QF's financial woes??? Could it be some bad management decisions??? Could it be too many failed routes??? Could it simply be the reduced flying public?? Increased competition along with the reduced profit margins???


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24652 posts, RR: 86
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 41121 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 29):
I see. So what you're saying is that it is your belief that instead of the 787, QF should have ordered an aircraft that was later cancelled.

If Qantas had ordered the aircraft it might not have been cancelled. The original A350 already had 200 orders - the Qantas order would have boosted that to a respectable number.

It was - in large part - because of the loss of the Qantas order that then CEO Dr. Humbert at Airbus panicked about that A350.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 29):
I'm sorry, but Stitch nailed it at the get-go: QF deferred delivery of their 787's.

Sorry Qantas did not "defer delivery of their 787's."

They deferred 15 of them, not all of them, and cancelled 15 more - a year after Boeing had missed the first delivery dates and was providing no guarantee for the future.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...ntas-defers-cancels-boeing-7.html/

"Qantas Airways announced Friday (Thursday afternoon in Dallas) that it was deferring delivery of 15 of its Boeing 787s for four years. It also canceled its order for 15 of the jets, saving it $3 billion based on list prices."

I'd have deferred some at that point too, to try and try and fill the hole and run the business as effectively as possible under the circumstances.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 40992 times:

Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 16):
If every aircraft in their fleet was a 787 thats true, but otherwise a few frames would not have had a significant impact on the bottom line

QF would have had their 789's in 2009 if Boeing hadn't screwed up so badly. They would have close to all 35 by now, which could have replaced the A333's and all their 744's leaving just A380's and 787's. So the entire fleet would have a significant fuel advantage,

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 22):
So that the A330s can go back into QF's fleet and replaced 744s

The A330's will be replacing domestic 767's, not 744's.

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 30):

The suggestion was for the original A350, which would have been in service years ago...

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 30):
QF could have improved their bottomline by replacing their 763's with more A330's and perhaps retire some of their 744's for 777-300ERs.

The capital outlay would have been too large to be of benefit. QF would probably have been wise to lease half a dozen more A330's around 2009-10 to use internationally (given they already own enough to cover domestic 767 replacements), but the 77W was too late. They needed to invest in the 777 in the 90's...

Or rather, A340's...


User currently offlinefiscal From Australia, joined Oct 2009, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 40942 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 22):
It just sounds like a big circle.. AJ wants someone to blame other than himself for acts he is responsible for and what better way to do that than to blame the manufacturer. At least the unions won't get up in arms about that one!

A bit harsh. The delivery of the 787 is all about saving costs, nothing else. The passengers will still have the same experience as they get now. There is nothing new inside to excite the passenger. The 787 is all about the operator.

So, how can he be blamed for fuel price rises. He has not stated any lies. He is just using facts that he has to hand, to explain that costs could have been less if the airframes were delivered on time.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 23):
I've said it once before and it's been said many times before, QF could've benefited by ordering the B77L & B77W as opposed to placing all their eggs in the one basket... This case it was the A380 & B787 basket...

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and you may well be right, but the decision was made. In some respects it was one of those "fork in the road" things that make it very hard and expensive to change midstream. By the time things started looking bleak, the GFC was in full swing, and we could not afford to change our minds.


User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 828 posts, RR: 12
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 40520 times:

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 29):

I think a more accrate desciption of events would be QF decided to cancel / delay 787's and buy / lease additional A330's to fill the void associated with the 787 delays. Lets not rush in too quickly!

That being said there was always a fair amount of risk associated with the QF fleet straegy.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21419 posts, RR: 60
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 40218 times:

Quoting fiscal (Reply 33):
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and you may well be right, but the decision was made. In some respects it was one of those "fork in the road" things that make it very hard and expensive to change midstream. By the time things started looking bleak, the GFC was in full swing, and we could not afford to change our minds.

It's hardly hindsight when we have been saying this for many, many years. It's called being right at the time and being proven so as time has passed.

QF was on the design team for the 777, but didn't buy them. That was a big mistake, no matter how you slice it.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineqf340500 From Singapore, joined Oct 2011, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 40168 times:

its still hindsight, and for that it is not really helping  

User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3945 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 40209 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 10):
I think most agree that QF is in trouble, but some here will gladly predict the death based on very little actual facts. The next 2-3 years will really test Alan Joyce and QF to see how there International Ops are going to survive. Domestically, and JQ wise, they are doing fantastic (though some believe they are rorting the figures... but based on absolutely no facts) and will continue to do well, DJ is expanding domestically but won't reach QF any time soon.

  

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 19):

And once again, QF should have ordered 777s 15 years ago. Not having them left them with only one option for long-haul: Jumbo (now superJumbo as well). That's not Joyce's fault, but it is QF's fault.

  

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 30):

QF could have improved their bottomline by replacing their 763's with more A330's and perhaps retire some of their 744's for 777-300ERs.

Exactly! I'm sure Boeing would have given a nice deal on 77W/77Ls because of this mess, but it seems like QF didn't ask or Boeing didn't offer them. If QF had been more assertive, versus being passive aggressive with this, they would have a much more efficient fleet. I think it's safe to say the majority would agree the 77W/77L are ideal planes for QF and when they decided to not order them, it's hurt them a great deal in addition to the problems with the 787 program. It also doesn't help QF that the middle east carriers are so strong, and have much more fuel efficient a/c to deploy on their longhauls, or shall I say, they have a great deal more flexibility compared to QF. The same can be said with their Asian competitors , CX, SQ, TG.


User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 39708 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 32):
QF would have had their 789's in 2009 if Boeing hadn't screwed up so badly. They would have close to all 35 by now, which could have replaced the A333's and all their 744's leaving just A380's and 787's. So the entire fleet would have a significant fuel advantage,

True, but as someone above also said, many of their competitors are similarly affected by delays for 787's that are on order to them as well. Hedging your risks when planning your future fleet is something that can minimize the damage of delays like this, so QF's mgmt isn't completely innocent for their current situation. Obviously, Boeing royally screwed up here as the delay was so loooong, but the risk of some delay should have been foreseeable, as this was such an innovative design to being with. QF's fleet inflexibility is primarily what's losing them $$ to middle east/asian competitors...much more so than not having the 787.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 39548 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Well he was the one who decided to defer deliveries, allowing other carriers to move forward their own deliveries, so while he has a perfect right to be upset about the original delays, he could be close to having them now if he'd had chosen to.

I cannot believe how bias this post is.

Fact is QF has been let down by both OEMs, but more so by Boeing due to the shear number of frames that have been delayed and the cumulative amount of the delays. Boeing is still unable to produce the aircraft they ordered by QF, Boeing is still YEARS away from making a 787-9 that will meet the contractual requirements. It is a bit rich to blame the customer for that.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 11):

The 787s would have helped QF, but they would have also helped the competition.

QF have no current plans to operate the 787, all 787s at this stage have been earmarked for the Jetstar group. The first 787s for the QF group will be based in Singapore, more than likely initially replacing the A330s services.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 11):
That was of the A380s though wasn't it? I think he figures that A380s are replacing 744s and 787s replacing A330s and 767s.

The last annual report had QF international only operating A380s and A330s by the end of this decade. I am not sure how the split of domestic and international will have on fleet plans, I would think it will return to a similar mix as the TAA days.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 19):

And once again, QF should have ordered 777s 15 years ago.

There was no 777 suitable for the QF network 15 years ago, SQ is getting rid of their that are that old. The 777 is not a magic pill, airlines still go broke operating them. Fact is, all airlines are having trouble making money at the moment, even those with large 777 fleets.

QF could look at an updated 777 if Boeing ever offers it, or the A350. Buying into the 77W today would not give them any real advancement, the time to order them would have been 8 years ago, however at that time, no one was able to predict today's oil price, the dynamics of the market, or how late the OEMs would be.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 35):

QF was on the design team for the 777, but didn't buy them. That was a big mistake, no matter how you slice it.

It was not a big mistake, if the 787 and A380s were on time, they would be in a different position.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5554 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 38595 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 35):
QF was on the design team for the 777, but didn't buy them. That was a big mistake, no matter how you slice it.

In your opinion!
In my opinion the B772 was never satisfactory for QF needs and it was not worth the cost of introducing a new fleet type. The design team did not produce a result suitable for all members, that's what happens with design teams! I don't blame Boeing for this, they went with the majority, which is reasonable, but its not fair to blame the two airlines who didn't order because of this.
The B77W may have been satisfactory for QF, however the B787s were on order by or around the time the W was released and going with the NEWER, MORE FUEL EFFICIENT model was a pretty reasonable decision. That the new design didn't and still hasn't arrived is entirely Boeing's fault.

IMHO, QF avoiding the B772 was a very good idea, at the time, and if the B787 had been delivered less than 2 years late it would be recognised as such.

Can we give the "Why didn't QF/QF should order the B777" mantra a rest please?

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10368 posts, RR: 11
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 37932 times:

I second gemuser. This "they should have bought 777s" talk is rubbish. When QF ordered 787s they were doing well, 772s would have seemed like an anachronistic short-sighted choice, and the timing seemed perfect to replace the now increasingly obsolete and incompetitive 767 fleet. Its Boeing who messed up and which is responsible for the massive delay. There may have been some mismanagement at QF, but it wasnt fleet planning. Old 744s are being replaced by A380s, so the argument for 77Ws is mute.

User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6338 posts, RR: 39
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 37406 times:

Quoting fiscal (Reply 33):
A bit harsh. The delivery of the 787 is all about saving costs, nothing else. The passengers will still have the same experience as they get now. There is nothing new inside to excite the passenger. The 787 is all about the operator.

So, how can he be blamed for fuel price rises. He has not stated any lies. He is just using facts that he has to hand, to explain that costs could have been less if the airframes were delivered on time.

Of course he can't be blamed for fuel price rises. I never said I blamed him for fuel prices. But in saying that, he was around in the industry when the oil prices last had a huge spike, right before the GFC in mid 2008. After seeing that prices could effectively go through the roof, one must surely think about the efficiency of the aircraft. The earlier the 787s are delivered, the more you can save regardless on the price of oil. They have a big 767/A330 fleet. Yet they defer the 787s but ALSO gift JQ the first few. Since when did a subsidiary become more important than the parent? Yeah, the 787 is all about the operator - no good to QF if they're not going to be operating them for a few more years.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinevaus77w From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 37212 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 14):
So far as this thread is concerned, AJ says this.... is this the same AJ that plans to give the first 15 787s to Jetstar??? How is giving the first 15 787s to Jetstar (who have a fairly new fleet of A330s already BTW) going to help QF/"Red Roo" to lower its costs and reduce maintenance??

I agree that the 787-8's should go to QF domestic to replace 763s. I know the A330's are good planes, but hasn't it already been said they aren't efficient for domestic runs? Shiny new 787s could bring great in-seat IFE, great interior product and quieter/smoother ride, especially trans-con runs, to fend off Virgin expanding with A330s. Instead they get well-used JQ hand-me-down A330s with no in-seat IFE. Plus JQ already have a new relatively fuel-efficient fleet, so I think QF has a much greater need for those planes than JQ.

Quoting zeke (Reply 39):
QF have no current plans to operate the 787, all 787s at this stage have been earmarked for the Jetstar group. The first 787s for the QF group will be based in Singapore, more than likely initially replacing the A330s services.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 11):
That was of the A380s though wasn't it? I think he figures that A380s are replacing 744s and 787s replacing A330s and 767s.

The last annual report had QF international only operating A380s and A330s by the end of this decade. I am not sure how the split of domestic and international will have on fleet plans, I would think it will return to a similar mix as the TAA days.

I know they said that, but I find it hard to believe QF's international future fleet is the A330 and A380. Their first batch of A330s will be nearing retirement by the end of this decade. Surely they will be replaced by 787s.


