Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is The A380 Not Used On QF Flights To Dallas  
User currently offlinedkramer7 From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 117 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 14922 times:

The equipment used seems to be either B744 or B744ER, not A380.

I am wondering why such an important route for QF which links directly into Partner AA's main hub, would not have the Premium aircraft which also had the longest legs?

Surely an A380 is less likely to be payload restricted than a B744/B744ER?

70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMesaFlyGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2876 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 14943 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A few reasons:

1. Not enough in the fleet at the moment.
2. They cannot profitably fly them on the route because the current a380 doesn't have the range to do so with a full payload. Qf has expressed the desire to use the new IGW a380s on the DFW route when they come on property in the next few years.



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7114 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 14897 times:

I never thought the A380 had the legs to make it to DFW. Not to mention the 744ER has a pretty large range.

Quoting MesaFlyGuy (Reply 1):
1. Not enough in the fleet at the moment.

I never thought that was an issue.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1356 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 14884 times:

B744ER is used. There was a thread this week about the first time a B744 (non-ER) was used due to equipment substitution. It was pre-planned to stop in AKL because it doesn't have the range to make DFW-BNE (though it did make it SYD-DFW).

User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 14824 times:

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
B744 or B744ER

Only 744ER. The other day was the first time they have ever used a 744 on the route, and was only because the original aircraft went tech and they therefore subbed whatever they could find at short notice.

Quoting MesaFlyGuy (Reply 1):
They cannot profitably fly them on the route because the current a380 doesn't have the range to do so with a full payload

  

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
1. Not enough in the fleet at the moment.

I never thought that was an issue.

Technically they could do it, but with no spares in the A380 fleet (3x SYD-LHR, 3x MEL-LHR, 2x SYD-LAX, 2x MEL-LAX, 2x SYD-DFW = 12). I guess that isn't an insurmountable problem as they could sub 747s to cover maintenance.

Range is the biggest issue. The million dollar question right now is whether the route goes HGW A380 or 2x 787 in the future. We will find out in due course, but in the mean time we will have a weekly thread on the subject 



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4810 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 14660 times:

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
Surely an A380 is less likely to be payload restricted than a B744/B744ER?

DFW-SYD is a 16hr + sector on an average day. The 569t MTOW /~292t DOW version will not carry the 484-seats that QF has it is laid out for. Max payload is just over 42t.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 14651 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 3):
it did make it SYD-DFW

Which is a phenomenal performance!

Does anyone know if they dumped a lot of weight in Sydney prior to departure? If not then the tailwinds most have been roaring that day.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 959 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14317 times:

My understanding from another thread was it didn't have the range. Would a 777LR be adequate on this route? Why use a four-holer?

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7114 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14285 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 7):
My understanding from another thread was it didn't have the range. Would a 777LR be adequate on this route? Why use a four-holer?

Gotta look back at why SQ is withdrawing the A345 service to NYC:

Why buy a plane for only one or two services?



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4810 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 13369 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 7):
Would a 777LR be adequate on this route?

It would haul max volume limited payload on this sector.


User currently offlinelucky777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 537 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13088 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 9):
It would haul max volume limited payload on this sector.

At 7,454nm I would think the 77LR could handle the route with relative ease. I know Delta's ATL-JNB route, which is nearly the same distance at 7,333nm, takes on a full load of freight both coming and going more often than not. One thing is for certain, it's a much more capable aircraft for such a long route when it comes to hauling cargo than anything Qantas has in their fleet at the moment.


User currently offlineAM777LR From Mexico, joined Sep 2013, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 12875 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
I never thought that was an issue.

Well, why use it on a route where they would have to limit the payload and profit when they can use it on another route that allows full payload?


User currently offlineroseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9464 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 12231 times:

This is when Qantas wished it had the 777 since it is really the only plane in production that can make a route like this work. The A359 should be able to along with maybe the 747-8 and 787, but Qantas has focused on the A380 which is not an ultra long range plane yet. EK wants to fly the A380 to LAX but the payload restrictions make it not work economically. If Airbus continues to increase MTOW we might see the A380 work.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinewedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5888 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 12098 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 12):
This is when Qantas wished it had the 777

QF called the 777 an old, outdated airplane and would never buy any. QF also reduced the number of Dreamliners on order. I don't think QF has any money to buy new airplanes.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10335 posts, RR: 30
Reply 14, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 12002 times:

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 12):
EK wants to fly the A380 to LAX but the payload restrictions make it not work economically.

