Razza74
Topic Author
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:17 am

Qantas And The 777

Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:02 pm

Why is QF of of the few majors that never ordered the 777?

They use the 744 on a select number of routes, would not the 777 allow them to open new routes out of Australia to Europe via Asia.

It works for SQ why not QF
Ahh the joy of living under a flightpath
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:13 pm

Quite simple - they seem to think that they don't have anything to gain from operating it.

And it's not like there are only a handfull of major airlines out there not operating T7s... there are quite a number of non-T7 operators.

Regards,
Frank
Smile - it confuses people!
 
Speedbird2155
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:44 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:25 pm

why do people think that because it works for one airline, then everyone else must follow?? Airlines do what is right for each.
 
The777Man
Posts: 5912
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 1999 4:54 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:27 am

From what I have heard, Qantas is currently reviewing an order for either A340-600 or 777-300ER. I think they said they would not get the 777-200LR or A340-500 but you never know....

So it's still possible that Qantas gets 777s. A decision will follow in a few months (by May?).

The777Man
Boeing 777s flown: UA, TG, KE, BA, CX, NH, JD, JL, CZ, SQ, EK, NG, CO, AF, SV, KU, DL, AA, MH, OZ, CA, MS, SU, LY, RG, PE, AZ, KL, VN, PK, EY, NZ, AM, BR, AC, DT, UU, OS, AI, 9W, KQ, QR, VA, JJ, ET, TK, PR, BG, T5, CI, MU and LX.. Further to fly.. LH 777
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:37 am

A 777 or 330 can't fly the corridor across Tibet, even if it carried enough oxygen to sustain passengers during several hours of cabin decompression.

Nor can they fly the high polar latitude routes to South Africa or South America without detours that would eat into available payload.

However I still find it hard to believe they couldn't gainfully employ a big twin on routes to Asia, India, Japan, Hawaii and so forth.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:42 am

Its interesting to note that Qantas was the only airline on the 777 Advisory team during the types developement that never ordered the aircraft.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9853
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:52 am

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 5):
Its interesting to note that Qantas was the only airline on the 777 Advisory team during the types developement that never ordered the aircraft.

QF helped build and design the aircraft, so you would think that it would suite their needs considering they helped design it
 
dalecary
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2000 10:28 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:58 am

The winner of the 773ER/346 competition will be known later this year. I believe the May planned decision has been deferred until 2nd half this year.
Dixon has made some comments lately about QF embracing the "hub-busting" ideology. I take this to mean that possibly the 772LR/345 are again being looked at. But you never really know with QF; they have a habit of changing their minds......frequently.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:09 am

Dale,

Dixon in fact said the decision was off until the 744 fleet had aged beyond its optimal utility. This confounded most of us at the investor briefing, since that could be interpreted as 2013. As you say, they tend to change their mind an awful lot, but the underlying fear factor in management is that for whatever reason, including those outside their control, they may not be able to generate enough returns to service spending committments they officially put at $A 18 billion in the next 10 years.

This is very awkward for Qantas. Better funded carriers including EK,SQ and on current performance CX are in a position to deploy new fleet that is not really a prudent option for Qantas.

It will therefore continue to rely on the poor-little-Qantas strategy, bitching about nasty government controlled airlines or bankrupty protected airlines, or wickedly smart and innovative airlines, invading its divinely decreed turf and bringing the (Qantas) world to an end. And so forth.
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 3936
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:55 am

As long as the poor-little-Qantas strategy continues to work and we have a national airline, I don't really care. You've got to do something well, don't you?  Smile

Trent.
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
 
dalecary
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2000 10:28 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:57 am

Antares,

my mail is that a 346/773ER order is imminent but announcement will be delayed until 2nd half this year as Dixon doesn't want to announce a large expenditure program to the market in the next few months.
I personally feel that QF will survive long-term and in fact continue to flourish. I have faith that they will eventually end up with a more optimum fleet structure(787/350, 777/340),allowing them to fly to more ports and expand frequencies to existing ones. The wheel is slowly turning in that direction.
9 of the 744/744ER fleet are 2000+ vintage, so they could easily be still around in 2013. I don't think many/any of the 1989-1992 build 744s will survive until then.
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9853
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:01 am

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 7):
QF embracing the "hub-busting" ideology. I take this to mean that possibly the 772LR/345 are again being looked at.

Then add the B787 and A350 to that list.
 
airgeek12
Posts: 725
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:02 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:12 am

Most of the time.. If a major airline dosen't have a T7 it's most likely because they have an A340/A330. Like VS has A340s, not 777s. That seems to be just the way it is. The only airline I've ever heard of that has both the 777 and the A330 and/or A340 is Emirates.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:24 am

Quoting Airgeek12 (Reply 12):
The only airline I've ever heard of that has both the 777 and the A330 and/or A340 is Emirates.