User currently offlinegoosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 372 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 36911 times:

If every QF competitor were already flying 787's then he might begin to have a point. However they are not and they have an equal cost base to QF in machines operated. The fault lies with QF whose problems have multiplied since off shoring maintenance and not being more aggressive against the Mid East carriers.

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 36458 times:

Quoting vaus77w (Reply 43):

They may continue to keep the 787 with the Jetstar group, and move to the A350 or 777 successor, I think it is 3-5 years before the need o make that decision.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 44):

Off shoring maintenance I think was always necessary, tax arrangements and staff costs are just too high in Australia. As for not being aggressive against the middle east carriers, that is one fight hey are geographically not able to win.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 36227 times:

QF has walked into a perfect storm.

Boeing has seriously let it down with the delays, as competitors have stolen the march into its core markets on the back of more competitive cost structures.

Its management have struggled to adapt, as unions pile on the pressure from every angle to get more and more from less.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 35921 times:

The 77W would have been perfect to replace the 744s with. Is it the GE engines that is the problem? They could have leased some for all these years B cocked up with the 787.

And they deferred A380s as well I read. Blaming going around, that CEO should be fired a long time ago IMO.


User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 34721 times:

I think AJ is starting to feel the heat in the kitchen now, it didnt seem to worry him to much at first but he must be very quietly muttering to himself F****** Boeing they have realy screwed us up. Right through all the troubles its been "wait till the 787 comes", well Alan you better hope that this plane does what Boeing says it does and hope its been worth the wait.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 35):
QF was on the design team for the 777, but didn't buy them. That was a big mistake, no matter how you slice it.

Yes very true.

I think the lesson for Alan Joyce or any CEO's of airlines are dont order an aircraft when they are just on the drawing board wait till they are built and tested then get in line and buy them.


User currently offlinefiscal From Australia, joined Oct 2009, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 34681 times:

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 44):
The fault lies with QF whose problems have multiplied since off shoring maintenance and not being more aggressive against the Mid East carriers.

It is an interesting comment you make, but just what can Qantas do to provide a better answer than the ME airlines. How can they offer more, without going broke?

What marketing message is going to win over Australian's hearts where they would be willing to pay that extra bit, just to fly Qantas?


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 34627 times:

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 29):
I'm sorry, but Stitch nailed it at the get-go: QF deferred delivery of their 787's

Can someone provide a link? I don't remember this, googling it didn't find anything (other than it being talked about in 2009 - no mention of it actually happening). It's also not mentioned in the Aug11 investor presentation at least that my quick check saw and I'd expect it to be.

I think only the A380s were deferred. 15 787-9s were cancelled.

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 30):
QF could have improved their bottomline by replacing their 763's with more A330's and perhaps retire some of their 744's for 777-300ERs.

After AN went belly up they couldn't be fussy about aircraft type. They needed whatever planes they could get, and fast!

Quoting gemuser (Reply 40):
In my opinion the B772 was never satisfactory for QF needs and it was not worth the cost of introducing a new fleet type

I disagree with this. 772ER would have been good for routes like SYD-SFO and more competitive against UA's offering. They would have been able to open up other routes too. Some suggestions:
AKL-DFW
SIN-ATH
SIN-FCO
Just for starters.

Quoting na (Reply 41):
increasingly obsolete and incompetitive 767 fleet

FWIW, I kind of like flying on the 767s domestically compared to the alternatives. Very unlikely to get a middle seat, IFE as good as any of the alternatives (arguably except DJs newer service), twin aisle disembarking speed.

Quoting zeke (Reply 39):
The first 787s for the QF group will be based in Singapore, more than likely initially replacing the A330s services.

You mean PER-SIN, BNE-SIN and SYD-ADL-SIN?

That would be a strange use of 787s.


User currently onlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2543 posts, RR: 5
Reply 51, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 34513 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting zeke (Reply 39):
There was no 777 suitable for the QF network 15 years ago

Yes there was - the 777-200ER would've allowed them to open thin long haul routes. Having a long haul fleet that consists entirely of 744s is a little short sighted when not all routes require the capacity of the 744. The 772ER can fly as far as a 744, yet uses significantly less fuel per trip.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 40):
The B77W may have been satisfactory for QF, however the B787s were on order by or around the time the W was released and going with the NEWER, MORE FUEL EFFICIENT model was a pretty reasonable decision. That the new design didn't and still hasn't arrived is entirely Boeing's fault.

There is no 787 big enough or capable enough to replace the 77W. I doubt that the reason they didn't order the 77W was because they were waiting for the 787. Introducing the 77W could've meant early 744s could've been retired sooner. By today's standards, the 744 is a fuel guzzler.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 40):
Can we give the "Why didn't QF/QF should order the B777" mantra a rest please?

It's not just armchair CEOs and fanboys that are saying so, but well respected aviation journalists such as Mr Geoffrey Thomas has also suggested that QF's failure to add 77Ws to their fleet was a mistake. Hindsight may be 20/20, but if they had the 77W in their fleet now, they could be operating them quite profitably on routes currently operated by non-ER 744s.

Quoting na (Reply 41):
Old 744s are being replaced by A380s, so the argument for 77Ws is mute.

No it's not. The A380 and 77W are entirely different aircraft.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2586 posts, RR: 4
Reply 52, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 34214 times:

What's worse in the professional world:- Delaying an aircraft countless times or tactlessly using harsh language in public about the delays? Neither does OEM - Client relations any good.

IMO, these comments are a direct result of Air India's demands for $1Bn in compensation.
Seems to me, QF want a slice of that to help pad out their own inaction and bad decision making (a lot like AI then!)



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinenasula From Finland, joined Sep 2010, 44 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 33992 times:

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 10):
True, my mistake, but still better than any other major, established airline. A real testament to QF and Australian aviation.

Hmm. I believe Finnair can state the same if we talk about jets. No lost jets.

They lost two DC3s (one weather related, the other weather + drunk pilot) and one Ju-52 was shot down by the soviets.

Or am I wrong?


User currently offlinetom355uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 54, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 33921 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 40):
Can we give the "Why didn't QF/QF should order the B777" mantra a rest please?

I'm glad somebody else got in on this before I did. Whenever a thread starts about QF 'Losing money' et al, it is always because they 'didn't order the 777'. The 777 is not a silver bullet for long haul; yes it is a tremendously capable aircraft that represents a massive achievement on the part of Boeing, but it does not mean your long haul ops become profitable.

As somebody else stated, QF face severe competition from EK, QR, EY et al on their traditional long haul ops who benefit from subsidies and lower operating costs (in respect to staff, taxation etc) - this is why they are 'struggling' to make money on the routes the 744/A380 are deployed on.

Think of the airlines who do make money flying longhaul without the 777; LH is the best example.

Think of those who lose money hand over fist, regardless of the 777 (even the 77W): AI, AA, AZ, AF are just a few that come to mind instantly.

Now, I'm sure with a crystal ball or 1984 DeLorean and Flux Capacitor combo QF would have made other plans given the delays in the 787 program; probably more A332's/3's is my guess and accelerated the retirement of both 744's and 767's.

I don't know why they never considered using either BKK or SIN as a scissor hub, using high frequencies of A333's from SYD/MEL/BNE/PER and then A332's on new, long, thin European routes (MAD, ATH, DME?) and A380's on high demand destinations such as LHR or FRA.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 46):
unions pile on the pressure from every angle to get more and more from less.

Yet another reason why the Gulf carriers have a significant strategic advantage.



on Twitter @tombeckett2285
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 33940 times:

Where would QF have used the 77L? Super niched LHR-PER? The 77W could probably make all current 744 routes with no diversions.

That will be their biggest mistake IMO, refusing a small fleet of 77Ws, if ordered in 2008 they could have had some already?


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6742 posts, RR: 8
Reply 56, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 33846 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 39):
Boeing is still unable to produce the aircraft they ordered by QF, Boeing is still YEARS away from making a 787-9 that will meet the contractual requirements. It is a bit rich to blame the customer for that.

I thought people were saying that QF deferring and cancelling deliveries added to the current problem, QF is not in the a/c making business, so unless they were a part of the design team and screwed up something ............
It is stated over and over again that the Japanese carriers who are now operating 787's are still not doing so profitable because the a/c is still not meeting its design specifications and will not do so for years, so what is QF to do, cancel the entire order, take no further compensation, not order from Boeing again?

Quoting zeke (Reply 39):
QF have no current plans to operate the 787, all 787s at this stage have been earmarked for the Jetstar group.

A point which some seem to overlook, we hear QF and are all thinking about flights by 747's, if the 777 was not an adequate replacement for the 747 neither will the 787.

Quoting zeke (Reply 39):
Fact is, all airlines are having trouble making money at the moment, even those with large 777 fleets.

In which case QF problems are much larger than Boeing being late with the 787, Airbus being late with the A380 and QF being p**** at Boeing, not saying they are looking at scapegoats but as in accidents, its always a combination of issues, however, the blame ultimately gets placed on one person.
In this case QF appear to be saying its Boeing fault, at least that appears to be the assumption.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10368 posts, RR: 11
Reply 57, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 33869 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 51):
Introducing the 77W could've meant early 744s could've been retired sooner. By today's standards, the 744 is a fuel guzzler.

744s are retired as planned. And to order 77Ws now would mean you have fuel guzzlers in 10 years. What the 744 is now the 77W will be in the 2020s.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 51):
No it's not. The A380 and 77W are entirely different aircraft.

Who denies that? QF opted for the A380 to replace the 744.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 51):
There is no 787 big enough or capable enough to replace the 77W.

The 787 is to the 77W what the 77W is to the 744: smaller and more efficient. Using the same logic that a 77W can replace a 744, a 787(-9 or -10) can replace a 77W. For the thinner routes QF will have the 787, and later perhaps the A350 mainly to replace the A330s after 2020.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 58, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 33705 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 54):
I'm glad somebody else got in on this before I did. Whenever a thread starts about QF 'Losing money' et al, it is always because they 'didn't order the 777'. The 777 is not a silver bullet for long haul; yes it is a tremendously capable aircraft that represents a massive achievement on the part of Boeing, but it does not mean your long haul ops become profitable.

So true, so true. But A-net wisdom states that every airline ordering the B777 is immediately profitable. Not ordering the B777 means you are bound to be a loss making airline which is shortly before it's demise. Too bad that too many out here believe that is the case.  .


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 33642 times:

Quoting na (Reply 57):
744s are retired as planned. And to order 77Ws now would mean you have fuel guzzlers in 10 years. What the 744 is now the 77W will be in the 2020s.

But the 77ER will be replaced in less than 10 years time by a non gas guzzler. They could have timed the leasing accordingly? Or why not order some of the A350-100?


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10368 posts, RR: 11
Reply 60, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 33604 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 58):

The Boeing 777 marketing team has taken over the forum 


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 61, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 33543 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 60):
The Boeing 777 marketing team has taken over the forum 

It sometimes really feels like that here.  . Though luckily there are still many posters out here who have not lost sight on reality.  .

On-topic: QF have every reason there is to be very dissatisfied with Boeing's performance in delivering according to contract specs. A 7 year delay for the B787-9 is of course already more then the normal lead time for aircraft to be delivered. Including the normal waiting time I guess some airlines are facing time-frames of more then 10 years between the signing of the contract and the actual delivery of the purchased airplane. That can not be good in any way in my book.

[Edited 2012-06-13 03:50:23]

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24652 posts, RR: 86
Reply 62, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 33332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 50):
Can someone provide a link? I don't remember this, googling it didn't find anything (other than it being talked about in 2009 - no mention of it actually happening). It's also not mentioned in the Aug11 investor presentation at least that my quick check saw and I'd expect it to be.