Then why are they launching A380 LAX service later this year?



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineAY-MD11 From Finland, joined Feb 2001, 472 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11548 times:

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 12):
This is when Qantas wished it had the 777 since it is really the only plane in production that can make a route like this work. The A359 should be able to along with maybe the 747-8 and 787

747-8 doesn't help on this route because it has even less range than a380.


User currently offlinelucky777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 537 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11523 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 13):
QF called the 777 an old, outdated airplane and would never buy any.

They're clearly in the minority in those beliefs. And judging from their recent financial performance, perhaps they should have eaten some humble pie and ordered the 777.


User currently offlineroseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9464 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11363 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):

Because airbus has been working on higher MTOW A380s if I understand correctly. When are higher MTOW A380s coming to QF.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10335 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11192 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 7):
My understanding from another thread was it didn't have the range. Would a 777LR be adequate on this route? Why use a four-holer?

Emirates flies the 777-300ER on DXB-LAX which is also around 7400nm. So the airframe can make the trip, although I'm not sure if some seats are blocked from reservation.

Emirates also used the 777LR on the DXB-LAX route but changed it to the larger 77W because the extra seats generate more revenue than the cargo does.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 334 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10937 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 5):
DFW-SYD is a 16hr + sector on an average day. The 569t MTOW /~292t DOW version will not carry the 484-seats that QF has it is laid out for. Max payload is just over 42t.

This route is right up there on the list of longest non-stop routes. I think it is going to become rank 1 once SQ withdraws the two A345 services SIN to LAX and EWR.



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10335 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10861 times:

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 17):
Because airbus has been working on higher MTOW A380s if I understand correctly. When are higher MTOW A380s coming to QF.

The way I understand it, EK will get its first 575t MTOW A380 later this year. They waited for this version to launch LAX A380 service because it can make the trip economical.

If Qantas wants to fly the A380 from SYD to DFW, they could take the 575t MTOW A380 for their last 8 aircraft on order.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBoeingMerica From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10007 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 19):

Yes you are correct. It is also important to note the SQ service is on the subfleet of A345s that are in 100biz class seat configuration. I've seen a short documentary on the route, and the demand is there for the route. However, the only plane with the legs is being retired, and the weight of fuel carried really drags down the profit potential.

So, now that the rant is done, SYDNEY-DFW is the longest route with a 'normal' config

BoeingMerica


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4810 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9691 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 20):
If Qantas wants to fly the A380 from SYD to DFW, they could take the 575t MTOW A380 for their last 8 aircraft on order

The first 2 of these are scheduled 2016-2017 and the last 6 for 2018-2020. Looks like the 744ER's will be pulling this duty for a while longer.


User currently offlineafterburner33 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2012, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9592 times:

Is this the only route which the 744ER is routinely scheduled on?

[Edited 2013-09-22 14:21:46]

User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4823 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9100 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 13):
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 12):
This is when Qantas wished it had the 777

QF called the 777 an old, outdated airplane and would never buy any. QF also reduced the number of Dreamliners on order. I don't think QF has any money to buy new airplanes.

You sure about QF not having any money? Last time I checked they had close to $3 billion in cash reserves. I understand it might not be a lot when the factor in the size of the QF Group but its still cash.

QF have indicated the remaining 8 A380 frames to feature a 3 class cabin which is a clear indication these aircraft are destined to serve any of the following; SYD-DFW, BNE-LAX, SYD-SCL, SYD-JNB, SYD-NRT.

EK8413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8842 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 13):
I don't think QF has any money to buy new airplanes.

So the new aircraft they have been taking from Boeing (737's and 787's soon) as well as the refirbs they have done on all thier long range aircraft sans the A333's which will be done next year, was for free? Gezus, there are some generious companies out there!

If your going to take a swing, know what youre talking about...

[Edited 2013-09-22 16:00:37]

User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 26, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8631 times:

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 16):
perhaps they should have eaten some humble pie and ordered the 777

And other than DFW what would they have done with them?

Maybe they could operate QF15 BNE-LAX QF107 LAX-JFK QF108 JFK-LAX QF16 LAX-BNE. So 2 routes, 4 aircraft.

QF aren't going to buy a sub-fleet for just one route.

Quoting afterburner33 (Reply 23):
Is this the only route which the 744ER is routinely scheduled on?

Officially yes.

