boeing767-300
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

Qantas Should Have.......

Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:16 pm

ordered one of these They were the only development airline NOT to order them.

They look great in the 'Wanula' scheme but would look fantastic in the white with the red tail.

TOO BAD Qantas did not order them. A330 is a good plane but it ain't comparable to a 777
 
9v-svc
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Tue Nov 19, 2002 4:08 pm

A330 vs B767s

B777 vs A340 .



A330s are to replaced the 767s for its domestic and regional routes . The 777s is a fine plane but QF doesnt need the range . I disagree with you , I feel that the A330 suits QF's network perfectly . Also , they bought the A330s is to get the pilots familize with the Airbus system for the arrival of the A380s .
Airliners is the wings of my life.
 
B727-200
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 11:28 am

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Tue Nov 19, 2002 4:43 pm


I agree that the A330 is a good replacement for the B767's, but not as a training vehicle for QF to get used to AIRBUS systems in lieu of the A380's arrival. I think it would be much cheaper and easier to use a simulator.

I am sure there would have been a certain amount of bargaining that would have assisted QF's decision to go with the A330. AI would have used cheap deals on the A330's to secure QF as an A380 launch customer.

B727-200.
 
boeing767-300
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:17 pm

9V SVC A330 vs B767s
B777 vs A340 .... may well be but A340 is not doing very well against B777 and the reverse can be said for the A330 which is doing reasonably well after 10 years (240) but unlikely to crack the 900 odd the sevensix has done in near 20 years.

The 777 would have been a good option for QF. The large capacity long range Twin could well be the most economical and versatile aircraft in years to come,(300ER will be interesting) especially with A380's that will be harder to fill in the current climate and may not be so economical only 60% full.






 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:29 pm

A 764/772ER combination would have given them a great deal of flexibility.

Seems unusual to me that the longer range 330 are going on domestic routes and the 767 are staying international. The 764 uses 10% less fuel per trip so QF will have to fill the 330's up with passengers.

From all I'll heard (anecdotal of course) pricing was definitely a factor here.

Wonder what Qantas will do in 2008 when the 767 replacement appears? They will be stuck with young 330's with rapidly declining second hand value. They will have to work them till the end of their life.

Qantas is only going to get away with this because they have no real competition.
My 0.02 worth.
Ruscoe
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:32 pm

No, the A330 is not comparable to the B777. But only for one reason: SIZE. Anything else is pure BS.

If you know all decisions better, try to get a job at QF management. Try to make your suggestions, I guess that will cause big smiles at QF...


Regards
Udo
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:47 pm

But Udo,
Qantas needs a long range 300 seater, and the 777 kills the 330 in payload/range.
Ruscoe
 
Airbus Lover
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 10:29 pm

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Tue Nov 19, 2002 6:12 pm

I do agree that Qantas needs a 300 seater long range aircraft and 777 is a candidate and definitely is more superior over the 330 but if they were to make their decision, are they willing to add another type (ie 777) or they are looking at fleet commonality with the A340?
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Tue Nov 19, 2002 6:21 pm


Airbus Lover,
A lot of Airlines are running 330 with 777 rather than 340. The need and the solution for Qantas are both clear, so I would not be surprised if the 777 joins the 330.

Anybody who flies QF to the west coast of USA or UK knows they are full just about all the time, so don't think the 380 will have any trouble with profitability on this route.

Ruscoe
 
QF743INTL
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 10:24 am

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Tue Nov 19, 2002 6:52 pm

wouldn't qantas and airbus have some sort of deal or discount for the 380/330 purchases? If not, it seems common sense to use the 330's as a training device for the 380, whilst doing business...two birds with one stone.
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Tue Nov 19, 2002 9:14 pm

Gosh, it's amazing the amount of misconception about what QF does etc.

As mentioned, it is kind of well known that QF were sold some A330's at a very cheap price. So, they took them, why not?

It seems almost counter-intuitive to purchase A330's when the B777 is available, especially when their partners BA, CX and AA operate nearly 100 B777's between them...BUT, QF are not one of the most profitable airlines in the world today for nothing.

The A330 provides the capacity without the weight penalties a B777 would encounter on short routes and at airports with landing fees. Getting B777's would only economically one thing for QF, and that's 270-300 seat long-range thin routes. Umm, somebody mentioned QF need a 300 seat long-range aircraft.

Can someone tell me what routes they would operate with that 300 seat aircraft??? QF needs B747-400 capacity to the US, operating B777's is just not on, even with extra cargo capacity. Flying to Europe, it's easier to funnel passengers through Heathrow and fill up more B747-400's. The B777 would be a niche aircraft. Asia? Don't need the range, the A330 is by far more flexible should QF decide they want to have extra capacity on the Asian routes. Sure, the B777 is more suited, but, the A330 family is more flexible. Sure, they're keeping 767's on Asian routes, but most of those are going to Australian Airlines.
M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Wed Nov 20, 2002 12:47 am

"The 764 uses 10% less fuel per trip so QF will have to fill the 330's up with passengers." Is this right? If so, how some Delta and Continental are the only airlines to order the 767-400? And even they only use them on a few routes ie Florida.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Wed Nov 20, 2002 12:51 am

The 332 has more range and payload capability than the 764. The 332 weighs 40,000 lbs more than the 764. I suppose if you are not using range/payload capability of the 332 then it is not such a good aircraft. I think Qantas will put the 332 to good use.
 
TP313
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:18 am

Bingo, Coachman!
Absolutely right!
The 330 fits much better Qantas domestic/asian network than
the 772.
And the 744 fits much better the Qantas long-range network
than any long-range 300-seater.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Wed Nov 20, 2002 4:48 am

What the 777 would do for Qantas is open up a whole lot of new oppurtunities.
Direct services to smaller destinations in the USA and Europe which are just not possible with the 330. Needs 777/764 or 777/330.