It's in post #31 but here's the link about the 15 x 787 deferrals again:

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...ntas-defers-cancels-boeing-7.html/

"Qantas Airways announced Friday (Thursday afternoon in Dallas) that it was deferring delivery of 15 of its Boeing 787s for four years. It also canceled its order for 15 of the jets, saving it $3 billion based on list prices."

Qantas still has a bunch on order.

Quoting par13del (Reply 56):
In which case QF problems are much larger than Boeing being late with the 787, Airbus being late with the A380 and QF being p**** at Boeing, not saying they are looking at scapegoats but as in accidents, its always a combination of issues, however, the blame ultimately gets placed on one person.

Of course it is more than one thing, certainly the problems are more than just the late delivery.

But in this instance, the article in the OP is about Mr. Joyce's understandable attitude to the 787 delays, not about the whole kit and caboodle at Qantas.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 33298 times:

Quoting na (Reply 60):
The Boeing 777 marketing team has taken over the forum

Did you miss my A350-1000 line?

But you must agree, the 77W would have saved a lot by replacing the 744 in the last 10 years? It seems QF is not ordering the A350-1000 either, hope it will not be another mistake 10 years from now?


User currently onlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2543 posts, RR: 5
Reply 64, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 33296 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting na (Reply 57):
And to order 77Ws now would mean you have fuel guzzlers in 10 years. What the 744 is now the 77W will be in the 2020s.

I didn't say they should order them now. Using 744ERs that they've already paid for would probably be cheaper than introducing the 77W at this late stage, despite the fuel penalty in using the 744ERs. But when the 744ERs leave the fleet in the early 2020s, the 777-9X will be ready to replace it.

Quoting na (Reply 57):
The 787 is to the 77W what the 77W is to the 744: smaller and more efficient. Using the same logic that a 77W can replace a 744, a 787(-9 or -10) can replace a 77W.

The 787-9 is too small, and the 787-10 doesn't have the range.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2634 posts, RR: 4
Reply 65, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 33095 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 14):
So far as this thread is concerned, AJ says this.... is this the same AJ that plans to give the first 15 787s to Jetstar??? How is giving the first 15 787s to Jetstar (who have a fairly new fleet of A330s already BTW) going to help QF/"Red Roo" to lower its costs and reduce maintenance??

I agree. Actions versus mouthing off suggest a confused strategy.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 19):
And once again, QF should have ordered 777s 15 years ago. Not having them left them with only one option for long-haul: Jumbo (now superJumbo as well). That's not Joyce's fault, but it is QF's fault.

Agreed. Their pathological avoidance of the 777 has got to be one of the most interesting airline fleet planning cock ups of recent memory.

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 30):
It almost sounds like this thread is slowly turning into an A vs. B contest.

No it doesn't - it's been focused and remarkably civilised for Anet.

Quoting mariner (Reply 31):
It was - in large part - because of the loss of the Qantas order that then CEO Dr. Humbert at Airbus panicked about that A350.

Really? Do you have a source for this? Was QF ever really that interested in a warmed over A330?

Quoting qf002 (Reply 32):
They needed to invest in the 777 in the 90's...

Yes, but even some time during the 2000s would've been nice. NZ managed to during the mid 2000s and its longhaul fleet is predominantly 777 now.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 34):
That being said there was always a fair amount of risk associated with the QF fleet straegy.

Indeed - basing your future on the timely delivery of two new types is a significant risk. I wonder if the degree of that risk was analysed in full. Arguably, if it wasn't, then the executive didn't undertake sufficient due diligence on behalf of shareholders (assuming the late deliveries is genuinely impacting on financial performance as much as Joyce claims).

Quoting na (Reply 41):
This "they should have bought 777s" talk is rubbish.

No, it really really isn't.

Quoting na (Reply 41):
Old 744s are being replaced by A380s, so the argument for 77Ws is mute.

Not in the slightest. Not only in capacity terms but also in fleet family possibilities, the 77W and 380 are quite separate. I can;t believe I had to point that out.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 33079 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 62):
It's in post #31 but here's the link about the 15 x 787 deferrals again:

Oh sorry, and thanks,

Sounds like it applies to the first of the 787-9s.

[Edited 2012-06-13 04:02:08]

User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 33115 times:

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 54):
Now, I'm sure with a crystal ball or 1984 DeLorean and Flux Capacitor combo QF would have made other plans given the delays in the 787 program; probably more A332's/3's is my guess and accelerated the retirement of both 744's and 767's.

LOL Love the way you put that very clever.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 32966 times:

Replacing a 744 with a A380 only makes sense if you grow capacity, if you keep the old capacity or lower it the 77W is perfect, so will the 777-X and A350-1000 be.

I even think QF deferred some 380s as well?


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6742 posts, RR: 8
Reply 69, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 32961 times:

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 54):
I'm glad somebody else got in on this before I did. Whenever a thread starts about QF 'Losing money' et al, it is always because they 'didn't order the 777'. The 777 is not a silver bullet for long haul; yes it is a tremendously capable aircraft that represents a massive achievement on the part of Boeing, but it does not mean your long haul ops become profitable.

So the fact that Boeing is late with the 787 is the silver bullet for QF problems so they are pissed? As you mention, folks have been saying that QF not ordering the 777 was a mistake, I think it is a stretch to say that the issue is that QF should order the 777W NOW, the topic has been around for years, its not a 2012 comment.

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 54):
As somebody else stated, QF face severe competition from EK, QR, EY et al on their traditional long haul ops who benefit from subsidies and lower operating costs (in respect to staff, taxation etc) - this is why they are 'struggling' to make money on the routes the 744/A380 are deployed on.

Think of the airlines who do make money flying longhaul without the 777; LH is the best example.

The same applies to other airlines who have ordered the 787, have not received them as yet and are still profitable, so what exactly does that tell us.....that each airlines circumstances are unique or different?

Quoting na (Reply 57):
The 787 is to the 77W what the 77W is to the 744: smaller and more efficient.

However, we seem to disagree that 10 years ago the 777W was a smaller and more efficient than the 747 for QF, go figure  
Quoting garpd (Reply 52):
IMO, these comments are a direct result of Air India's demands for $1Bn in compensation.
Seems to me, QF want a slice of that to help pad out their own inaction and bad decision making (a lot like AI then!)

I am leaning toward this viewpont, especially if I accept the post from the QF supporters that it is a professionally run airline, after all, comments like these from some of the Gulf carriers leadership have been met here by derision.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10368 posts, RR: 11
Reply 70, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 32776 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 65):
Agreed. Their pathological avoidance of the 777 has got to be one of the most interesting airline fleet planning cock ups of recent memory.

Pathological preaching for 777s isnt good either.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 65):
the 77W and 380 are quite separate. I can;t believe I had to point that out.

Why did you feel you had to? I never disputed it. I said, QF opted for A380s to replace the 744s. And for 787s to replace the 767s. Both are bigger than their predecessors. QFs problem is not having no 777s. QF jumps the 777 generation technology, whats bad about it? Once the 787s have replaced the 767 they´ll have a great fleet.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 32608 times:

Off topic, Imagine if Boeing would miss delivering Qatars first 787 for the air show in July, this "p*ssed off" comment will feel like a cool summer breeze  

User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 32202 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 65):
Really? Do you have a source for this? Was QF ever really that interested in a warmed over A330?
http://gmail.airliners.net/aviation-...general_aviation/read.main/2496060
Unfortunately the original source is no longer available.

Quoting par13del (Reply 69):
comments like these from some of the Gulf carriers leadership have been met here by derision.

I am not a QF supporter by any means and I happen to think AJ should have been removed a long time ago. However, I could not understand why his words would be met by derision from any one who is at least partially objective. All he said was he was very dissatisfied with Boeing over 787's delay and that had the delay not happened these 787 would have been contributing positive to QF group. I really cannot see anything controversial in that.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24652 posts, RR: 86
Reply 73, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 31988 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 65):
Really? Do you have a source for this? Was QF ever really that interested in a warmed over A330?

It's been a while and most of the articles about it are archived now, but - happily - some quotes from the articles exist in the a.net archives.

This, for example, reply #1:

Excellent Article On The Qantas 787 Vs A350 Choice (by ClassicLover Dec 16 2005 in Civil Aviation)

"Gregg says the decision could have gone either way and probably would have gone to Airbus had it been made earlier.

"Boeing must have moved quite a few big boulders out of the way to suddenly give us access to the 787 far, far earlier than we ever expected we could get it.

"Without that, they would have been very hard pressed to have won the deal."


He's referring to the 2008 deliveries for the 787, of course, as in the link I have already posted.

mariner

[Edited 2012-06-13 04:42:45]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineaviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1483 posts, RR: 15
Reply 74, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 31869 times:

Has Qatar Airways bought a stake in Qantas? How is it Alan Joyce's tone reminds me of Qatar Airways and Cargolux?

I do recall that Qantas deferred deliveries on the Dreamliners, even after their delivery dates were already delayed.

KC Sim


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 31804 times:

Maybe the 77L replacement can make the LHR-PER a high end one hop to Aussie route possible? QF would need something to differentiate themselves from the rest, this would be one way? With 10+ millions people in London there must be people prepared to pay a bit more for such route? Very little freight could be flown however.

A359R or the 77L replacement would have the legs. If keeping seat numbers down it would be a more exclusive trip. 19 hours or so..How many more hours is PER-SYD? A bit more like a private jet in a big jet. Still 19 hours non stop.. 70% business class maybe?


User currently offlinetom355uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 76, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 31437 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 65):
Their pathological avoidance of the 777 has got to be one of the most interesting airline fleet planning cock ups of recent memory.

With the astoundingly easy benefit of hindsight, maybe. Not guaranteed. Let's face it, if you (hypothetically  ) cant fill a mostly amortised 744 then why in God's name would you sign up for the enormous lease payments on a not-much-smaller brand new 77W? If you need the range ( greater than 5000nm ESAD) but not the capacity of either of these, unfortunately your only bets are either the 787 or the A332.

The problem is twofold: Firstly, you can't formulate an effective fleet planning strategy when a key supplier keeps kicking your delivery dates back six months, every six months for nigh on four years. Secondly, the 'weapon of choice' so to speak (787) is not really a choice is it? You can't make money with aircraft you don't have, which is why the 332 has sold phenomenally off the back of the 787 delays.

I know I'm in the minority with this as well, but forgive my slightly sceptical attitude as I'm still yet to see some concrete figures that show having virtually paid for 744's are that 'crippingly expensive' to operate compared to nearly or even brand new 777's with all the associated extra costs this would bring (taking into account maintenance, training, lease payments etc).

Quoting par13del (Reply 69):
So the fact that Boeing is late with the 787 is the silver bullet for QF problems so they are pissed?

I never said that, I only said that the 777 is no 'Silver Bullet'; in fact, there is no such thing in the airline business, we should all know this by now.

Quoting par13del (Reply 69):
The same applies to other airlines who have ordered the 787, have not received them as yet and are still profitable, so what exactly does that tell us.....that each airlines circumstances are unique or different?

Even if QF had taken ANA's place in line, they would still have to pedal hard to make ends meet long haul wise because of the pressure from the Gulf on their core long haul ops. However, having the best metal to deploy on any particular route capacity wise could ease this pressure, agreed? This is one of the strengths that SQ, LH and more recently BA have benefited from. Of course you are right, each airline has unique circumstances with regards to fleet planning, cost base, target market, even financing - which all makes the business cases for each aircraft very different.

Like I said, there is no silver bullet!

Tom   



on Twitter @tombeckett2285
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12046 posts, RR: 47
Reply 77, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 31393 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 69):
However, we seem to disagree that 10 years ago the 777W was a smaller and more efficient than the 747 for QF

Maybe because the 77W only entered service eight years ago?   