Try SQ, AF, CX, also....with KLM adding the 330's to their fleet..
"Up the Irons!"
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:29 am

....KE, EY, KU, OZ, MH, various Chinese airlines, and more.

The 777 and A330 are a great combo. They complement each other very well.
 
ahdharia
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 1:21 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:45 am

I dont think Qantas will order any Boing 777. They seem to be quite happy with their A330 and Boeing 747 especially since they now have the 747-400ER. And since they do plan on adding the A380 to their fleet.

Although giving that their an Australian company, I would suggest they should look in to the 777-200LR...it would give them better non-stop choices.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:52 am

ClassicLover,

It's not that I don't want to see Qantas thrive, but not at the greater cost to the Australian economy of shutting out innovation and competition.

Qantas needs to do more FOR its customers, rather than TO them.

You might find it interesting to talk to some of the people involved in QBT or Qantas Business Travel. One of their goals in going after the corporate contracts is to reduce or eliminate 'the contamination' of the valuable frequent business traveller through exposure to the product standards of EK and SQ.

Why not try lifting standards instead?
 
nomorerjs
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:24 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:56 am

777-200ER and 787 would allow SYD-ORD, SYD-JFK, and SYD-DFW nonstop service. We shall see what happens in the next few years.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:00 pm

Quoting NoMoreRJs (Reply 17):
777-200ER and 787 would allow SYD-ORD, SYD-JFK, and SYD-DFW nonstop service. We shall see what happens in the next few years.

Is that the 777LR you're talking about?
 
moose1226
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:54 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:04 pm

Quoting NoMoreRJs (Reply 17):
777-200ER and 787 would allow SYD-ORD, SYD-JFK, and SYD-DFW nonstop service. We shall see what happens in the next few years.

The -LR is probably able to do those routes, but the 200ER isn't on a reasonable payload, and I'm not sure about the 787.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:17 pm

With the article in the Australian today regarding the Sydney Airport Corporation supporting SQ's attempts to run the SYD-LAX / KLAX), USA - California">LAX route, Qantas will have to be more inventive and competitive. I think it is just a matter of time before more competition is introduced on this route so why not establish some other services, the perfect aircraft for this being the 777 family (A few A330 help out as well, I also agree they are a good fit together).
I still can't see Qantas ordering the 777 though, as much as I want it to happen. I know Randy Besslar (I think that is how you spell it), the Boeing Sales guy, is coming down here in a 4-5 weeks, most likely with the 777LR when it arrives. Surely there will not be any decision before Qantas has a look at the aircraft which would be part of the order.

[Edited 2005-03-16 04:18:40]
 
QF744ER
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:59 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:20 pm

Hi Folks,

WOW yet ANOTHER topic about QF acquiring B777's or A345's!

"From what I have heard, Qantas is currently reviewing an order for either A340-600 or 777-300ER. I think they said they would not get the 777-200LR or A340-500 but you never know...."

QF have 'supposedly' been reviewing the 777 ever since the project was launched in the first place, c'mon they even had some input into the design project. I can't believe how often this topic keeps coming up. NW's DC-9's blah blah blah.......

QF need to pull those B763's off Internationals as soon as they can, and replace them with god knows what. The early OG*'s are getting extremely long in teeth, they are rancid inside and they lack any 'decent' form of IFE, compared to competitors and YES we still get B763's on SIN flights here in PER. Put the damn things on domestics.

I think we'll find that ALL the B744's will be around a lot longer than 2013, they are just in the process of completing their last life-extension upgrade on their 743's, (EBU is still at AVV), and some of them have just had D checks so count them in for the next 4-5 years that takes up to 2010!

QF need to do something with the 4 A332's as they just aren't ecomonical to operate them on domestic were they required 90 minutes turnaround time as compared to 60 mins for a 763. They are a big burden in the QF fleet at present.

Tom's solution:

a) Trade them into Airbus against new International A330-300's not the cheap crap with the flimsy, thin cabin floors like their A330-201's have that can't even take Skybeds.

b) Send the 4 A332 back to Airbus for extensive strengthening mods on the floors, meal storage areas to increase them to 2 meals per passenger, per flight.

c) Brush them off to AO.

It just insn't ecomonical to operate 4 of the one type in the QF fleet.

I maybe wrong but I doubt we'll see QF either B777's or A345's, as they just don't have the HUGE cash reserves that EK, SQ, CX etc have. They only made after taxes enough last financial year to fund 2 new B747-400ER's from memory.

The 7 ex BA B763's are heading back to Britain sometime in the coming future and I wouldn't be suprised if we see QF lease B772's from part owner BA in the next few years. They seem to have a surplus, I have a feeling some of the early builds non ER's have already left the fleet. Perfect for QF!

