Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 983 times:
I have a rather interesting question. I have it on reasonable authority that AN still owns their 762's (the RM's).
What I can't understand is why they are not using at least some of them on some routes? Surely it would be less expensive to fly the 762 (if they could get a reasonable loading) free of lease - rather than a leased A320? The increase in capacity and revenue on SYD / MEL - PER would be great!
I heard a few rumors they may be used around Christmas time for a few runs but other than that are being put into long term storage.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 863 times:
I don't think the 762 would be a wise choice for AN II. While they may cheap to operate from an ownership-cost standpoint (assuming they're owned & fully depreciated), it is a rather large aircraft....beyond SYS-MEL/Brisbane, are there many routes that the 762 could operate on with high frequency? Moreover, is the 762 is right aircraft for further expansion? Seems they would need a narrowbody to complement the 762 which would increase costs.
Also, aren't the AN A320's currently suffering from v low loads anyway?
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 837 times:
Yeah, it's getting a bit monotonous seeing those red tails everywhere down at SYD. We need more blue, ha ha.
No equity interest in AN whatsoever (except perhaps a tonne of FFP's), it was just my favourite airline. It's in the interest of the Australian flying public to have 2 full service carriers competing against one another.
The low end of the market is just not that big to support two carriers. Let's face it, the administrators are not airline managers - we'll see if SQ's involvement initialises changes to AN MkII's fortunes.
What we need to see is a commitment from interested parties ASAP so AN can start to claw back corporate a/c's. Although that will be difficult.
Anyhow all I was suggesting was that they could ramp up capacity quite easily, undercut DJ / QF on routes like MEL / SYD - PER and subsidise the flights via freight.
Rmm From Australia, joined Feb 2001, 518 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 830 times:
Well I think it's partially due because AN owe Boeing quite a bit of money.
I don't think Boeing would part with the operational spares until they got some
Airbus on the other hand have done the complete opposite and are supplying
spares and support for A320's as an inducement for potential buyers.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 812 times:
A good point, but if we had the ability to see what the actual loads are and which ones could be increased we could see the 762 slotted in there.
As far as I am aware, the only routes that are failing to deliver at this point in time were the "SYD-MEL-SYD". That was a press report about a week or so ago - after which the Admin said that yields were up after GW lounges were re-opened.
As stated before, if they can use the 762 on say SYD-PER even with 'break even' seat prices they can add coverage, and increase value with freight.
Alternately their is a lack of capacity to CNS. Again, run the darn things around DEC / JAN two return trips a day and fill it with tourists. Coverage is important even if it just covers costs.
Same with OOG. (Not with the 762)
All it take is a bit of imagination and some strategy.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks ago) and read 791 times:
Where do people keep coming up with the "one" fleet idea from? Keeping maintenance staff on for a small fleet of 762's is not going to add up to too much.
We are not talking about ANII being a complete low cost carrier. It can never be that - not with the infrastructure in place. The Admin, SQ, Lew / Fox and others realise this.
Given the dynamics of the market, and having the ability to add load / v's frequency adds up to a more flexible fleet for the current Australian conditions. Regardless of age, these a/c can probably be slotted in to take up competition with QF. A ressurection of AN needs serious short and long term strategy and thinking. What is worse? To have an inflexible fleet or one that can easily ramp up loads if required?
Remember that AN's 762 were used for freight out of peek hence the excellent returns they got from those aircraft. It will take AN mkII several years to grab back market share, this is where long term thinking, getting back freight contracts and winning corporate Australia are important. It also needs to have decent route structure, FFP, Lounges, and at the very least code shared regionals under the banner.
We have seen in this country how short term thinking ends up with long term debt and eventual failure. Particularly with utilities, infrastructure projects and the failure of corporatised public entities.
Time to think beyond short term gain for long term benefit.
Thestooges From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 784 times:
From what I heard, before the collapse passengers were trying to avoid flying the the 762's just cause of their bad reputuation i.e. grounding. If they want to revamp Ansett by restoring public confidence in the airline it's not going to help having those things hanging around. Besides Qantas is getting rid of theirs soon anyway.
Tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 783 times:
MX5_Boy, I admire your love of AN but on this I think you are wrong.
The A320 is the most flexible member of the AN fleet. It can cover everyone of AN's domestic routes, has low operating costs, is liked by pax and is the youngest member as well.
I loved travelling on the 762s but unfortunately they don't have a future in AN. They are old and have an unfortunate recent history which is a pax turn-off whether this is justified or not.
Realistically there are only 2 options for AN at this point, Fox/Lew or liquidation. Under either option the 767s are on their way out so the administrators are probably correct in keeping them parked.
Seeing them sitting alone at MEL and SYD is sad but unfortunately their time has come.
As far as your rumour that they are still owned by AN, I have a feeling this might be true. NZ were in the process of selling them to GECAS but it appears this may not have been completed before AN collapsed. The only positive of this is that the 762s can now be sold (for a very reduced amount) by the administrators for the benefit of AN creditors rather than the benefit of the NZ bank account.
B727-200 From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1051 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 751 times:
Five of the B762's are fully owned by AN and two more are under something similar to a finance lease. I have heard that the reason they are not being run at the moment is because of the expense of getting them back in the air and keeping them there.
I have also heard the sale did not go through with GECAS because the two-man cockpit status that these aircraft have is only recognised in Australia by CASA and not by the FAA. If operated overseas they would require an FE, which is scaring off potential buyers.
I do agree that there is some merit in flying a small fleet of these aircraft, if for nothing other than to increase cargo capacity pre-Christmas. It is well known that there is a shortage of overnight freight capacity SYD/MEL-PER pre Christmas, with the B762 able to carry 10,000kg with a full pax load.
Considering that there is no longer the AN evening and morning B767's on these markets, the problem has surely been compounded. Taking this into account, one would expect to be able to achieve the full load Westbound and about 5,000kg East at a rate per KG that would cover 60% of the round trip costs.
Having said this, I doubt that we will see it happen because the Mark twins made redundant the remaining Australian based intellect that was at AN last week.
Oz777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 749 times:
While the airframes are freehold, I think you will find that the engines are leased, and this is one of the reasons that it is very difficult to get the 762's up again.
As to the issue over the 2 man cockpits. As originally built the aircraft were certified by the FAA as three man operation, although the type certificate from Boeing allows for 2 person operation. When the aircraft were reconfigured, they adopted the Boeing rating, and from my understanding there is no restriction on a 2 person cockpit for those aircraft.
The plain simple fact is the aircraft are high cycle. There is an "advanced maintenance" alert on them, and for this reason would be one of the most expensive 767's to operate in pax config.
From an aircraft broker I know, there is still a fair a mount of interest in the 767's for freight conversion - and the RAAF is looking for several aircraft for conversion to tankers. The 767 could fulfil that role admirably.
Thadocta From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 396 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 734 times:
Forgive me for jumping in if this comment has already been attacked.... but the 762's have been properly maintained? You are kidding, right? These are the same aircraft that have been grounded by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority TWICE in the last twelve months due to Ansett (version 1) not complying with maintenance directives issued by Boeing.
And you claim they are properly maintained? Don't make me laugh.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 705 times:
The 762's were and still are properly maintained. Rather than make such rash statments that they were not take the following quote from someone I know:
""As a Maintenance Development Engineer for Ansett, I can safely say that there was no problem with our 767s. The problem was CASA and the media.
The only things CASA had problems with once they audited our system of maintenance were stupid things like having too many life jackets and torches on board the aircraft. What a crock of the proverbial. Then CASA - who are supposed to be the "independent umpire" - handed over confidential photographs to the media involving cracking in pylons which were fixed per the aircraft's Structural Repair Manual. In other words the cracking was within tolerance, it was repairable and the fact that we found them and repaired it shows that our system of maintenance works.""