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 72):
All he said was he was very dissatisfied with Boeing over 787's delay and that had the delay not happened these 787 would have been contributing positive to QF group. I really cannot see anything controversial in that.

Indeed. But some don't seem to be able to accept that justified criticism.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4616 posts, RR: 5
Reply 78, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 30736 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 12):
A 20% increase in fuel costs this year would have been offset by the 787's 20% lower fuel
Quoting qf002 (Reply 12):
Soaring fuel costs have reversed a small profit to become a (relatively) small loss.

According to the IATA/Platts fuel monitor jet fuel pices are down 5.9% year over year. I would suggest that any airline who is claiming their fuel cost is up 20% hedged incorrectly or contracted badly.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11953 posts, RR: 25
Reply 79, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 30682 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 31):
It was - in large part - because of the loss of the Qantas order that then CEO Dr. Humbert at Airbus panicked about that A350.

Yes, later both he and Leahy said the tipping point was the QF loss, which happened shortly after the Air Canada loss. Note AC was in the same time frame liquidating their A340 fleet as well and that seemed to also worry Airbus execs.

Quoting zeke (Reply 39):
Fact is QF has been let down by both OEMs, but more so by Boeing due to the shear number of frames that have been delayed and the cumulative amount of the delays. Boeing is still unable to produce the aircraft they ordered by QF, Boeing is still YEARS away from making a 787-9 that will meet the contractual requirements. It is a bit rich to blame the customer for that.
Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 48):
I think the lesson for Alan Joyce or any CEO's of airlines are dont order an aircraft when they are just on the drawing board wait till they are built and tested then get in line and buy them.

Yes, this is a lesson that the A380 and B787 fiascos are teaching us. Many said not to worry about the delays since the customers have no where else to go, which is true, but the impact will be felt by customers not wanting to be first in line (Udvar-Hazy just said such for the A350) and insisting on stiffer penalties for late delivery, all of which makes it harder to pull off the next airplane program.

Quoting garpd (Reply 52):
What's worse in the professional world:- Delaying an aircraft countless times or tactlessly using harsh language in public about the delays? Neither does OEM - Client relations any good.

I don't think it matters. I'm sure many within Boeing sympathize. IIRC ANZ's CEO had pretty similar things to say about the 789 delays.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 61):
A 7 year delay for the B787-9 is of course already more then the normal lead time for aircraft to be delivered. Including the normal waiting time I guess some airlines are facing time-frames of more then 10 years between the signing of the contract and the actual delivery of the purchased airplane. That can not be good in any way in my book.

Yes, I hope such huge slips are not becoming the norm, but fear that they seem to be becoming the norm.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8094 posts, RR: 7
Reply 80, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 30668 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 76):
I know I'm in the minority with this as well, but forgive my slightly sceptical attitude as I'm still yet to see some concrete figures that show having virtually paid for 744's are that 'crippingly expensive' to operate compared to nearly or even brand new 777's with all the associated extra costs this would bring (taking into account maintenance, training, lease payments etc).

Boeing made the 777 easy for 744 pilots to transfer to. A 600,000 pound 777-20ER with Rolls engines flying from SYD to SFO or FRA would have been much better for Qantas then the 900.000 pound 744. A330 are great if your view of teh world is only HKG, NRT or SIN but they can't fly nonstop to the USA or one-stop to Europe, QF could fly A332 one-stop but has never done it.

QF has always been in the LHR/LAX tunnel vision state of mind, how many passengers can we fly to these 2 cities. The world is changing and A380 are not the only plane to get people there. Does QF even need the whale jet ? Financing 6 A380's for 2 daily flights to LHR is an expensive proposition.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1215 posts, RR: 3
Reply 81, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 30432 times:

Interesting to read all these comments about QF not ordering the 77E or 77W, 77W in particular. It's interesting because of the contrast it provides to threads about other airlines and their possible introduction of a new fleet, usually an Airbus model. In each of those cases people are hammering on about how it doesn't pay off to have a small sub-fleet, and that mixing of A and B products is a big no-no (despite many of the worlds most successful airlines doing just that, while a not insignificant number of big loss makers are single source, but I digress).

But when it's a question of inducting a Boeing product, particularly the 77W which so many anetters are having a lovefest over, not single negative comment is raised over the introduction of such a sub-fleet. Rather the opposite, as evidence above shows.

I find it hilarious, and am baffled by the arrogance, that people who's only knowledge about aircraft and airlines comes from having flown as a passenger and done a fair bit of spotting, and learned to use an internet browser. They may think they know better, and they may even have their opinions backed by kindred spirits on the big www, but speaking as someone who does work in the industry I'll take my chances with the pro's 99% of the times. And just to make it absolutely clear, I don't see QF as belonging in the 1% that's aeronautical basket cases.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4616 posts, RR: 5
Reply 82, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 30160 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 39):
Boeing is still YEARS away from making a 787-9 that will meet the contractual requirements

Zeke, do you have any sense of what the performance contractual obligations are ? There have been at least two increases in MTOW , presumably to match MEW increases. I expect the fuel burn increases to match the weight increases is the "kicker".


User currently offlineTruemanqld From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 30033 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 52):
QF want a slice of that to help pad out their own inaction and bad decision making

QF know all about getting compensation, just look at the A380 delays, if anything, AI learnt off them  
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 65):
NZ managed to during the mid 2000s and its longhaul fleet is predominantly 777 now.

Who are 75% government owned and were losing $1 million a week internationally last August IIRC...


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5554 posts, RR: 6
Reply 84, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 29827 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 80):
A 600,000 pound 777-20ER with Rolls engines flying from SYD to SFO or FRA would have been much better for Qantas then the 900.000 pound 744

You think so? Well you are entitled to you opinion, but I sincerely doubt it when you factor in the total cost of introducing the B772.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinetom355uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 85, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 29387 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 80):
A 600,000 pound 777-20ER with Rolls engines flying from SYD to SFO or FRA would have been much better for Qantas then the 900.000 pound 744.

Only from a level playing field acquisition wise. How many hundreds of thousands (or even millions?) of dollars per month are you ahead with a 744 that is paid for before you start considering the fuel and maintenance savings of a 777?

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 80):
A330 are great if your view of teh world is only HKG, NRT or SIN but they can't fly nonstop to the USA or one-stop to Europe, QF could fly A332 one-stop but has never done it.

You kind of contradict yourself here...I'm sure you mean the A333 is great for HKG/NRT/SIN but unable to do non-stop to US/Europe: True. But really, how many destinations in Europe and the US could QF make an aircraft the size of even a 77E work to? That's why I considered the scissor hub to be a good plan, utilising smaller long range (read A330 or even 787) aircraft for lean destinations MAD/FCO/ATH/IST/DME and funnel these flights along with your prime A380 routes (LHR and FRA) onto mid capacity A333's on the trip from SIN/BKK to SYD/MEL/PER/BNE, which all seem to be right in the A333's sweet spot.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 80):
Financing 6 A380's for 2 daily flights to LHR is an expensive proposition.

Looking at it logically, even if you wanted A380's ONLY for SYD-SIN-LHR-SIN-SYD and nowhere else with the same aircraft as they do at the minute, you would need a bare minimum of four aircraft for a double daily as the turnaround is almost 48 hours, completely discounting any aircraft going tech at any point!

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 72):
All he said was he was very dissatisfied with Boeing over 787's delay and that had the delay not happened these 787 would have been contributing positive to QF group. I really cannot see anything controversial in that.

  

This is the key point of the discussion. I like it, concise and to the point.



on Twitter @tombeckett2285
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8094 posts, RR: 7
Reply 86, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 28006 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 85):
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 80):A 600,000 pound 777-20ER with Rolls engines flying from SYD to SFO or FRA would have been much better for Qantas then the 900.000 pound 744.
Only from a level playing field acquisition wise. How many hundreds of thousands (or even millions?) of dollars per month are you ahead with a 744 that is paid for before you start considering the fuel and maintenance savings of a 777?

This statement is true if you assume the 777 came much later then the 744 but if QF has purchased 777-200ER in say 1998 then the 744 and 777 would have been paid for over the same years. Your assumption is true if QF got 77W in say 2008.


User currently offlinetom355uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 87, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 26954 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 86):
This statement is true if you assume the 777 came much later then the 744 but if QF has purchased 777-200ER in say 1998 then the 744 and 777 would have been paid for over the same years. Your assumption is true if QF got 77W in say 2008.

In 1998, if QF thought that the 77E was the right aircraft for them then they would have ordered six of them, instead of the 744ER's that they actually went with and were delivered in '02 and '03. The world was a very different place 14 years ago, particularly from the airlines point of view. At the time, QF obviously did their homework and decided that the 777 wasn't right for them. In fact, I can absolutely be sure that at the time ordering the 77E would have been a backward step for an airline of QF's stature. If anybody on here wants to tell me that back then they could confidently say to QF "You absolutely need the 777, I guarantee the 744ER is the wrong choice" then frankly you should be lying on your own private island somewhere having made trillions investing.



on Twitter @tombeckett2285
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 26888 times:

Air NZ seem to be pleased with the 77W? Why didnt they order the A380?

User currently offlinetom355uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 89, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 26604 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 88):
Air NZ seem to be pleased with the 77W? Why didnt they order the A380?

The 77W is an ideal replacment for NZ's first 744's delivered to it's fleet, which were ideally approaching retirement just when 77W slots were available - NZ were in the right place, at the right time. You can't really compare the 77W and the A380 anyway, if you can fill an A380 then it's CASM murders the 77W on any given route. The A380 is far too much airplane for NZ on the routes it flies, particularly LHR-LAX and LHR-HKG which are saturated with competition already.

Edited for spelling.

[Edited 2012-06-13 07:26:31]


on Twitter @tombeckett2285
User currently offlineSATexan From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 26012 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 52):
What's worse in the professional world:- Delaying an aircraft countless times or tactlessly using harsh language in public about the delays? Neither does OEM - Client relations any good.

I had said this in a thread related to Air India:

I work on delivering IT/Telecom solutions and contractually these kinds of delays are NEVER accepted in the industry. These kinds of delays and production defects usually incur huge penalties and compensations, especially in the US where litigations and seeking compensations are the norm for just about everything. When a customer makes you an advance payment, they are probably paying an interest on that advance payment and expecting an ROI at the earliest. AI's flawed business model not withstanding it will still be Boeing's responsibility to fulfil the order in a timely manner. The good thing for Boeing is that it operates in a domain that is a duopoly and can get away with such unprofessionalism. In the sector I work if we had these kinds of delays, my customers would have told me 'Adious Amigos' a long long time ago. Honestly, Boeing's 787 program schedule is a big joke something it should be ashamed of...

QF strategically planned to build a plan around the 787. No wonder Joyce is now pissed since all plans are now jepardized. This harsh language from him is a result of delays. Especially these kind of delays where deliveries were expected sometime in 2008 and now no one knows when these will be delivered.

One more thing, compensations cannot make up for the time lost in implementing a strategic plan. Especially if that plan involves making the company more profitable...


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 4724 posts, RR: 4
Reply 91, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 25913 times:

I'm sorry for the general rant, but reading through this thread I cannot help but shake my head in wonder at the level of misinformation and general gungho attitude on display!

Has QF stuffed up? Yes
Has Boeing stuffed up? Yes

Does QF have a right to be annoyed at Boeing? Yes

Does the fact that QF deferred some aircraft after they were supposed to be delivered and with no end in sight to the delays relevant? Probably not

Would QF/JQ be in a better/stronger position with the 787? Definitely

Is QF loss making? NO
Is QF about to go bust? NOT EVEN CLOSE


Does QF have overarching cost issues which it needs to address? Yes
Are they trying to address them? Yes
Did the 787 and A380 have help them address them? Yes


Is the 77W a night in shining armour? NO
Would QFI be profitable if it flew 77Ws? Probably not



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11953 posts, RR: 25
Reply 92, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 22742 times:

Quoting SATexan (Reply 91):
it will still be Boeing's responsibility to fulfil the order in a timely manner

Boeing's responsibility is well spelled out in contracts, and QF's had one bite of the compensation apple already.