Just my 2 cents worth.

rgds

Tom/PERTH
 
AA777
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 7:07 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:55 pm

I think QF of all airlines shoul be exploring the 772LR, since it does have the longest range, and flights to Anywhere in australia are generally need lots of range capabilities. Even if they couldnt make SYD-LHR, they could make it LHR-SYD.... thats worth something. Its worth having no landing fees at X airport. Besides all that, its a great performer, and it would look reallly good in QF Livery  Smile

-AA777
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:27 pm

AA777,

The trouble is that it isn't performing yet, and Qantas is on the record as saying it costs to much to operate and can't do viable loads under its operational requirements. Needless to say I'm sure they think the same about the A345.

I like 777s, but for many of the routes Qantas uses the A333 the Boeing with its extra range capability (not needed on say SYD-HKG) was just too damn heavy.

However assuming all goes well with the 787 I'd be astonished if they didn't order both the the dash 3 and dash 8 and then a later version combining high payload and very long range.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:42 pm

Quoting Antares (Reply 23):
However assuming all goes well with the 787 I'd be astonished if they didn't order both the the dash 3 and dash 8 and then a later version combining high payload and very long range.

I agree completely, this is a plane that Qantas will have to have!
 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:33 pm

Quoting Antares (Reply 8):
It will therefore continue to rely on the poor-little-Qantas strategy, bitching about nasty government controlled airlines or bankrupty protected airlines, or wickedly smart and innovative airlines, invading its divinely decreed turf and bringing the (Qantas) world to an end. And so forth.

Don't be ridiculous, Antares. You of all people should know all too well that QF isn't playing on a level playing field. If it was, then the Federal Government would allow foreign ownership to exceed 49% (just like anyone else who walks into Australia and wants to start an airline); or the QF-NZ tie-up wouldn't have faced one too many bureaucracies to defeat.

Let me see, then. A competitor can start in Australia with 100% foreign capital. A foreign carrier can fare dump in the Australian market (eg. UA LAX) whilst not coming under the ire of the consumer watchdog. So, all comers can walk-in but the diametrically opposed policy means that QF can't walk-out.

Quote:
It's not that I don't want to see Qantas thrive, but not at the greater cost to the Australian economy of shutting out innovation and competition.

I don't need to explain to you that airlines are very highly capital intensive businesses. So what does QF face on this front? It doesn't have the benefit of a subsidised currency (eg. like UAE or HKG). It doesn't have political 'right' to pick and choose the routes that it would rather not service (eg. like DJ) because the Government says that it has a "national duty" to fly certain routes. It doesn't receive free airport charges (like EK at DXB). It doesn't get first choice at slots anywhere in the world (unlike the SIN practice where SQ has first right of refusal). It can't even invest in 25% in a neighbouring airline even though the NZ Government was quite willing to let SQ step in.

So, you can't have one (a thriving QF) without the other (a company asked to be responsible for the majority of Australian air transport). Either QF requires the support it needs to do what it is tasked to do or it be allowed to be a true free enterprise. My vote is on the latter. That is obviously not shared by Canberra.

No wonder QF cries foul. And cries loud. At least the CEO is the sort of person who isn't going to let Canberra forget that they need to let QF run free, too. How else is he supposed to get their attention?

Quote:
I like 777s, but for many of the routes Qantas uses the A333 the Boeing with its extra range capability (not needed on say SYD-HKG) was just too damn heavy.

It was too heavy (and large) for domestic operations, which is why the A330 business case got up. Not in a month of Sundays are you going to be able to convince anyone with half a brain that the B777 is too heavy for a route such as SYD-HKG.

Quoting QF744ER (Reply 21):
It just insn't ecomonical to operate 4 of the one type in the QF fleet.

It is when there's 10 -300s, too.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:34 pm

QFA001,

The foreign equity issue is even more complex. Qantas can't operate its existing bilaterals without having a majority of shareholders on its Australian registry. It has been compelled on a number of occasions to ask foreign shareholders to sell to bring the equity held in total by offshore investors back to less than 50% so don't repeat the rubbish that Geoff dishes up about that.

To achieve the higher level of foreign equity we would all like to see, some sort of international aviation investment summit between heads of government needs to totally change the bilateral and national ownership rules.

Desirable but a tough call.

In my view the only truly uneven circumstance Qantas is right to complain about is company taxation and depreciation rules. These do harm Qantas, compared to its major rivals, as they do most large Australian businesses.

If you keep going around believing the entire world is an unfair environment for Qantas to operate in, well, adverse circumstances are the norm in business, and you overcome them by being a competitive business.

At the moment SQ is seriously disadvantaged for example by the weakness of its currency, but is a strong $A and the impact that has on the charges Qantas pays for fuel, insurance, leasing and other forms of finance an unfair advantage for the Australian carrier. Of course not.