BNE-LAX is prioritised to receive a refurbished 747 if physically possible.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 22):
Looks like the 744ER's will be pulling this duty for a while longer

  

We've got another 3 years of this, which is seemingly becoming the new "When Will Northwest Retire the DC-9". I think this is the third thread on the subject in as many weeks.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 27, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8733 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 8):
Why buy a plane for only one or two services?

Isn't it obvious? Because the numbers add up. Why on earth would they say no to good profit?


User currently offlinewedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5888 posts, RR: 6
Reply 28, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8609 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zkokq (Reply 25):
So the new aircraft they have been taking from Boeing (737's and 787's soon) as well as the refirbs they have done on all thier long range aircraft sans the A333's which will be done next year, was for free? Gezus, there are some generious companies out there!

If your going to take a swing, know what youre talking about...

QF had a huge order for 787's and they chopped a significant number of them because they were running out of money. $3B in reserves sound like a lot of money, but if you're bleeding cash at $100M's, that $3B won't last long.

I hope QF has turned the corner.


User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8548 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 28):

QF had a huge order for 787's and they chopped a significant number of them because they were running out of money. $3B in reserves sound like a lot of money, but if you're bleeding cash at $100M's, that $3B won't last long

Mean while they still have the JQ 787's coming, they have 50 options for 789's for mainline and they are taking 737's? I dont get how you can back up your last statement?

We all know canceling the original purchase rights was the best thing to do, because it allowed them to pick up more dash8's and the 717's from Mexicana.

Qantas is not going to be a carrier that flies to every country anymore. The deal with EK has been a positive for the company and allows them to focus on Asia. So cutting the purchase rights was the smart thing to do.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8421 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 28):
but if you're bleeding cash at $100M's, that $3B won't last long.

Qantas is profitable on a group wide basis, the International division is the only part that is loss making.

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 28):
I hope QF has turned the corner

The loss on their international flights HALVED in the financial year ended June 30, 2013, compared to the year before.

The haven't just "turned the corner", the carrier is well and truly on its way back.

International will return to profitability in 2 years.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5601 posts, RR: 6
Reply 31, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7960 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 27):
Isn't it obvious? Because the numbers add up. Why on earth would they say no to good profit

Because the numbers didn't add up. The numbers obviously say its better to run the B744ER until the IGW A380 & B787s turn up then buy a one off aircraft for a few routes.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinewedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5888 posts, RR: 6
Reply 32, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7930 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zkokq (Reply 29):
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 30):
Qantas is profitable on a group wide basis, the International division is the only part that is loss making.
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 30):
The loss on their international flights HALVED in the financial year ended June 30, 2013, compared to the year before.

The haven't just "turned the corner", the carrier is well and truly on its way back.

International will return to profitability in 2 years.
Quoting zkokq (Reply 25):
If your going to take a swing, know what youre talking about...

Ok...thanks for the corrections and thanks for the responses without being RUDE...like zkokq.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 33, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7734 times:

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 12):
This is when Qantas wished it had the 777 since it is really the only plane in production that can make a route like this work.

If QF wished they had the 77L, they'd go out and purchase a few. And seeing as QF is operating the route with the 744ER, the route must be working for them. Otherwise, I'm not sure why they would have started it in the first place.



PHX based
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7717 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 7):
Why use a four-holer?

Because that's what QF has in their fleet. There's also the fact that SYD-DFW passes through the small part of the Pacific that is restricted under ETOPS-180, though the diversion is small so could be managed if needs be.

On a slightly related note, it's also worth remembering that QF regularly fills every seat they can on this service, so the additional capacity of the 747 is very valuable on the outbound leg from SYD. The extra ~150 seats worth of revenue (compared to a 77L) should cover the additional operating costs, and could perhaps even be the difference that makes these services a profitable exercise.

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 32):
without being RUDE...like zkokq.

To be fair to zkokq, it is frustrating when the same topic comes up every week and there is always someone who doesn't know what they're talking about and presents their mislead opinion as fact.

Quoting 777STL (Reply 33):
If QF wished they had the 77L, they'd go out and purchase a few.

   Especially now that they have invested in 787 infrastructure, which would make introducing a small 777 subfleet a much cheaper exercise than it would have been 3-4 years ago.

But they are taking a longer term view instead.


User currently offline747m8te From Australia, joined Aug 2008, 437 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7325 times:

Quoting afterburner33 (Reply 23):
Is this the only route which the 744ER is routinely scheduled on?