Keep in mind QF could be getting 787's shortly:

Quote:

Qantas was originally allocated three aircraft - LN21/24/27 - in the early 787-8 production run. That number was later increased to five with LN22 and LN29 reallocated to the Australian carrier after Delta/Northwest disclosed it was retooling its delivery schedule. These early 787s would have benefited from the second blockpoint weight improvements that are planned for LN20.

but made changes in 2009:

Quote:

> Jetstar's first 15 787s will now be 787-9s, not 787-8s and will arrive in mid-2013.
> The 15 deferred 787-8s will be put into domestic operations starting in the 4th quarter of 2014 over the following 12 months.
> The remaining 20 787-9 will be for Qantas and Jetstar operations, with the first deliveries in the 4th quarter of 2015 through 2017.
> Total firm order stands at 50 787s, down from 65, with options for 50 more

Interestingly enough:

Quote:

Qantas cited the volatile economic climate as the reason for the significant shift in its order, and noted that the latest delay in first flight had no bearing on the decision. The deferral negotiation was first announced on April 14th when the airline delayed its A380 deliveries.

Ref: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...qantas-cancels-15-787s-defers.html

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 92):
Does QF have a right to be annoyed at Boeing? Yes

They also had the right to cancel their order should they have chosen, but both parties saw it in their best interests to not do so, and the result is a new order with some cancellations and some deferrals, on top of the compensation that QF received.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePHXA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 22016 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 39):
Fact is QF has been let down by both OEMs, but more so by Boeing due to the shear number of frames that have been delayed and the cumulative amount of the delays

I would argue that the A380 has harmed them equally. The uncontained engine failure happend to an in service aircraft. The 787 isn't in service so at least other aircraft (767s, A330s) are deployed earning some sort of revenue while the A380 problem created a situation where the aircraft was deployed on routes that didn't make sense (And 1 was completely out of commission) while they figured out how to fix the engine.

I am with everyone else who says Boeing and Airbus both have harmed QF.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6742 posts, RR: 8
Reply 94, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 21842 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 72):
Quoting par13del (Reply 69):
comments like these from some of the Gulf carriers leadership have been met here by derision.

I am not a QF supporter by any means and I happen to think AJ should have been removed a long time ago. However, I could not understand why his words would be met by derision from any one who is at least partially objective.

I did not say that his comments were met with derision, but those by the Gulf carrier smanagement, it was meant to highlight a double standard based not on what was said but on who said them. Folks said similar comments by others were non-professional and not in line with working along with an OEM who would be your partner for years to come.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 77):
Maybe because the 77W only entered service eight years ago?

See, more confusion, here I was thinking I was talking about the 777 and end up writing about the 777W, duh  
Thanks for the correction.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 95, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 21824 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHXA340 (Reply 95):
The uncontained engine failure happend to an in service aircraft

True, but there it was Rolls-Royce who had to pay (if any) for compensations, not Airbus.

Zeke is imho pointing out that the number of B787 airplanes delivered later to QF is higher then the number of A380's. And the delay per airframe is even longer then the delays on the A380, which by themselves were already not good.

[Edited 2012-06-13 10:16:17]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29700 posts, RR: 84
Reply 96, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 21386 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting garpd (Reply 52):
IMO, these comments are a direct result of Air India's demands for $1Bn in compensation.
Seems to me, QF want a slice of that to help pad out their own inaction and bad decision making (a lot like AI then!)
Quoting par13del (Reply 69):
I am leaning toward this viewpont, especially if I accept the post from the QF supporters that it is a professionally run airline, after all, comments like these from some of the Gulf carriers leadership have been met here by derision.

On 26 November 2010, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that QF had received to date $297 million in compensation for delays relating to 787 deliveries and this should be the maximum contractual compensation if their contract caps are the same as AI's (Macquarie Equities noted that they did not believe QF could ask for any additional compensation).



Quoting Cerecl (Reply 72):
However, I could not understand why his words would be met by derision from any one who is at least partially objective. All he said was he was very dissatisfied with Boeing over 787's delay and that had the delay not happened these 787 would have been contributing positive to QF group. I really cannot see anything controversial in that.

No derision here, but as has been pointed up-thread, JQ and/or QF were in a position to get earlier frames (post-LN20), but chose not to. Now they may have decided to do that for airframe performance reasons, but five months earlier QF Group was expressing concern that if they didn't get 787-8s soon, they'd have to keep the 767-300ER fleet in service for years longer than planned (up to 2015) and fuel and maintenance costs on those planes would only rise during that time. And now that NH is noting that their post-LN20 787s are seeing fuel burn some 21% lower on long-haul missions than a 767-300ER, that is probably rubbing salt in the wound at QF Group, so to speak.

That being said. does QF do long-haul with their 767-300ER fleet, or are they all domestic/CityFlyer services? The fuel burn advantage for short hops would be far less. I would not be surprised if QF moved those missions purely to A320neo or 737MAX down the road.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8094 posts, RR: 7
Reply 97, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 20314 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 87):

In 1998, if QF thought that the 77E was the right aircraft for them then they would have ordered six of them, instead of the 744ER's that they actually went with and were delivered in '02 and '03. The world was a very different place 14 years ago, particularly from the airlines point of view. At the time, QF obviously did their homework and decided that the 777 wasn't right for them. In fact, I can absolutely be sure that at the time ordering the 77E would have been a backward step for an airline of QF's stature. If anybody on here wants to tell me that back then they could confidently say to QF "You absolutely need the 777, I guarantee the 744ER is the wrong choice" then frankly you should be lying on your own private island somewhere having made trillions investing.

The 744ER and the A380's were all ordered by Qantas at the same time. In the press at the time QF managers were unhappy with Boeing for its One too many derivatives with the 767-400. They were very "impressed " with the A330. They ordered 6 744ER's as a "stopgap" between the old 744 and the new A380's.


User currently offlinetom355uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 98, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 19595 times:

You are correct that they were both ordered at the same time; however the point I'm trying to make is that if QF truly believed that the 777 was the way forward for their operations, they would most definitely have ordered some at that time. Admittedly, if the 77W was around then I've no doubt at all that they would have ordered those instead - and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I feel we need to return to topic anyway. Thanks for the dialogue though  

So, has AJ every right to be narked by the delays in the 787 program, and is he right to say that it had cost QF a considerable amount of money??



on Twitter @tombeckett2285
User currently offlinen729pa From UK - England, joined Jan 2011, 367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 19590 times:

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 10):
I think QF service is usually very good, but on the odd occasion, as on all airlines, when it is bad, it is really bad. Obviously something they need to work on, but there domestic competition isn't exactly great either, when it comes to service that is.
Quoting qf002 (Reply 12):
In any case, QF blows most airlines out of the water. Their product is up there with SQ etc when executed properly by the staff.



QF are not the only airline having a tough time, it doesn't help I think that QF and others have to fight off the Middle Eastern carriers, there was a thread the other day about SAA cutting CPT-LHR because basically the traffic was moving via Dubai. But I find it odd that no other airline on Airliners.net seems to bring out the likes and dislikes as much as Qantas. In the UK Marmite had a ad campaign called you either hate it or love it, and that how QF seems to be on here.

I for one totally agree with Truemanqld and QF002, in the past 18 months I've flown 21 flights with Qantas, the last one only last week. I find QF a breath of fresh air compared to some of the European carriers I travel on. I'm not talking about F or C, but Y down the back. I'm quite passionate about QF, which coming from a Pom may be a bit odd, but I've never had a bad flight, bad service and I find the crew are great, nothing's too much trouble and I love flying on them. Even when my case missed it's connection to Ayers Rocks (once a day from SYD), it was delivered as promised by 11am the next morning to my hotel room having gone up to Cairns to catch the first flight of the day in........very impressed. We had a birdstrike on a Q400 coming into Longreach, all the out going passengers were looked after, given food vouchers, then later food and drink bought in from the strickened plane and hot pizzas bought in too while we waited for a replacement from BNE to come up. That's not to say a bad flight is never possible, of course it is, and I can only speak from my own experience. Qantas is a great carrier, and maybe they don't always make the right decisions or please everyone all of the time, but then why copy what everyone does, be yourself and make your own decisions.

I'm sure when the 787 comes QF will make the most of it and be glad they've got it too.

In the meantime, my only downer is they removed the BKK and HKG stopovers from the UK, so options are rather limited, and I'm not going to fly on a QF322 or QF319 either sorry BA, but you're not a patch on the Flying Kangaroo. I still call Qantas home.


User currently offlineAtlflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 19510 times:

Quoting poLot (Reply 7):

I agree. Most Australians have nothing good to say about Qantas. I have had great flights with them and think they are great yet my Australian friends think otherwise.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6742 posts, RR: 8
Reply 101, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 19414 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 97):
Zeke is imho pointing out that the number of B787 airplanes delivered later to QF is higher then the number of A380's.

These a/c are in different categories, based on their designed missions and the world's current environment, the 787 will alwaye be ordered in greater numbers than the A380 by major airlines, so unless we are talking about a small airline with a fleet of 2 A380's and 2 787's the actual numbers of frames ordered and delayed by QF between these two a/c is not a great barometer.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24652 posts, RR: 86
Reply 102, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 18075 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 90):
I still believe Airbus would have cancelled and gone with the A350XWB for a number of reasons: the 787's strong sales momentum (the "drug-like rush"), that "blue-chip" customers like QF, SQ and BA were selecting the 787 over the A350 (and I expect not all of those decisions were based purely on time-to-market) and that they knew that the A340 would secure little to no new orders and that would give Boeing the 300-500 seat market to itself.

Hindsight is always perfect vision, but I believed - and said - at the time that Airbus should have gone ahead with the A350 (1) and that Qantas should have ordered it, and everything that has happened since has only reinforced that view.

The problem was "the drug like rush" - the (airline) world was dazzled, blinded, by the 787. What is missing is that even Stephen Udvar Hazy admitted, in his wretched attack on the aircraft, is that the A350 (1) was a very good plane. But it was always (as he also said) a silver medal aircraft compared with the gold medal of the 787.

But sometimes there is nothing wrong with a silver medal. As US Airways CEO Parker said when he transferred the order to the XWB - we didn't see what was wrong with the original A350.

The A350(1) was the A330 on steroids and it would have been cheaper to produce, easier to bring to EIS and thus, above, all - ready.

Several operators - Qantas included - turned to the A330 in the face of the 787 delays - how many more might have turned to the A350 (1) if only because of availability(1)?

But of course you are correct - it wasn't just a matter of time-to-market. The 787 may be the better, gold medal, aircraft, but it is point blank useless to an airline if it isn't in service.

And it is worse than useless if an airline burdens itself with losses and thus debt (and perhaps even goes under) waiting for it to arrive.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinedisplane From United States of America, joined May 2005, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 17738 times:

If I'm not mistaken, first it was AI and now QF. So who's the next airline/CEO to complain? A bit of a sarcastic question but really, would anyone be surprised if there was another complaint?

BTW, how much did it cost QF for the grounding of the 380's? In another forum, it was 30 million/month USD for Emirates.

[Edited 2012-06-13 13:38:05]

User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4775 posts, RR: 9
Reply 104, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 17735 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 22):
So that the A330s can go back into QF's fleet and replaced 744s

The A330 doesn't have the range for a lot (most) of QFs 744 flying. The 77E/L/W does.