Time to stop repeating all the usual excuses and get on with keeping revenue higher than costs. Its really simple if you look at it that way.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4820
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:17 pm

Quoting QF744ER (Reply 21):
The 7 ex BA B763's are heading back to Britain sometime in the coming future and I wouldn't be suprised if we see QF lease B772's from part owner BA in the next few years. They seem to have a surplus, I have a feeling some of the early builds non ER's have already left the fleet. Perfect for QF!

Didn't BA recently sell their stake?

I doubt if BA have any surplus 772ERs. They've returned two baseline -200s (which are now with Varig) but that's all.
 
bill142
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:25 pm

The more pressing issue for Qantas is the 767 fleet. At present the oldest one in the fleet is VH-OGB which was delivered in 1988 making it about 16 years old. The youngest is VH-OGU which was delivered new in 1998 making it only 7 years old.

The dilema for Qantas is that the A330 takes to long to turn around and 767 production isn't going to be going on for much longer. While the 777 maybe too big to replace the 767 the 787 and A350 will fit in. However Qantas has stated earlier on that the 787 was not in its plans, but it cannot be ignored for too long. By the time 2008 comes around the oldest 767 will be 20 years old. So an order for the 787/A350 is probably of more urgent need then for the replacement of th 747 fleet which still has alot of life left in it.
 
QF744ER
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:59 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:26 pm

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 25):
Quoting QF744ER (Reply 21):
It just insn't economical to operate 4 of the one type in the QF fleet.

It is when there's 10 -300s, too.

Hi QFA001,

OF COURSE I'm aware that QF have 10- A333's in their fleet, actually if you want to be technical it only stands at 7 as QPG is the highest delivered as far as I'm aware so your quote isn't correct.

Comparing the QF A332's and A333's is like comparing chalk and cheese about the only thing they have is common is that they came out of the same factory.

Maintenance wise if that's what your referring to would be economical, but QF still has no idea where to deploy these aircraft, coz of the issues with turnaround times and they are the base model, which opens up a whole new ball-game.

We have to take in account that the high cycles that these a/c are doing e.g. Cityflyers between MEL-SYD-BNE.

I'm pretty sure there are a couple of revenue domestic flights between MEL-PER each week to position them over here.

rgds

Tom/PERTH
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:42 am

"We have to take in account that the high cycles that these a/c are doing e.g. Cityflyers between MEL-SYD-BNE"

Actually most of these Cityflyer runs are done by 767's. The A332's are scheduled MEL-SYD-PER or MEL-SYD-CNS. Rarely are they just used on MEL-SYD-BNE all day without having an extended leg somewhere along the line.

"In my view the only truly uneven circumstance Qantas is right to complain about is company taxation and depreciation rules. These do harm Qantas, compared to its major rivals, as they do most large Australian businesses."

For the one and only time in my professional career I will say that I agree with the Tax Office in relation to the effective life ruling of an airplane. The purpose of depreciation is to allocate a decline in value across the useful life of an asset. From the MTG the effective life in years of an airplane used for general use is 20 years. Lets think about how long QF's 743's have been in service?? How long have the 767's been in service?? When the first lot of 744's are retired they will have been in service for how long??? I don't think a 20 years write off is unjustified in any of these circumstances.

"It doesn't have political 'right' to pick and choose the routes that it would rather not service (eg. like DJ) because the Government says that it has a "national duty" to fly certain routes."

Name a route that Qantas is kicking and screaming about because it "has" to operate it??? Qantas relations with Canberra have been very poor precisely because it has said no too many times to the politicians. If they had their hands tied by the government you would almost certainly see the re-opening of Athens from Melbourne and of Beirut from Sydney as 2 examples of large populations with lots of political clout.

"A foreign carrier can fare dump in the Australian market (eg. UA LAX) whilst not coming under the ire of the consumer watchdog."

I dont know where you get UAL fare dumping at LAX from but considering the profits being generated by both QF and UAL at LAX I doubt there is any substantial competition effects that would warrant our ACCC taking a look at it. If anything we could do with some fare dumping to LAX.

"Not in a month of Sundays are you going to be able to convince anyone with half a brain that the B777 is too heavy for a route such as SYD-HKG."

Lets consider HKG. CX uses a compination of the A346 and A333 to Sydney, the A333 to Perth, the A333 to Brisbane & the 744 and A333 to Melbourne. QF uses the A333 from Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane and a combination of the 744 and A333 from Sydney. CX has the 777 in it's fleet but doesn't use it to Australia. The logical conclusion to draw is that the A333 is better suited to flying HKG-Australia and makes the airlines involved larger profits than another plane type would.
 