They are used on five routes, in addition to the SYD-DFW-BNE-SYD rotation, they are also routinely scheduled on BNE-LAX-BNE, BNE-SIN-BNE, SYD-SCL-SYD, SYD-LAX-JFK-LAX-SYD (mixed with some regular 744 services)  
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
I never thought the A380 had the legs to make it to DFW. Not to mention the 744ER has a pretty large range.

That is correct, the current A380s would have to take far too big a payload hit to make it, where the 744ER can carry more over that range and the economics of the aircraft are superior over such a distance.



Flown on:DHC8Q200,DHC8Q400,EMB145,E170,E190,A320,A332,A333,A343,A380,MD80,B733,B734,B737,B738,B743,B744,B744ER,B762,B763
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 36, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7330 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 31):
Because the numbers didn't add up. The numbers obviously say its better to run the B744ER until the IGW A380 & B787s turn up then buy a one off aircraft for a few routes.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. In the SYD - DFW case it seems they didn't. In the LCY - JFK case it seems they did. In the SIN LAX/EWR it seems the numbers added up but the result didn't. The rule isn't as simple as PHX787 implied.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4823 posts, RR: 4
Reply 37, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7221 times:

Quoting zkokq (Reply 25):
So the new aircraft they have been taking from Boeing (737's and 787's soon) as well as the refirbs they have done on all thier long range aircraft sans the A333's which will be done next year, was for free? Gezus, there are some generious companies out there!

  

Quoting cmf (Reply 27):

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 8):
Why buy a plane for only one or two services?

Isn't it obvious? Because the numbers add up. Why on earth would they say no to good profit?

Did you crunch the numbers right? Introducing one sub type into the fleet is a costly exercise & I'm sure QF explored every avenue prior to ordering 6 x B744ER's.

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 28):
Quoting zkokq (Reply 25):
So the new aircraft they have been taking from Boeing (737's and 787's soon) as well as the refirbs they have done on all thier long range aircraft sans the A333's which will be done next year, was for free? Gezus, there are some generious companies out there!

If your going to take a swing, know what youre talking about...

QF had a huge order for 787's and they chopped a significant number of them because they were running out of money. $3B in reserves sound like a lot of money, but if you're bleeding cash at $100M's, that $3B won't last long.

I hope QF has turned the corner.

Last time I check QF was on track to making a return to profitability. Perhaps we should return to this thread in approximately 2 years.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 30):

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 28):
but if you're bleeding cash at $100M's, that $3B won't last long.

Qantas is profitable on a group wide basis, the International division is the only part that is loss making.

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 28):
I hope QF has turned the corner

The loss on their international flights HALVED in the financial year ended June 30, 2013, compared to the year before.

The haven't just "turned the corner", the carrier is well and truly on its way back.

International will return to profitability in 2 years.

I'll be here with a bottle of champagne      


EK8413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5601 posts, RR: 6
Reply 38, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7146 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
The rule isn't as simple as PHX787 implied.

        
Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6938 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 37):
Did you crunch the numbers right? Introducing one sub type into the fleet is a costly exercise & I'm sure QF explored every avenue prior to ordering 6 x B744ER's.

???

I don't crunch those numbers. It is for the airlines to do. I answered when it makes sense to add a small subfleet for one or two routes.


User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2878 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6816 times:

The EK partnership really has given QF International a lift from the malaise it was in, which is a great first step.

I really can't see QF expanding greatly in the future though, even with the 787's. Being at the geographic location that we are, Australia is just not that well suited as a hub, and the other competitors will have many advantages over QF (or VA for that matter) on their services.

It will likely always be reliant of a strong domestic market and to target key strategic destinations and hub connections to make $$.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4823 posts, RR: 4
Reply 41, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6790 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 39):
Quoting EK413 (Reply 37):
Did you crunch the numbers right? Introducing one sub type into the fleet is a costly exercise & I'm sure QF explored every avenue prior to ordering 6 x B744ER's.

???

I don't crunch those numbers. It is for the airlines to do.

That was exactly my point! QF and the ones making the decision which drives the business accessed the B77L. It turned out not viable to operate a sub fleet of 4-6 B77L's vs 6 x B744ER's which required minimal crew familiarisation.

EK8413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2878 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6782 times:

The 77L is also appearing to not be a great option at this rate for carriers, so maybe this wasn't the saviour that a few seem to have thought it was.