Already ordered 330 so needs 777.

Got a lot of Qantas shares. Hope I'm wrong.

Ruscoe

 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Wed Nov 20, 2002 6:13 am

Boeing basically conceived the idea of the 772LR for QF above all others... back in the day when it was known as 772X and thought to be powered by RR engines: MH and QF were all over it! They've been slow to warm up to the idea of that aircraft nowadays supposedly because the (IMO infinitely superior) GE90 will be the sole powerplant and the lag in allowing ETOPS180/207 on south Pacific operations... I think we'll eventually see that (and perhaps the 773ER) in QF's fleet.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Wed Nov 20, 2002 10:14 am

Ruscoe,

Those opportunities are just not there. You didn't read my earlier post. What routes could QF open up in the US with B777's? I'd like you to list them, you won't take long, because there just aren't any there. That's what American Airlines is there for.

Same thing with Europe. The only possible cities that a 300 seat aircraft could take on are ZRH, AMS, MUC. In reality there aren't many. Besides, with MUC and ZRH, Deutsche BA, a BA partner could easily do the job of connecting. AMS is a short hop from LHR, from the same terminal, Scandinavia is covered by Finnair, and the Meditarranean is covered by Iberia. It is cheaper to funnel passengers through Heathrow rather than spending huge amounts of capital expenditure on routes that are shaky at best.

Adding another fleet type is just not smart. Adding the B777 gives QF a 737/767/330/744 mix. Adding another and it's going into the efficiency problem. The thing with the 330 is the ETOPS hitch in the South Pacific doesn't apply to the A340 and the A340 provides commonality with the 330 without adding another fleet type.
M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
 
B727-200
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 11:28 am

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:21 pm


Why do people keep mentioning the B777? QF are looking for an aircraft for the domestic operation. The aircraft will be averaging between 5-7 cycles per day, which is a lot of times to slam a chunk of metal the size of a B777 into the turf. That is not to mention the gate modifications that would be required (this is already a concern with the A330's wing span).

As it is, the A330 is a big aircraft for the Australian domestic market, the B777 is straight-out ridiculous. QF were looking for replacements for the B767's, and just happen to be interested in the A380. Badderbing, badderboom - cheap A330's are thrown in as a sweetener on the deal. If you don't believe AI would make such a deal, have a look at how many airlines signed up for the A380 once QF did.

The A330 will also give huge advantages to QF on transcontinental flights, SYD slots, and true widebody ULD compatibility. It is also the perfect vehicle (in my opinion) for Australia-SE Asia operations.

And as for US operations? Why do you think they have B744's in the fleet, with B744LR's and A380's on order?

B727-200.

 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Wed Nov 20, 2002 8:52 pm

The cheap A330s are ideal...

The A332 and A333 would enable QF to replace the 763ERs on Asian routes. For Domestic, I would say the A330s are probably not as suitable but... It's not so much for pilot training as some of you say, but for the maintenance. Airbuses are built and maintained differently to Boeings... the last Airbus they had was the A300 which is completely different to the new Airbuses in terms of maintenance "behaviour"...

For gate spacing in Australia, well, if they used to get 2 767s together, I guess now they have to put 2 A330s with a 737 in the middle and use 3 gates.

As much as I like the 767s, the A332 would also provide Qantas to serve more cities in Asia (India, Middle East, and perhaps Eastern Europe).... If these opportunities don't exist, they can always use the A332 on nearer routes...

The container size for the A330s would also make it ideal... Logistics would be simpler...
I would say the purchase of A333s are due to the A332s... but then again, I'm not Qantas.  Smile

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
mirrodie
Posts: 6789
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 3:33 am

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:52 am

OK, I saw the image of the plane in the thread stater at the top. It is a photo of a QF 777 right? So Qantas does NOT have them, correct? SO that was a made up photo?? What livery was that?

Also, what are the special liveries (aboriginal influence) that QF has in use currently?

I know there is Wunala Dreaming, Yananyi Dreaming, and Nalanji Dreaming . Are there others?
Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
 
s.p.a.s.
Posts: 916
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2001 2:04 pm

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Thu Nov 21, 2002 4:19 am

@Mirrodie

Yes..this is a fake photo, like this one:


 Smile

Qantas has indeed 3 special colours based on aboriginal themes (the ones you mentioned) and also a Formula 1 special scheme (not sure if still around)

Rgds,

Renato
"ad astra per aspera"
 
jupiter2
Posts: 956
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Qantas Should Have.......

Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:13 am

The only 767's that the 330's were to replace was the 762's, that was the original plan, things have changed somewhat since then. QF have no intention of getting rid of the 763's if anything they will have to acquire more for Australian Airlines if that airline works out as planned, you only need to see the new 767 enginerring facility that is being built in Brisbane to realise this.
What has happened though is that the 742's and SP's have been retired earlier than planned while the 762's retirement has been pushed back. While the 332's may be a good size for the domestic runs the 333's might prove to big, to be honest I am not sure where they will fly them probably SYD/AKL, BNE/SIN and PER/SIN, more likely as replacements for 747's.
Personal opinion was that a mix of 764's and 777's would have been a better mix, with the 764's providing growth for the domestic runs while still being able to perform regional routes with full commonality with the rest of the 767 fleet, while the 777's could do the larger/ longer reional routes while also being versatile enough to have done some European routes, in particular Rome and Paris and maybe Frankfurt. The 773's would then have been a logical successor to replace the 742's and 743's.
Anyway that is all academic as with most businesses they took the best deal that was available to them on the table, can't blame them for that.
RL