Quoting sweair (Reply 55):
Where would QF have used the 77L? Super niched LHR-PER?

Where to start? SYD-DFW, SYD-SFO, SYD-YVR, SYD-DXB, AKL-LAX. SYD-JFK (although probably not as its better to feed at LAX and theres the DFW flight), etc. Basically the 77L is better than the 77E over 8+ hour sectors. In turn this is better than the 744, and also better than the A330 on these longer sectors. The A330 of course owns less than 9 hours. In reality thought the 77W is THE aircraft for QF as its a 744 replacement effectively yet costs a lot less and allows greater profitability on existing routes whilst allowing more marginal routes to survive.
SYD-DFW, SYD-SFO, 2nd SYD-LAX(+JFK), BNE-LAX, SYD-YVR, MEL-HKG-LHR, SYD-HKG, SYD-SIN-FRA, SYD-SIN-CDG, AKL-LAX, SYD-DXB. Thats a fleet of up to 18 aircraft so easily big enough to justify its inclusion.
QF could have scrapped all 744s and just kept the 6x 744ERs for JNB and SCL, and another couple of routes.
Less maintenance, much lower fuel burn, greater payload, more cargo space, better reliability, leasing advantages. Also Boeing sure as hell would have done whatever it takes to make this order happen pronto. So even if QF had waited until 2008 it would now likely have at least a dozen 77W. Even if tomorrow QF was to decide to order them Boeing would make it happen. 6 per year. Lease for 10 years then replace with the new 777Xs



54 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5322 posts, RR: 30
Reply 105, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 16893 times:

I think it's fine for AJ to be p!ssed at Boeing but it's a bit late in the day, isn't it? It has been quite some time since any more delays have happened and he's known about his delivery schedule for a while.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't still be mad about the situation...crying about that particular spilled milk is a bit of a waste of time at this point. Complaining isn't going to speed up the process any.

I think, if anything, this story has more to do with AI compensation than any epiphany about delivery dates.



What the...?
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6338 posts, RR: 39
Reply 106, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 16848 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 106):
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 22):
So that the A330s can go back into QF's fleet and replaced 744s

The A330 doesn't have the range for a lot (most) of QFs 744 flying. The 77E/L/W does.

It was a joke! I'm aware of that and their shortcomings with fleet selection.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8094 posts, RR: 7
Reply 107, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 15708 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why is Jetstar getting the first 15 787-8 when their flights are shorter then QF and can be flown by A330's ? QF needs the range of teh 787's much more then Jetstar.

User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4775 posts, RR: 9
Reply 108, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 15384 times:

Oh and another thing about 777s. They would free up at least 3x A330 to go do things like PEK and ICN


54 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6742 posts, RR: 8
Reply 109, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 15231 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 109):
Why is Jetstar getting the first 15 787-8 when their flights are shorter then QF and can be flown by A330's ? QF needs the range of teh 787's much more then Jetstar.

Off topic but QF international ops are rumoured to be taking a beating so transferring some flights to Jetstar who have lower cost is an economic decision driven by circumstance and the direction that the company has chosen not directly the capabilities of the a/c.
Imagine the fuss if they tried to transfer existing 747 flying to Jetstar, new a/c coming into the fleet make the transition easier.


User currently offlineTruemanqld From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 14269 times:

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 102):
Most Australians have nothing good to say about Qantas.

While I believe that to be true on A.net, the general feelings of Australians towards QF is not nearly as bad as it is on here. Newspolls conducted at the time of the QF shutdown, to gauge public opinion, were surprisingly in QF favour. The problem is, Australians aren't spending that little bit extra to fly QF, and instead go with the cheaper competition.

Quoting displane (Reply 105):
BTW, how much did it cost QF for the grounding of the 380's? In another forum, it was 30 million/month USD for Emirates.

I am not sure if a figure has ever been released, but it would have cost a fair bit, but a lot of compensation was received from RR. Whether it is enough to cover it, I am not sure.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 109):
Why is Jetstar getting the first 15 787-8 when their flights are shorter then QF and can be flown by A330's ? QF needs the range of teh 787's much more then Jetstar.

Because QF would likely be using the initial 787's for domestic operations anyway. So by giving JQ the more economical aircraft, they can lower their cost base further and make more money on their longer international routes (NRT/KIX etc). The A330's will undoubtably be given a very nice makeover into the new QF product, and will go head on on with DJ on SYD/MEL-PER and SYD-MEL-BNE route. Not saying I agree with the decision, but I believe that is their reasoning. Could be wrong.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21419 posts, RR: 60
Reply 111, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13720 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 77):
Maybe because the 77W only entered service eight years ago?

It was launched earlier than that. And during design and flight testing, the specs changed dramatically, making it a far better 744 replacement than it was at launch (where it was more of a 742/3 replacement).

And this argument can as easily be made for the A346, which entered service before the 77W, and in times of lower fuel costs, made sense as well. QF simply ignored anything smaller than a 744 for long haul, and when it finally became obvious to them that they needed something smaller, it was too late to order the current crop of aircraft because, as many have pointed out, their long-term viability was limited.

Either way, there are 200+ unfilled orders for the 77W. All those carriers are obviously idiots for taking them at this late hour. QF is wise for sticking with their course of action, which includes waiting on the 789, deferring A380s, and losing money...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2634 posts, RR: 4
Reply 112, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13578 times:

Quoting na (Reply 70):
Pathological preaching for 777s isnt good either.

Wait a tick. QF is moaning about the lack of delivery of its ordered 250-280 seaters - a legitimate moan given Boeing's muckup with the 787. But it's been apparent for a very long time now that QF has had a gaping hole in the 250-300 seat segment that it has simply walked away from, relying on too large 744s that are prone to loss during economic downturns, and right-sized 330s/too small 767s that can't substitue on longer, thinner routes.

In my opinion, the 777 would have been ideal, but if they'd gone A340, then fine, why not (which could've made South america/South africa routes more viable)? Just something in that space. But they didn't and consequently left themselves exposed to the potential for delay arising from a new aircraft programme (the 787).

So I refute that it's "pathological preaching for 777s" - it's pathological preaching for something in the 300 seat, longhaul space.

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 54):
Whenever a thread starts about QF 'Losing money' et al, it is always because they 'didn't order the 777'

No, it's really not. If you'd been paying attention then lately it's all been about labour costs/

But when there's a thread about the QF CEO saying they're losing money because they haven't got the aircraft they ordered, then yeah, it becomes about the fleet choice.

Quoting na (Reply 70):
I said, QF opted for A380s to replace the 744s. And for 787s to replace the 767s. Both are bigger than their predecessors

And?

Quoting mariner (Reply 73):
It's been a while and most of the articles about it are archived now, but - happily - some quotes from the articles exist in the a.net archives.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 79):
Yes, later both he and Leahy said the tipping point was the QF loss, which happened shortly after the Air Canada loss.

Interesting, I genuinely did not know this (just in case you thought I was trying to be clever). I thought QF was on the sidelines of this one as its 330 experience was relatively new.

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 76):
With the astoundingly easy benefit of hindsight, maybe.

And foresight. Really, analysts, commentators, casual observers have been noting for years that QF has a serious defficiency in the 300 seat. long haul class or aircraft. Christ you only have to pick up an Australian Aviation magazine from the 1990s to see the renderings of A340s in QF colours to see how long people have banged on about this.

Also, I'm not paid tp undertake a risk analysis of fleet decisions. You'd hope that those who are have a pretty firm grasp on things and are, rightly, sceptical in their approach.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 81):
But when it's a question of inducting a Boeing product, particularly the 77W which so many anetters are having a lovefest over, not single negative comment is raised over the introduction of such a sub-fleet. Rather the opposite, as evidence above shows.

Nice attempt at turning this into AvB. Really, clever stuff (without a shred of evidence, of course). And this "lovefest" you speak of - is this the one that is borne out by actual orders?

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 83):
Who are 75% government owned and were losing $1 million a week internationally last August IIRC...

Irrelevant. And can you provide a counterfactual? ie. what if they hadn't bought the 777? My point was that NZ was able to introduce the 777 during the 2000s and benefitted from them, whereas it was stated that it was a 90s-era jet, implying that was the window of opportunity. Given the prospect of the 77X, the time probably has passed for the current generation of 777s as a new fleet. A shame for QF.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 92):
Does the fact that QF deferred some aircraft after they were supposed to be delivered and with no end in sight to the delays relevant? Probably not

I think it does. Allocating the jets to Jetstar fairly recently, only to complain that QF needs them now, is befuddling. If they're so damn critical, yank them off JQ, who, with lower costs and shorter trips, are less in need of the cost savings and premium potential offered by the 787.

Joyce has a right to be peeved. Boeing mucked up. But he should be peeved at the QF executive too for either wrongly assessing the risk of its fleet strategy or just misreading the market altogether (fuel prices, the GFC, competition). In which case, shareholders should be pretty peeved too.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6742 posts, RR: 8
Reply 113, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 13441 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 114):
Joyce has a right to be peeved. Boeing mucked up. But he should be peeved at the QF executive

You really expect an employee to go in public talking about his employer the way he talked about Boeing?
Say it ain't so.... 
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 114):
Also, I'm not paid tp undertake a risk analysis of fleet decisions. You'd hope that those who are have a pretty firm grasp on things and are, rightly, sceptical in their approach.

I think these are the guys who are supposed to have foresight, we the masses only have hindsight.

In relation to the 777 decision the issue is more of having a discussion where one can be critical of the fleet decision without saying that ones favorite carrier made a mistake or an error in judgement or could have looked more in-depth, etc. etc. in the long run its about what the supporters are willing to accept. QF has long since made their decision and are working with what they have however their past decisions affect the present.


User currently onlinewingman From St. Vincent and the Grenadines, joined May 1999, 2103 posts, RR: 5
Reply 114, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 13449 times:

To add to the last post, it seems a bit hypocritical for the Airbus fan club to say that the 777 would've done nothing to help QF back then but that the delays in the 787 are somehow to blame for QF's problems now. Either a particular plane is going to help or it isn't. I don't see how you have it both ways. And do we know for certain that QF is more pissed off at Boeing over the 787 delays than they are at Airbus over the 380 issues? I don't have the inclination to do the math but I'd wager that at this precise point in time the number of seats that should be in regular revenue service for each frame multiplied by the average revenue per year per frame might make it a close contest for the OEM asshole award (knowing of course that the average 380 seat must command at least a 200% premium over the 787...you know, because it's an Airbus).

User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 13410 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 96):
it was meant to highlight a double standard based not on what was said but on who said them. Folks said similar comments by others were non-professional and not in line with working along with an OEM who would be your partner for years to come.

Sorry I cannot agree. There is no double standard as what AJ said and what a certain CEO of a major ME airline said are completely different. AJ did not say something like "if manufacturer A gave me a revamped version of aircraft X why would I bothered with 787" or "we demand gazillion dollars of compensation otherwise we will not take the aircraft" (admittedly the said CEO didn't say that either) or cancel a ceremony days before an aircraft is about to be handed over.
As to unprofessional, if the definition of it is “daring to criticise an manufacturer whose product is years late", then sure. From where I sit there is nothing unprofessional about what AJ said. The aircraft is late, he emphasized how important it is to QF group. If anything this is a good example of fair comment without over the top theatrics or bashing. Working along with an OEM doesn't mean justified criticism cannot be made.
God, I need to lie down, what I just wrote makes me sound like the biggest cheerleader of AJ   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 98):
JQ and/or QF were in a position to get earlier frames (post-LN20), but chose not to.

As some has pointed out already, the decision was made in the middle of the 787 delay saga. I don't wish to revisit what happened then. However, I think it is not too inaccurate to say that at the time, there was little certainty about the EIS date or the performance of the 787.