Theres so many factors that go into aircraft selection, and for those who continue to blame all the woes on 'failure' of QF to order the 777, I think they are not looking at the bigger picture. A number of issues over the past decade have gone against the carrier on decisions that would have made sense for it if it paid off. In the end, some things just don't work out as planned.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4823 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6717 times:

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 42):
The 77L is also appearing to not be a great option at this rate for carriers, so maybe this wasn't the saviour that a few seem to have thought it was.

Theres so many factors that go into aircraft selection, and for those who continue to blame all the woes on 'failure' of QF to order the 777, I think they are not looking at the bigger picture. A number of issues over the past decade have gone against the carrier on decisions that would have made sense for it if it paid off. In the end, some things just don't work out as planned.

Precisely!   

A number of issues certainly went against the carrier such as on going A380 & B787 delays.

EK8413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 769 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6672 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 43):
A number of issues certainly went against the carrier such as on going A380 & B787 delays.

Their strategy with those two planes made sense to me, then they got hit by the perfect storm.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4823 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6627 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 44):

Quoting EK413 (Reply 43):
A number of issues certainly went against the carrier such as on going A380 & B787 delays.

Their strategy with those two planes made sense to me, then they got hit by the perfect storm.

The choice of aircraft are perfect for the missions for which QF plan to deploy them on.

So, tell me why didn't QF order a sub fleet of B77L's?

EK8413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 46, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6312 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 41):
That was exactly my point! QF and the ones making the decision which drives the business accessed the B77L. It turned out not viable to operate a sub fleet of 4-6 B77L's vs 6 x B744ER's which required minimal crew familiarisation.

Yet again, agree it doesn't look like it makes sense for QF. BA with their two A318s on the other hand look pretty good. You can't make it as simple as PHX787 tried to make it.


User currently offlinetjh8402 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 170 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5993 times:

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 35):
That is correct, the current A380s would have to take far too big a payload hit to make it, where the 744ER can carry more over that range and the economics of the aircraft are superior over such a distance.

How would the 748 have looked on that route? I know it has less range than a 744ER, but I was assuming carrying more people. Would it have the range (especially if Boeing gets the tail tank activated), would it be able to generate any more revenue (either in pax or freight) vs the 744ER, and would its trip costs be less?


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4810 posts, RR: 5
Reply 48, posted (9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5848 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 45):
So, tell me why didn't QF order a sub fleet of B77L's?

They had more than enough 744's to meet their schedules and no way of lightening up on them because of long term commitments to them. I would guess that when they should have been adding some 77L's they had no way of disposing of displaced 744's at anything close to book value. Also they had used their borrowing power on the A380's.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4823 posts, RR: 4
Reply 49, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5529 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 48):

I'm well aware, I was only being sarcastic     

EK8413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 50, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5469 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 45):
So, tell me why didn't QF order a sub fleet of B77L's?

They expected to receive their 787s in 2008


Then again, I know that you already know that  



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7114 posts, RR: 17
Reply 51, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5360 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 27):
Isn't it obvious? Because the numbers add up. Why on earth would they say no to good profit?
Quoting gemuser (Reply 31):
Because the numbers didn't add up. The numbers obviously say its better to run the B744ER until the IGW A380 & B787s turn up then buy a one off aircraft for a few routes.
Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. In the SYD - DFW case it seems they didn't. In the LCY - JFK case it seems they did. In the SIN LAX/EWR it seems the numbers added up but the result didn't. The rule isn't as simple as PHX787 implied.
Quoting cmf (Reply 39):
I don't crunch those numbers. It is for the airlines to do. I answered when it makes sense to add a small subfleet for one or two routes.

My point here was that it's not profitable to buy a fleet of 5 or 6 airplanes to have it on one route. It may look good on paper but further down the line it may not be a good investment. The 744ER seems to do the trick for this route. If QF ever wants to get a 77L they'd probably have many in their fleet, but their Airbus fleet seems to do the job they want them to do. No need for a 777 fleet expansion for Qantas.
CMF not sure why you enjoy one-upping me but seems like checkmate here



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 334 posts, RR: 14
Reply 52, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4836 times:

Quoting BoeingMerica (Reply 21):
Yes you are correct. It is also important to note the SQ service is on the subfleet of A345s that are in 100biz class seat configuration. I've seen a short documentary on the route, and the demand is there for the route. However, the only plane with the legs is being retired, and the weight of fuel carried really drags down the profit potential.