RichardJF
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 7:07 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:38 am

Quoting QF744ER (Reply 29):
but QF still has no idea where to deploy these aircraft

Why aren't they using them on the tasman to WLG and CHC. A NZ320 in the morning and a QF332 in the afternoon would be a great for NZ and QF.
QF using 747SP's years ago into WLG was the most high visibility marketing strategy they've ever done in Wellington. A daily 332 would work well.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:46 am

Comparing the QF A332's and A333's is like comparing chalk and cheese about the only thing they have is common is that they came out of the same factory.

That's on of the most rediculous things i've ever heard.

Even the A343 and the A332 have 90% commonality.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:18 am

Sydscott,

I'm shocked! You said you agree with the Australian Taxation Office about something.

Even if you agree with the ATO you must never, ever, say so.

If we knew where you are we'd arrange an in-situ exorcism.

Antares
 
QF744ER
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:59 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:00 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 32):
Comparing the QF A332's and A333's is like comparing chalk and cheese about the only thing they have is common is that they came out of the same factory.

That's on of the most rediculous things i've ever heard.

Even the A343 and the A332 have 90% commonality.

RJ111,

The point i'm trying to get across here is that the -200's are the cheap base model and can't be retrofiited for International duties without extensive mods and the -300's are a higher rated version/uprated engines/strengthend floors/they carry 2 meals per passenger (only carrying 1/5 meals per pax greatly restricts where the distance the a/c can fly) the A333's carry 2 per pax/IFE.......the list goes on.

So if your on-board one of the A332 and a A333 and you know what to look for you will clearly see the difference and you'll understand why I say chalk and cheese!

Tasmans are a good option but they are currently stuck on MEL, SYD and BNE-PER runs and Cityflyer duties.

kindest rgds

Tom/PERTH
 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:29 am

Quoting Antares (Reply 26):
The foreign equity issue is even more complex. Qantas can't operate its existing bilaterals without having a majority of shareholders on its Australian registry. It has been compelled on a number of occasions to ask foreign shareholders to sell to bring the equity held in total by offshore investors back to less than 50% so don't repeat the rubbish that Geoff dishes up about that.

There is some mild truth to this statement, but I won't reflect on it. Do you really believe that Government cannot renegotiate bilaterals if it decided to abolish the Qantas Act? Of course it can. Remember AN Int'l?

BTW, I don't need Dixon to give me an opinion. I have my own. There are no legal showstoppers for the foreign ownership cap to be lifted.

Quote:
If you keep going around believing the entire world is an unfair environment for Qantas to operate in, well, adverse circumstances are the norm in business, and you overcome them by being a competitive business.

No kidding. Tell me, what is it about QF that makes you think that it isn't an aggressive competitor in the process of re-inventing itself? I'm sure that I don't need to list the several dozen items for you.

Regardless, part of adapting and being competitive is having a voice and arguing for better enterprise conditions. Nothing is obtained from government except by lobbying. There is no way known that QF should shut-up and put-up on its free enterprise case. All the Jetstars and Skybeds in the world don't add-up to the ideal situation for QF.

Quote:
At the moment SQ is seriously disadvantaged for example by the weakness of its currency, but is a strong $A and the impact that has on the charges Qantas pays for fuel, insurance, leasing and other forms of finance an unfair advantage for the Australian carrier. Of course not.

I didn't and wouldn't claim that. My claim was with reference to subsidised currencies. I don't expect the Australian Government to begin subsidising the AUD or other nations to not subsidise their currencies. I was attempting to highlight that when currencies are subsidised vs USD that airlines spending most of their capital outlay in USD have a form of indirect subsidy. What happens in a free market is a completely different issue.

Quote:
Time to stop repeating all the usual excuses and get on with keeping revenue higher than costs. Its really simple if you look at it that way.

If you really believe this, then you're being naive. As I indicated above, QF does get on with the job. It gets on with being a better business; and it gets on with becoming a freer enterprise. The reason the same old things are repeated is because QF needs to continue lobbying on those issues. Even so, there is some breaks in the program. For example, in recent times QF has cooled on its foreign ownership cap or the tie-up with NZ.

If you live in Australia then you should know by now that you only get things done at a bureaucratic level by being repetitive and trying to get into skulls.

Quoting QF744ER (Reply 29):
OF COURSE I'm aware that QF have 10- A333's in their fleet, actually if you want to be technical it only stands at 7 as QPG is the highest delivered as far as I'm aware so your quote isn't correct.

I said when there's 10 -300s. So, my quote is as correct now as it was the day I said it.

Anyhow, others have pointed out what the A332s are doing.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777

Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:55 am

QFA001,

Well you've explained why Qantas is stuck half way to a decent return on investment. It's everybody else's fault. That means your stuck for good.

I've lived more or less permanently in Australia since 1949 but my childhood was South Pacific where my Aussie dad was involved in managing a steamship company.

Today I live in the high country beyond Milawa but still fly a fair bit.