[Edited 2012-06-13 19:13:03]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29700 posts, RR: 84
Reply 116, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 13403 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 109):
Why is Jetstar getting the first 15 787-8 when their flights are shorter then QF and can be flown by A330's?
Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 112):
Because QF would likely be using the initial 787's for domestic operations anyway.

Wasn't the original plan to send them to JQ first so they could use them to open new services to the EU with JQ's A330s being moved to QF to replace the 767s on CityFlyer services? I thought I recall rumblings that JQ was going to order the 238t A330-200 to serve those EU missions once the 787 ran aground.


User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2808 posts, RR: 20
Reply 117, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 13316 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118):
Wasn't the original plan to send them to JQ first so they could use them to open new services to the EU with JQ's A330s being moved to QF to replace the 767s on CityFlyer services?

That's still the plan although just not with the EU part. JQ has most recently said that 787's could be used either through SIN or from Australia to NHL or DPS first. Either way we wil know next year because the first JQ 788's arrive in the second half of 2013 and they should have 4, I think, in service by end of 2013. So hopefully QF domestic will have 3 or 4 re-furbished A332's on the way by end of 2013.

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 112):
So by giving JQ the more economical aircraft, they can lower their cost base further and make more money on their longer international routes (NRT/KIX etc). The A330's will undoubtably be given a very nice makeover into the new QF product, and will go head on on with DJ on SYD/MEL-PER and SYD-MEL-BNE route.

And to HNL. It'll be interesting to see if QF mainline sticks around on HNL after the 787 is delivered because JQ will have an even more decided cost advantage over the 767 currently flying.

Regarding the makeover, it'll be interesting to see if these A332's enter service with seatback IFE or not. If the IPAD trial is successful we may find that installed instead. I presume that would also be cheaper?


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2033 posts, RR: 6
Reply 118, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 13258 times:

Since when is it a good idea to bank on assets you don't have? That's the biggest mistake a business can make in this day and age. QF knew what they were getting into, and decided to stake their financial future on it anyway. But that's the typical decision making process of a former Crown corporation.

Quoting garpd (Reply 52):

IMO, these comments are a direct result of Air India's demands for $1Bn in compensation.
Seems to me, QF want a slice of that to help pad out their own inaction and bad decision making (a lot like AI then!)

  

Alan Joyce is probably feeling the heat too, so it's obvious he's going to be very crafty and vocal when he comes up with good excuses.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4973 posts, RR: 18
Reply 119, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 13261 times:

A very wise college classmate once said that most people operate as follows: "When it's the other guy's fault, hang your head because you screwed up by trusting him. When it's really your fault, blame the other guy, and quick."

This is just another example of a CEO who is looking to blame anyone but himself for the sorry state of his airline. Somehow, DL seems to be turning decent profits without needing either the 787 or even the newest fleet. But DL has the respect of its workforce, which this guy and his airline do not.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29700 posts, RR: 84
Reply 120, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 13189 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

One negotiating advantage AI has that QF doesn't is AI has some half-dozen completed or in-assembly 787s between PAE and CHS...

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24652 posts, RR: 86
Reply 121, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 13045 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 114):
But when there's a thread about the QF CEO saying they're losing money because they haven't got the aircraft they ordered, then yeah, it becomes about the fleet choice.

Where does he say that?

I read that not having the aircraft is surely costing them money. I did not read that he blames the airline's losses on not having the aircraft, though.

I thought it was a moderately light hearted interview that is full of praise for the potential of the 787.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 114):
Interesting, I genuinely did not know this (just in case you thought I was trying to be clever).

That certainly crossed my mind, but it doesn't matter if you were. A lot of people here dismissed - or dissed - the A350 (1) without giving it a lot of thought. I'm used to it.

mariner

[Edited 2012-06-13 21:39:34]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinePHXA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 122, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12930 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 123):
I thought it was a moderately light hearted interview that is full of praise for the potential of the 787.

  

I would only be upset because I don't have an aircraft that is going to be stellar. If a lame duck airplane that was going to be a poor performer was delayed three years - I wouldn't be upset , I would have just cancelled the order.

I see this interview as exhibiting frustration towards the process but praise for the product.


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6338 posts, RR: 39
Reply 123, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12947 times:

The Sydney Morning Herald has just released an article about this whole issue:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/qanta...n-down-the-roo-20120614-20bvt.html



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2199 posts, RR: 5
Reply 124, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 12770 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 72):
All he said was he was very dissatisfied with Boeing over 787's delay and that had the delay not happened these 787 would have been contributing positive to QF group. I really cannot see anything controversial in that.

Absolutely true. Ontopic there is not a single blame to be put on QF.

These replies about weak QF figures and the 777 are just a deceiving maneouvre to detract from the topic at hand.

Does such a hurtful but obvious remark today still warrant 100 777 advertising posts to relieve the pain of some Boeing fans? Get over it, that various highly succesful airlines don't have 777. That fact alone is no damage to the excellent reputation of the 777.


User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2808 posts, RR: 20
Reply 125, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12671 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 117):
JQ has most recently said that 787's could be used either through SIN or from Australia to NHL or DPS first.

Further, apparently the ANA Boeing 787's have proved to be more than 20% more efficient than 767's on long haul routes and these are the overweight, earlier build ones. So it makes more sense for JQ to take delivery of them and use them to Japan and HNL. It'd also make sense for QF mainline International to also get a handful for PVG, HNL and HKG but I guess that's where the calculation of where the better return is comes into play. If you can get 20% less fuel burn, 30% less maintenance cost and significantly less operating costs in terms of labour etc all the while earning the same revenue then unfortunately JQ is where the most benefit is. QF mainline International needs to pare its labour costs etc back so that it can then earn the decent return that will come with having the 787 in the fleet.


User currently offlineTruemanqld From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 126, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12446 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 119):
This is just another example of a CEO who is looking to blame anyone but himself for the sorry state of his airline. Somehow, DL seems to be turning decent profits without needing either the 787 or even the newest fleet. But DL has the respect of its workforce, which this guy and his airline do not.

DL also gets this convenient advantage of being able to run itself into the ground through bad management (and a range of other things) and then turn around and enter itself into Chapter 11. Qantas, as with most other airlines worldwide, don't have that nice option and have to be careful, because the government won't bail them out. I mean really, to compare it to DL is crazy, because I am sure QF would love to run themselves bankrupt so they could slash wages, fire staff and other things they are currently contractually obliged to do that is unprofitable for them now. It would easily solve most of QF problems that they have at the moment. Also, QF is turning profits, and has for a lot longer than DL has been. QF also has a very proud history and, in a survey conducted in 2011, was the 4th on a list of companies Australians would most like to work for. So to say they don't have the respect of the workforce is quite untrue.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 127, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 12158 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 118):
Since when is it a good idea to bank on assets you don't have? That's the biggest mistake a business can make in this day and age. QF knew what they were getting into, and decided to stake their financial future on it anyway. But that's the typical decision making process of a former Crown corporation.

Since when is it possible to run a company and not bank on assets you do not have?

You develop products hoping you can sell them. Or you sell products hoping you can produce them. Never do you have products and customers at exactly the same step.

The 787 is a good example of Boeing selling what they don't have. And for each sale there is a customer buying something they hope Boeing will be able to produce. How would a project of this magnitude happen if there wasn't this trust in the future?


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6742 posts, RR: 8
Reply 128, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 12068 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 115):
AJ did not say something like "if manufacturer A gave me a revamped version of aircraft X why would I bothered with 787"

Oh, ok you are talking about the A350, my bad, I was being general, harsh comments have been thrown about the 747-8, 777 additional development, 787-10, 737Max etc. etc. which was regarded as unprofessional.

Quoting cmf (Reply 127):
The 787 is a good example of Boeing selling what they don't have.

All new a/c models are sold by OEM's before they are built, indeed some are sold even before the design is complete.
The a/c industry is one of the few where even new a/c of a model in production is not sitting at the OEM awaiting purchase, they are almost always built after you place your order.
Unlike the automobile industry for example who usually design and produce their vehicles then offer them for sale.


User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 129, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 11955 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 125):
QF mainline International needs to pare its labour costs etc back so that it can then earn the decent return that will come with having the 787 in the fleet.

You make the 787 sound like a liability. I would also say we need companies to pay staff more not less, that is why our industries in the west are grinding to a halt. No one has the money to do anything.


User currently offlinePHXA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 130, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 11792 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 129):
I would also say we need companies to pay staff more not less, that is why our industries in the west are grinding to a halt.

Huh ? Our companies in the West are grinding to a halt because labor costs are too high ... to be competitive with lower cost airlines, some legacy carriers like QF need to reduce their costs.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 11770 times:

Quoting PHXA340 (Reply 130):
Huh ? Our companies in the West are grinding to a halt because labor costs are too high ... to be competitive with lower cost airlines, some legacy carriers like QF need to reduce their costs.

That is not only air lines sadly, most of us costs too much on a global scale. I see high tech well paid jobs leave Sweden every week now. Troubling times to be a westerner, but good times to be Asian  


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11953 posts, RR: 25
Reply 132, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11412 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 112):
My point was that NZ was able to introduce the 777 during the 2000s and benefitted from them, whereas it was stated that it was a 90s-era jet, implying that was the window of opportunity. Given the prospect of the 77X, the time probably has passed for the current generation of 777s as a new fleet. A shame for QF.

And as earlier mentioned, Air Canada put in their first 777 order in the mid 2000s in the same time frame as they wound down their 747 and A340 fleets, and ordered 787s in the late 2000s. Again, not the only way to build a fleet, but also shows one did not have to start with the 777 in 1995 as some seem to be suggesting.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2808 posts, RR: 20
Reply 133, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 11170 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 129):
You make the 787 sound like a liability. I would also say we need companies to pay staff more not less, that is why our industries in the west are grinding to a halt. No one has the money to do anything.

I would say Company's need to pay staff more only if they've earned it. For an airline, the 787 is an investment that needs to generate a commercial rate of return. That means having an appropriate cost structure in order to do that. If the 787 saves 20% in fuel costs, that's not a reason to pay staff 20% more because that cost saving should flow to shareholders who are putting their capital at risk. If you want more pay then you need to be more productive and smarter in how you do things.


User currently offlinefiscal From Australia, joined Oct 2009, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 11094 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 119):
This is just another example of a CEO who is looking to blame anyone but himself for the sorry state of his airline. Somehow, DL seems to be turning decent profits without needing either the 787 or even the newest fleet. But DL has the respect of its workforce, which this guy and his airline do not.

It seems you are not aware of the facts. QF is turning a profit, but it could have been better had the 787 been available, and also, if some elements of the QF staff had been more respectful to the company and to the flying public, the profits would have been even higher.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 135, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11089 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 125):
Further, apparently the ANA Boeing 787's have proved to be more than 20% more efficient than 767's on long haul routes and these are the overweight, earlier build ones

I do not believe the report in the Australian. Have a look at this analysis http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/boeing787-2011.html they have the 767 actually using less fuel on regional flights, and the 787 only doing marginally better on 4000 nm trips. Keep in mind the 788 OEW is around 27t heaver than a 767-300 at spec weights, more likely around 30t with these ANA aircraft.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 132):
Air Canada put in their first 777 order in the mid 2000s in the same time frame as they wound down their 747 and A340 fleets, and ordered 787s in the late 2000s.

Having 777s has not helped AC dramatically, like I said earlier on this thread, operating the 777 is not a license to print money. If anything having the 777 in AC has made them think they can operate routes the probably would be better off leaving alone, you do not go around using aircraft near the maximum of the performance range unless you have a very good business case for doing so. That business case has to include the actual airline costs, which AC does not have under control.