I had the pleasure of flying both the SIN-LAX vv and SIN-EWR many times. At that time SQ had an economy "plus" concept with mini-leg rests flipping up. The all business class configuration was attempted as a solution when oil prices spiked in 2008. But even that is not working out. Hence the entire A340-500 fleet is being withdrawn in a buy-back arrangement with Airbus for the new 5 x A380 and A350 order.

But that drops LAX and NYC to just one daily A380. SIN-NRT-LAX. JFK-FRA=SIN. SFO is twice daily via ICN and HKG, and IAH is once daily via IAH-DME-SIN all on 77Ws. Will SQ revive SIN-TPE-LAX or SIN-AMS-ORD? May b another thread on this topic.

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 13):
I don't think QF has any money to buy new airplanes.

Respectfully, I think your opinion is not correct. QF does have decent reserves, and its partnership with EK is helping. Also, the airline may not order new airplanes for a while, but QF is committed to its existing aircraft orders. Do check once again.



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4407 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 51):
My point here was that it's not profitable to buy a fleet of 5 or 6 airplanes to have it on one route.

You need to look at each situation before making statements like that.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 51):
CMF not sure why you enjoy one-upping me but seems like checkmate here

I don't enjoy it. In fact I hate it. I can't stand the "school book" truths you keep repeating. Reality is a lot more complicated. There is no absolute law that buying 5 or 6 planes of one model dedicated for one or two routes is a bad idea. It is an unusual situation so it is a reason to look a few extra times but more often than not it is situations like this that turns out to be the gems. It takes understanding the situation.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6982 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4362 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 30):
Qantas is profitable on a group wide basis, the International division is the only part that is loss making.
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 30):
International will return to profitability in 2 years.
Quoting EK413 (Reply 37):
Last time I check QF was on track to making a return to profitability. Perhaps we should return to this thread in approximately 2 years.

So after all that I still don't know if Qantas is loosing money or not  
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 51):
My point here was that it's not profitable to buy a fleet of 5 or 6 airplanes to have it on one route.

Is SQ only using the A345 to the US, they do no regional runs with the spare a/c?
I don't think any airline exec will go to an OEM with the idea of purchasing an a/c for a single route only with no secondary use, there is usually a primary and secondary use is always available, unless the airline only flies one route which Qantas does not. Even if the 787 was ontime I'm sure it would be seen flying regional as well as routes to the US, why would the 777L not do the same?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24643 posts, RR: 22
Reply 55, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4270 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 54):
I don't think any airline exec will go to an OEM with the idea of purchasing an a/c for a single route only with no secondary use

AC bought 2 A345s for YYZ-HKG-YYZ. As far as I recall that's the only route they were used on until replaced with the 77L. They were leased to TAM briefly and are now stored in Malta since there's no resale market.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6982 posts, RR: 8
Reply 56, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4214 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 55):
AC bought 2 A345s for YYZ-HKG-YYZ. As far as I recall that's the only route they were used on until replaced with the 77L.

So the same question with the same principle, is the 777L only used on one route?
Did AC accept that they made a mistake and did not use the A345 for shorter turns once the initial a/c deployed passed a cretain point?
ULH routes require spare a/c, which must be available immdiately if the a/c goes tech before departure or within a few hours of departure, for a carrier like AC or SQ, I would think they would have sufficient trained crews to be able to utilize the a/c once the primary is beyond the point of no return.
Or to put it another way, was it cheaper to keep the a/c on the ground versus deployed for a hour or two?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24643 posts, RR: 22
Reply 57, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4196 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 56):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 55):AC bought 2 A345s for YYZ-HKG-YYZ. As far as I recall that's the only route they were used on until replaced with the 77L.
So the same question with the same principle, is the 777L only used on one route?

AC uses their 6 77Ls on 3 primary routes: YYZ-HKG, YYZ-PVG, and YYZ-YVR-SYD. They occasionally show up on transatlantic routes.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 58, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3908 times:

Quoting MesaFlyGuy (Reply 1):
2. They cannot profitably fly them on the route because the current a380 doesn't have the range to do so with a full payload.
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 4):
Technically they could do it, but with no spares in the A380 fleet (3x SYD-LHR, 3x MEL-LHR, 2x SYD-LAX, 2x MEL-LAX, 2x SYD-DFW = 12). I guess that isn't an insurmountable problem as they could sub 747s to cover maintenance.

Range is the biggest issue. The million dollar question right now is whether the route goes HGW A380 or 2x 787 in the future. We will find out in due course, but in the mean time we will have a weekly thread on the subject
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 5):
DFW-SYD is a 16hr + sector on an average day. The 569t MTOW /~292t DOW version will not carry the 484-seats that QF has it is laid out for. Max payload is just over 42t.