Back to foreign ownership. Australia is not in a position to unilaterally negotiate a new world order in bilaterals. It is struggling to retain credibility in its free trade stance given its reuluctance to give the Singapoireans what it promised nearly two years ago.

I don't like to see whinging and whining back tracking by Australians, so reconsider the inconsistency between expected the government to make the world do our bidding, and not keeping our word when we give it. It's a bad look.

If the foreign cap on ownership COULD be circumvented, the Qantas share price could be four times as high as it is, simply because overseas markets pay much higher price to earnings multiples. I don't mind the thought of that at all. It is much cheaper for any company to raise money with equity than with debt.

Dixon's real hope in the medium term is to have a bastardised share registry in my opinion where you invent a classification like NZ tried to do to tap foreign money but deny full voting rights. It was very cumbersome, although not the major reason for the airline nearly collapsing.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:57 am

Apologies QF744ER,

All would have made sense if i'd actually read the next line  Yeah sure
 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: Qantas And The 777

Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:19 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 30):
Name a route that Qantas is kicking and screaming about because it "has" to operate it???

Define kicking and screaming. AFAIK, QF doesn't kick up a stink about any of the money-losing routes that it flies within Australia that it does for the benefit of communities (and their sitting MPs).

Having said that, I was misleading in my original statement and apologise. QF isn't forced at gun-point to do anything. However, in the tug-of-war between QF and Government on various other issues, it isn't like QF is in the political position to start pulling out of routes that it otherwise wouldn't service. As always, that especially includes routes that service incumbent or future ministers...  Wink

Quote:
Qantas relations with Canberra have been very poor precisely because it has said no too many times to the politicians.

I wouldn't have used the words very poor. Two reasonable people can disagree yet remain friends, can't they?

Quote:
I dont know where you get UAL fare dumping at LAX...

Seen their prices?  Yeah sure

Quote:
...but considering the profits being generated by both QF and UAL at LAX...

I guess it's debatable about how profitable UA is on this route, if at all. UA is in a position where they are just trying to generate cash. Based on the prices I've seen, I doubt that UA is making a profit using B744s.

Quote:
Lets consider HKG. CX uses a compination of the A346 and A333 to Sydney, the A333 to Perth, the A333 to Brisbane & the 744 and A333 to Melbourne. QF uses the A333 from Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane and a combination of the 744 and A333 from Sydney. CX has the 777 in it's fleet but doesn't use it to Australia. The logical conclusion to draw is that the A333 is better suited to flying HKG-Australia and makes the airlines involved larger profits than another plane type would.

Nice conclusion. However, beware of logic:

  • CX doesn't regularly operate its B777As to Australia, yet they are used on much shorter routes than SYD-HKG in its Asian regional services. If your logic applied then the B777As wouldn't be suited to those, either.

  • QF doesn't own B777s to be able to even consider utilising them on a route like SYD-HKG. So, you can't draw a conclusion based on QF that the A330 is a better airplane for SYD-HKG than the B777.

  • Each airline has its own efficiency structures. Just because an airplane such as the B772ER has more capacity and is heavier than the A333 doesn't mean that it doesn't have a better revenue-cost matrix on a particular route.

    Hidden variables abound.

    Quoting QF744ER (Reply 34):
    The point i'm trying to get across here is that the -200's are the cheap base model...

    No, they're not. Both the A332s and A333s are built to 233t MTOW specification. The issue of the forward floor in the A332s is a separate issue.
  •  
    QFA001
    Posts: 651
    Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

    RE: Qantas And The 777

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:45 am

    Quoting Antares (Reply 36):
    Well you've explained why Qantas is stuck half way to a decent return on investment. It's everybody else's fault. That means your stuck for good.

    If that is what you read, then I didn't do a very good job of explaining.

    There is noone else who can help QF besides QF. That includes redefining its business as well as lobbying for what it requires. You can't do more than ask those with the power, right?

    Quote:
    Today I live in the high country beyond Milawa but still fly a fair bit.

    Sounds good, man. I'm unsure as to whether or not you felt that my comment was intended to question whether you lived in Australia or not. I meant to use the word "if" as meaning I didn't want to presume that you lived in Australia.

    Quote:
    Back to foreign ownership. Australia is not in a position to unilaterally negotiate a new world order in bilaterals.

    Considering that QF doesn't service all nations in the world, I don't see why Australia would be in this position. It is definitely a plausible option for the Australian Government to argue that flag carrier status is not contingent upon national ownership.

    Besides, if push came to shove, the Government could shove. Afterall, bilaterals are reciprocal agreements. I don't think other countries would hold out on that issue as it isn't really important. Also, as more Open Skies agreements get done then the limited number of issues will pale into insignificance.

    Quote:
    I don't like to see whinging and whining back tracking by Australians, so reconsider the inconsistency between expected the government to make the world do our bidding, and not keeping our word when we give it. It's a bad look.