For QF the A380s would be giving them around 15-20% lower per seat costs than what they could do with the 77W, let alone a 77E. QFs route network is a number of consolidated routes where they can take advantage of the lower seat mile costs of a VLA, they do not have a large point to point network. The strategic direction they appear to have taken for the next 10 years of so from the annual reports tends to show more consolidation on routes, not expansion.

Likewise the fleet choice made at QF would not suite AC or NZ, they are different airlines, with different route networks, and different strategic objectives.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11049 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 104):

Where to start? SYD-DFW, SYD-SFO, SYD-YVR, SYD-DXB, AKL-LAX. SYD-JFK (although probably not as its better to feed at LAX and theres the DFW flight), etc. Basically the 77L is better than the 77E over 8+ hour sectors.

8 hours? I'd expect that the 77L would be taking off at MZFW for sectors that short. AKL-LAX I'd be surprised if it needed a 77L - 77E would be fine.
SYD-DXB on QF? Pointless without code shares onto EK
SYD-YVR - needed to move before AC had the 77W service, let alone the 77L service, and also needed to arrange feed at the YVR end.
SYD-SFO - 77E can do it fine. 77L would only increase the cargo carried. I think you'd only use the 77L if you had better uses for any 77Es that you have.


User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2808 posts, RR: 20
Reply 137, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11051 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 135):
I do not believe the report in the Australian. Have a look at this analysis http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/boeing787-2011.html they have the 767 actually using less fuel on regional flights, and the 787 only doing marginally better on 4000 nm trips. Keep in mind the 788 OEW is around 27t heaver than a 767-300 at spec weights, more likely around 30t with these ANA aircraft.

I didn't read the report in the Australian. (I don't read Murdoch press  ) I got that from the Boeing 787 blog where apparently ANA has stated it. But I'd believe you in relation to regional flights vs the 767.


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6338 posts, RR: 39
Reply 138, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11017 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):
AKL-LAX I'd be surprised if it needed a 77L - 77E would be fine.

It's not about needing a 77L.. It's about efficiency and possible load of the 77L over the 77E which makes the 77L more appealing for sectors over 8 hours.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):
SYD-SFO - 77E can do it fine.

I'm sure such a flight would have some sort of weight restrictions..



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineZKOJH From China, joined Sep 2004, 1620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 139, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10956 times:

so interesting how this is such a ''HOT'' topic with now up to 32,144 views but comments are stalling around 140 ish lol, just goes to show what people really think of the 787 program and QF, with good and bad news from people, well done everyone.!

[Edited 2012-06-14 18:01:31]


NZ 787-9 flying between PVG - AKL ! CAN'T WAIT!!
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10862 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 138):
It's not about needing a 77L.. It's about efficiency and possible load of the 77L over the 77E which makes the 77L more appealing for sectors over 8 hours.

What's the difference in ZFW over the LAX-AKL sector between the 77E and 77L?

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 138):
I'm sure such a flight would have some sort of weight restrictions..

Affecting belly cargo SYD-SFO, yes.


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6338 posts, RR: 39
Reply 141, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10698 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 140):
Affecting belly cargo SYD-SFO, yes.

To put it into perspective, I think there are days when the 77E goes AKL-YVR with rows blocked off due to weight so they're carrying no extra cargo and less passengers. With SYD-SFO being longer than AKL-YVR, I have a feeling that there'd be restrictions during certain parts of the year on this sector too, when using a 77E.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 140):
What's the difference in ZFW over the LAX-AKL sector between the 77E and 77L?

Sorry, I'm not a figures person. Maybe someone else could help out.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 142, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10671 times:

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 139):

It always seems like there is an overwhelming majority slamming QF, when in actual fact it's just a few very vocal few. I think this thread is a perfect example of that (and the fact that this is just the same topic that is raised over and over and many people have given up on it...)


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29700 posts, RR: 84
Reply 143, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10652 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 135):
I do not believe the report in the Australian.
NH flies both planes, so I am inclined to believe their claims, and said claims (from ANA President and Chief Executive Shinichiro Ito) are their 787-8s are saving 21% more fuel per trip (flight) than the 767-300ERs.

Piano-X's figure of 1.4% sounds more like it's comparing a 787-8 and 767-300ER with the same payload, which while it does provide an even baseline, artificially hobbles the 787's greater payload capability (even when overweight and with sub-spec engine SFC) When fuel burn is expressed as a percentage of payload, the 787-8's advantage increases a fair bit and could therefore be what Ito-san is referring to when he says the 787 is saving 21% fuel per trip (flight).

[Edited 2012-06-14 21:24:02]

User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4775 posts, RR: 9
Reply 144, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10288 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):

8 hours? I'd expect that the 77L would be taking off at MZFW for sectors that short. AKL-LAX I'd be surprised if it needed a 77L - 77E would be fine.

77E is fine, but a 77L does it better.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 138):
Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):
AKL-LAX I'd be surprised if it needed a 77L - 77E would be fine.

It's not about needing a 77L.. It's about efficiency and possible load of the 77L over the 77E which makes the 77L more appealing for sectors over 8 hours.

  

Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):
SYD-DXB on QF? Pointless without code shares onto EK

There are something like 130 airlines flying into DXB. Many of which are in OW or could be code-share partners with QF. BA of course flies there too.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):
SYD-YVR - needed to move before AC had the 77W service, let alone the 77L service, and also needed to arrange feed at the YVR end.

Yes before AC would have been better but there is still likely a market for it. As for feed, QF has agreements with AS (who has a major presence in YVR) and could arrange with others such as Westjet. YVR/BC itself is quite a reasonable O&D market. Definitely a 77L sector.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):

SYD-SFO - 77E can do it fine. 77L would only increase the cargo carried. I think you'd only use the 77L if you had better uses for any 77Es that you have.

It would not being carrying a full payload. Why bother ordering a fleet of 77E when you also have the A333? Better to have 77L and 77W for commonality and range coupled with the A333 for Asia.



54 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4616 posts, RR: 5
Reply 145, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10217 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 143):
Piano-X's figure of 1.4% sounds more like it's comparing a 787-8 and 767-300ER with the same payload, which while it does provide an even baseline, artificially hobbles the 787's greater payload capability (even when overweight and with sub-spec engine SFC) When fuel burn is expressed as a percentage of payload, the 787-8's advantage increases a fair bit and could therefore be what Ito-san is referring to when he says the 787 is saving 21% fuel per trip (flight


I agree. My figuring with PIANO X comes to this conclusion.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 146, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10180 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 143):
NH flies both planes, so I am inclined to believe their claims, and said claims (from ANA President and Chief Executive Shinichiro Ito) are their 787-8s are saving 21% more fuel per trip (flight) than the 767-300ERs.

The QF group will be operating their 787s differently to the way they operate their 767s, so a like comparison by them would be difficult to do, esp if Jetstar end up operating the 787 as they have different cost structures. I would expect Jetstar to have their aircraft configured close to the maximum seating capability with 9 across in Y.

NH operate their aircraft with low seating densities, I would expect around 100 more seats on a Jetstar 788 compared to the NH aircraft. NH made the similar claims before they even started flying them. The same CE also said they have 220-250 seat 787s when they are configured to 156 seats, and they were referring to the Tokyo-Frankfurt route which they do not operate 767s on, that is a 777 route which have 220-250 seats.

The ANAs 767s have winglets installed, these are by everyone’s count, including Boeings better than the baseline 767 that Boeing compared the 787 to originally.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 143):

Piano-X's figure of 1.4% sounds more like it's comparing a 787-8 and 767-300ER with the same payload, which while it does provide an even baseline, artificially hobbles the 787's greater payload capability (even when overweight and with sub-spec engine SFC) When fuel burn is expressed as a percentage of payload, the 787-8's advantage increases a fair bit and could therefore be what Ito-san is referring to when he says the 787 is saving 21% fuel per trip (flight).


Have a look at the sort of cargo density they need to carry to reach MZFW with only 156 passengers, assuming they can actually get 100% LF for passengers and freight. When I did the numbers, it came out to over double the industry average for air cargo.

So my question is, is this "greater payload capability" something that would be seen in industry given the average load factors for passengers, freight, and cargo density.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 147, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10096 times:

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 10):
Most Australians do feel a sense of patriotism towards the national airline, there is nothing better than sitting half way around the world and seeing the flying Kangaroo.

speak for yourself - there's nothing that makes me cringe more than QF's jingoistic marketing.

Quoting sweair (Reply 55):
Where would QF have used the 77L? Super niched LHR-PER?

The only route QF -could- have used a 77L on is MEL-North America year-round - the 333/332 and 77W could do everything else in the current network (or "realistic" potential network with a new aircraft type).

VA fly 77Ws MEL-LAX but as I've personally experienced they dont always make the full journey from Los Angeles to Melbourne.

Otherwise, 77Ls are useless to QF - South America and Africa require 4 turbines due to CASA rules, Asia is not a 777 destination (despite TG and MH using them - MH have even started transferring AU routes to their new 330s and SQ is replacing 77Es with 330s).


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29700 posts, RR: 84
Reply 148, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10081 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 146):
Have a look at the sort of cargo density they need to carry to reach MZFW with only 156 passengers, assuming they can actually get 100% LF for passengers and freight. When I did the numbers, it came out to over double the industry average for air cargo.

But are the planes actually going out at MZFW when flying across the Sea of Japan or the Eurasian continent?

If they are not, then I would think the cargo density should be lower even if every LD3 position is filled.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8094 posts, RR: 7
Reply 149, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 9944 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 135):
Having 777s has not helped AC dramatically, like I said earlier on this thread, operating the 777 is not a license to print money. If anything having the 777 in AC has made them think they can operate routes the probably would be better off leaving alone, you do not go around using aircraft near the maximum of the performance range unless you have a very good business case for doing so. That business case has to include the actual airline costs, which AC does not have under control.

Air Canada has many 10 hour flights from eastern Canada to Europe, deep South America and Vancouver to Japan. Some flights need a little more range but most AC flights use the 777 for its size capability not its range. YVR to Sydney and YYZ to HKG are about as far as AC goes, those do need the 777LR.


User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2634 posts, RR: 4
Reply 150, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9343 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 135):
Having 777s has not helped AC dramatically,

Really? How do you know this? Have you peered into some alternative reality to see how things would have gone had they not purchased the 777?

Quoting zeke (Reply 135):
like I said earlier on this thread, operating the 777 is not a license to print money.

No one's claiming it is. But it does reduce your exposure to a sudden demand drops (see: 2008 onwards) and provides greater flexibility for redeployment and development of new markets. Plus it lowers costs. So it gets you closer to printing money.

The focus on the 777 seems to be convenient to turn this into a AvB thing. But ultimately, it's not. QF has had a problem in the 250-330 seat long haul segment for too long. Neglecting this fleet type (whether it be A340 or 777) has, in many peoples' opinion (both laymen and professionals) contributed to the considerable losses QF's international ops are posting now. The references to 777s really just reflects the sales success of the aircraft relative to its competitors, and reported efficiency advantages.


User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 151, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9207 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 128):
Oh, ok you are talking about the A350, my bad, I was being general, harsh comments have been thrown about the 747-8, 777 additional development, 787-10, 737Max etc. etc. which was regarded as unprofessional.

 
It appears that we are on completely different wavelengths. I was not talking about the A350 in particular, it was just an example. What I cannot agree is the notion that what AJ said about the 787 is in the same league of the "U-turn". The former was respectful and professional, the latter anything but.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 150):
The focus on the 777 seems to be convenient to turn this into a AvB thing. But ultimately, it's not.

The focus on the 777 also has nothing to do with this thread which is 787. If AJ said QF is making a loss because it did not get the 787, the consideration of possible 777 introduction might have some relevance (although the outcome of this scenario cannot and probably will not be ascertained). As AJ said no such thing, the topic of 777 is nothing but a distraction.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 152, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9318 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!