I checked all this, the 747-400ER and the A380-800 in it's original 560t version have identical full passenger range. To make a more realistic real range comparison I loaded up the spec OEW of 277t and 185t with another 6% to cater for DOW additions, a real crew, catering and LD tare, this brings it to 294t vs 193t for the -400ER. Then both fly 7100nm with their spec payloads of 53t and 40t.

If I assume a 569t MTOW like the QF A380 seem to have it takes those 53t to 7350nm ie longer then the -400ER. So it is a matter of which one is best to use given other considerations but is is not the inability of the A380 to fly the distance compared to the 747-400ER, they are pretty similar in that respect.



Non French in France
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6982 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3807 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 58):
So it is a matter of which one is best to use given other considerations but is is not the inability of the A380 to fly the distance compared to the 747-400ER, they are pretty similar in that respect.

Well if this is the case we will have to accept that the flights are not going full, so since the 747 is not full why put the A380 on with additional seats, the cost savings of the more economic A380 in this case is not there?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 60, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3655 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 59):
Well if this is the case we will have to accept that the flights are not going full, so since the 747 is not full why put the A380 on with additional seats, the cost savings of the more economic A380 in this case is not there?

Or that they don't have enough A380s and thus prioritize routes where the profit difference is bigger.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3579 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 59):
Well if this is the case we will have to accept that the flights are not going full

SYD-DFW has excellent loads. DFW-BNE is lower, but that's largely because it is weight restricted with blocked seats.

Quoting cmf (Reply 60):
Or that they don't have enough A380s

  



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 62, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 51):
My point here was that it's not profitable to buy a fleet of 5 or 6 airplanes to have it on one route. It may look good on paper but further down the line it may not be a good investment. The 744ER seems to do the trick for this route. If QF ever wants to get a 77L they'd probably have many in their fleet, but their Airbus fleet seems to do the job they want them to do. No need for a 777 fleet expansion for Qantas.



I'm curious where your expertise comes from to make such a statement? Do you work in a network development/fleet management capacity for an airline?



PHX based
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 63, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3182 times:

Quoting 777STL (Reply 62):
I'm curious where your expertise comes from to make such a statement? Do you work in a network development/fleet management capacity for an airline?

To be fair to PHX787, his statements pretty much mirror QFs. Whatever analytical approach/assumptions he used, he is on the money.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing, but from a fleet planning perspective QF got stuffed by the 787 delays. Of course, maybe in a decade we will look back on it as a good thing as in the interim they have hauled their ass back on track and actually got a realistic vision for the future, one which doesn't call for 50 787s.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8439 posts, RR: 9
Reply 64, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3060 times:

Quoting 777STL (Reply 62):
I'm curious where your expertise comes from to make such a statement? Do you work in a network development/fleet management capacity for an airline?

I would have thought that the reasoning behind not buying a small fleet of 777s is obvious. People here are comparing it to BA buying 2 A318s but it's not really a fair comparison given BA operates every other type of the A320 series and they're all fairly similar. I don't understand why people here still have wet dreams about 777s in Qantas colours.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7114 posts, RR: 17
Reply 65, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 54):
Is SQ only using the A345 to the US, they do no regional runs with the spare a/c?

Yeah only to the US, because all of those planes only have 100 biz class seats (or something like that. Not sure of the specs, but it's not the full capacity of the 345, that's for sure)

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 63):
To be fair to PHX787, his statements pretty much mirror QFs. Whatever analytical approach/assumptions he used, he is on the money.
Quoting 777STL (Reply 62):
I'm curious where your expertise comes from to make such a statement? Do you work in a network development/fleet management capacity for an airline?

I've used analytical research over the years, as well as pretty much listening to the trends that all of you have stated over the years. I may have only joined a year and a half ago but I've been actively "stalking" the threads of interest for the last 3 years. Also when you have a gas-sucking airplane like the 345 it doesn't quite make sense to run it on one route with 100 biz+ seats.

Now I do see CMF's argument here; if QF brought in one plane for one route, it could potentially be used on other route...but his argument seemed to be one plane for one route, which as others have supported for me, does not make much sense fiscally.

Now on the other side of the coin: if the airline had one airplane in its fleet, and it was an exceptionally versatile airplane, and could fly a bunch of routes with that, then yeah it's a good idea. It's pretty much common knowledge, right? But does such a plane exist? Well, Boeing tried with the 787......