    Look, I agree with you. Yet, if QF wants to be a freer enterprise, then what is QF supposed to do? What you see as whinging may well just be lobbying. I'm yet to see a case where QF has lobbied for more protections against foreign competition. QF doesn't ask the Government for anything more than a fair go. And that, too, is a very Australian thing to do.

    Quote:
    If the foreign cap on ownership COULD be circumvented, the Qantas share price could be four times as high as it is, simply because overseas markets pay much higher price to earnings multiples. I don't mind the thought of that at all. It is much cheaper for any company to raise money with equity than with debt.

    So, it's worth arguing, right? If QF forgets about the cap forever, then how in the world will it be changed?

    Quote:
    Dixon's real hope in the medium term is to have a bastardised share registry in my opinion where you invent a classification like NZ tried to do to tap foreign money but deny full voting rights. It was very cumbersome, although not the major reason for the airline nearly collapsing.

    Well, it remains to be seen. Not just for shareholders, QF needs to start to meet its cost of capital to reduce its impact on the current account deficit. Foreign airlines bring currencies and people in; QF does that, too, but also moves out an awful lot of currency during big airliner buying programs.
     
    antares
    Posts: 1367
    Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

    RE: Qantas And The 777

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:00 pm

    QFA001,

    I agree with much of what you have said. Personally, I'd be putting more emphasis on internal reform, and I'm conscious of the difficulties of doing that without having mega industrial problems.

    The reform process in Europe is sort of staggering toward the runway for take-off, and the US carriers are just staggering full stop. If the government and the airline keep their eyes locked on the main chances you'll get a sustainable, profitable and growing Qantas. Somewhere along the way we'll get more than the excitement of the A380 too. My money is on the 787s, with a less than even chance of a 777, even though they should have been ordered years ago.

    Antares
     
    User avatar
    ClassicLover
    Posts: 3936
    Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

    RE: Qantas And The 777

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:08 pm

    This thread makes for some interesting reading people, well done!

    Trent.
    I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
     
    gigneil
    Posts: 14133
    Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

    RE: Qantas And The 777

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:09 pm

    Quoting QFA001 (Reply 38):
    Both the A332s and A333s are built to 233t MTOW specification.

    This is the first time I've ever heard someone on this board say exactly what the MTOW of the A330s QF ordered are. I'm confused by it, greatly, and I've posted several inquiring threads here and in tech/ops to no avail.

    First, if you flip through pictures of the A330s in this board one of the photographers clearly state that both the 332 and 333 are the 202t variety, which makes sense - they were ordered for short hauls and powered with weak, 64k pound thrust engines and I believe (but could be wrong) that 202,000 kg is the minimum MTOW option available.

    Second, the 233t MTOW of the A330-300 is the "X" increased gross weight model. Even after the upgrade of the engine thrust on those models, I've never heard anyone claim that they're A330-303X, just A330-303s.

    The final thing is, I'm not really sure that the 233t MTOW is available with the CF6-80E1A2.

    This is a topic I've always been really, really curious about.

    N
     
    Ken777
    Posts: 9023
    Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

    RE: Qantas And The 777

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:24 pm

    I think that QF is going to be fairly open in making their next purchase decision. Re the original post, as I recall, QF got a very sweet deal on the 330s when they bought the 380s - taking away any thoughts of the 777 for a while. If QF goes with Boeing for the next order then I would not be surprised to see the 777 as well as the 787 in a nice little package - if B can find a CEO that will drive plane sales.

    As for QF itself, there are a lot of good things about the airline. I've done 60+ business trips to Australia and have been impressed many time. There are, unfortunately, some really dumb people in the lower to mid levels of management and I've seen things that still leave my trying to figure out at times how QF can keep going with that level of management talent.

    As for the ATO - I don't agree with them. Aircraft hit some major maintenance costs after a while in service and a depreciation schedule that shifts purchase costs up front is far more logical. Something like sum of the years digits is more in line with reality. Something like the rules SQ operate under would be even better.
     
    Sydscott
    Posts: 3061
    Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

    RE: Qantas And The 777

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:03 pm

    QF said;

    Nice conclusion. However, beware of logic:


    "CX doesn't regularly operate its B777As to Australia, yet they are used on much shorter routes than SYD-HKG in its Asian regional services. If your logic applied then the B777As wouldn't be suited to those, either."

    Sorry to disagree but the cargo capacity of the 777 is needed on those shorter hops within Asia. That's the advantage of Hong Kong's position in that Cathay can leverage alot of cargo from trunk long haul cargo ops and fill the bellies of 777's within Asia. The same cannot be said of the aircraft operating long, thin and mainly passenger services to Australia.


    "QF doesn't own B777s to be able to even consider utilising them on a route like SYD-HKG. So, you can't draw a conclusion based on QF that the A330 is a better airplane for SYD-HKG than the B777."