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 66, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2719 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 65):
if the airline had one airplane in its fleet, and it was an exceptionally versatile airplane, and could fly a bunch of routes with that, then yeah it's a good idea. It's pretty much common knowledge, right? But does such a plane exist? Well, Boeing tried with the 787

You answered your own question 

And that's precisely what QF (and many other carriers) bought it for. Of course it hasn't worked out so well, QF were originally supposed to take delivery in 2008, but this means that they are straddled with a fleet that is, arguably, sub-optimal. That said, the 777 isn't what's missing. If anything it is more A330s. Other than DFW the 777 wouldn't really plug any whole in the network.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 67, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2596 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 63):
To be fair to PHX787, his statements pretty much mirror QFs. Whatever analytical approach/assumptions he used, he is on the money.

If the statement had been along the lines of QF did not find it worthwhile to buy a subfleet for those routes I would agree with you. But it wasn't a QF in this situation statement. It was a catch all situations statement. This is how a.net myths are formed.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 65):
if QF brought in one plane for one route, it could potentially be used on other route

BA bought 2 planes for one route and are by all accounts doing great. Again, there isn't a catch all rule that a subfleet doesn't work. At most there is a warning sign telling you to double check your numbers.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 68, posted (9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2366 times:

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 64):
I would have thought that the reasoning behind not buying a small fleet of 777s is obvious. People here are comparing it to BA buying 2 A318s but it's not really a fair comparison given BA operates every other type of the A320 series and they're all fairly similar. I don't understand why people here still have wet dreams about 777s in Qantas colours.

While I agree with that, he got himself into trouble when he started making blanket statements. That's the way I interpreted it, anyway. My understanding of the QF situation in regards to the 77L is that it had nothing to do with the economics of having a subfleet, more so that the aircraft wasn't capable of flying SYD-LHR-SYD nonstop economically which made it a non-starter.



PHX based
User currently offlineescapehere From Australia, joined Jan 2011, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2257 times:

BA's 318s are not a sub-fleet, more a sub-sub-fleet. They are just a part of their A320 fleet, with commonality in training and parts, etc. It's like having a bunch of A330-300s and adding the -200 to your mix. A318s are also far cheaper, buying two of them is not the same hit (or risk) as having to buy enough 777s to cover this route. Not a good comparison, having some 777s would have required major financial risk and major training & parts management for QF. That's not the case for BA with a couple of 318s.

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 70, posted (9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

Quoting escapehere (Reply 69):
BA's 318s are not a sub-fleet, more a sub-sub-fleet. They are just a part of their A320 fleet, with commonality in training and parts, etc.

The proposed rule is "Why buy a plane for only one or two services?"

No doubt it helps BA that they have similar models but it is still just 2 planes useful on just one route.

You may also apply the same argument for CX's A346s but how about SQ and their A345s? Then look at OS splitting their small long haul fleet of just 10 planes in two models. Possibly most extreme is Air Greenland with just one long haul "orphan" for a single route. But there are many airlines very close to Air Greenland's situation. A decent short haul fleet and then a handful or less long haul planes for one or at best a few routes.

Don't they all (or at least most) have very good reasons for that small long haul fleet? Aren't they very similar to a large airline getting a subfleet for a single or few routes?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Is The 787 Not As Wide As The 777? posted Sun Apr 15 2007 17:53:31 by JAM747
Is The A380 Visiting BOM On April 25th? posted Sun Apr 15 2007 15:35:55 by Deaphen
Is The A380 Showing Up On Any Scheds Yet? posted Mon Jan 16 2006 00:12:49 by UAL747
Is the A380's Success Dependent On Safety? posted Tue Nov 15 2005 02:04:11 by TaromA380
Why Is The 747 Still Used? posted Mon Aug 9 2004 04:31:05 by DeltaBOS
Why Is The A310 Not That Popular? posted Wed Jun 30 2004 20:16:34 by Utilianpilot07
Why Is The DC9 Not So Great. posted Sun Nov 3 2002 19:15:48 by BR715-A1-30
Why Is The Casa C-295M Not Used As Regional Plane? posted Thu Mar 25 2010 11:08:05 by metjetceo
Is The Industry Not What It Used To Be? posted Tue Jul 31 2001 04:45:32 by Teej13
Why Is The A318 Uneconomical On Short Flights? posted Wed Mar 29 2000 01:39:34 by Boeing 777