    I would suggest QF wouldn't use the 777 to Hong Kong even if they did own it. The 744's wouldn't be replaced especially as QF builds up their Heathrow services through there. That leaves QF's 2nd Sydney-HKG service as a supplemental service only. By the routes nature it wont need the capacity the 777 offers in either cargo or passengers. A long thin mainly passenger service is what MAS, Thai, Garuda, Cathay and Qantas use their A333's for.

    "Each airline has its own efficiency structures. Just because an airplane such as the B772ER has more capacity and is heavier than the A333 doesn't mean that it doesn't have a better revenue-cost matrix on a particular route."

    I agree with you here.

    "I wouldn't have used the words very poor. Two reasonable people can disagree yet remain friends, can't they?"

    As a Cynic I would suggest that any reasonableness towards Qantas started only after QF became the sole provider of Air Transport to Canberra and took over the Govt contract after Ansett collapsed. Funny how our politicians listen to Qantas when they have no choice in their air transportation to and from our capital.

    Quoting Antares (Reply 33):
    Sydscott,

    I'm shocked! You said you agree with the Australian Taxation Office about something.

    Even if you agree with the ATO you must never, ever, say so.

    If we knew where you are we'd arrange an in-situ exorcism.

    Antares

    Antaries I've hung my head in shame by agreeing with the ATO but don't back away from the statement. As silly as this sounds the airlines have bought the depreciation rules down upon themselves by being so good at maintaining their older aircraft and keeping them operational. Combine achievement in engineering with the ATO mindset and you have a 20 year effective life.

    I can imgaine some beaurocrat at the ATO syaing "If QF wants a 10 year effective life then all they need to do is make sure that all their aircraft are turned over every 10 years." That'd be the mentality Qantas would be dealing with.
     
    Rj111
    Posts: 3007
    Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

    RE: Qantas And The 777

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:13 pm

    Don't forget CX have those crumby SCD's on their 777A's, i'm pretty certain they can't utilise the 777's cargo capability as well as they'd like, i'm not sure by how much though.

    Of course, they're stuck with them now.

    [Edited 2005-03-17 07:16:15]
     
    QF744ER
    Posts: 256
    Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:59 am

    RE: Qantas And The 777

    Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:21 am

    Hi Gigneil,

    Quoting Gigneil (Reply 42):
    This is the first time I've ever heard someone on this board say exactly what the MTOW of the A330s QF ordered are. I'm confused by it, greatly, and I've posted several inquiring threads here and in tech/ops to no avail.

    First, if you flip through pictures of the A330s in this board one of the photographers clearly state that both the 332 and 333 are the 202t variety, which makes sense - they were ordered for short hauls and powered with weak, 64k pound thrust engines and I believe (but could be wrong) that 202,000 kg is the minimum MTOW option available.

    Second, the 233t MTOW of the A330-300 is the "X" increased gross weight model. Even after the upgrade of the engine thrust on those models, I've never heard anyone claim that they're A330-303X, just A330-303s.

    The final thing is, I'm not really sure that the 233t MTOW is available with the CF6-80E1A2.

    This is a topic I've always been really, really curious about.

    N

    I think your spot on mate with your info.

    As far as I'm aware the MTOW of the A332's is 202t and the A333's is 212t which makes them no where near 233 tonnes.

    CX's A333's from HLM onwards are 233 tonne a/c making them A330-343(x)'s.

    When QF converted their A333's (only QPA-QPC) to Intenational config they also changed something in the engine, but from what I was told by a contact at QF it was only a software chip in the engine's management system.

    QPD was held back at TLS due to uprated engine mods being tested at delivery.

    Once again the QF A332's are the standard base model with the lowest possible MTOW!

    I'd find it extremely hard to believe that an A332 and A333 could share exactly the same MTOW, the A333 is bigger for starters.

    This is a superb thread so far.

    rgds

    Tom/PER
     
    raggi
    Posts: 879
    Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 4:34 am

    RE: Qantas And The 777

    Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:49 am

    the one and only -303X operator I know of is QR.
    According to QR's website the MTOW is 233.000 kgs.
    http://www.qatarairways.com/0.1862.0.0.1.0.htm



    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © French Frogs AirSlides




    raggi
    Stick & Rudder
     
    QF744ER
    Posts: 256
    Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:59 am

    RE: Qantas And The 777

    Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:18 am

    CX, Air Canada and Thai (HS-TEM) all operate (X) versions of the A333 just to name a few.

    Tom/PER
     
    stirling
    Posts: 3897
    Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

    RE: Qantas And The 777

    Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:54 am

    Just wondering.......

    How much Australian content is in the B777? The B787?

    I've never understood the A333 and B772 operating side by side; someone mentioned here earlier that they fit well together, why?
    Delete this User

    Who is online