|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.
|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.
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 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.
|Quoting QF744ER (Reply 21):|
It just insn't ecomonical to operate 4 of the one type in the QF fleet.
|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!
|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.
|Quoting QF744ER (Reply 29):|
but QF still has no idea where to deploy these aircraft
|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.
|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.
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.
|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.
|Quoting Sydscott (Reply 30):|
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.
I dont know where you get UAL fare dumping at LAX...
...but considering the profits being generated by both QF and UAL at LAX...
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.
|Quoting QF744ER (Reply 34):|
The point i'm trying to get across here is that the -200's are the cheap base model...
|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.
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.
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.
|Quoting QFA001 (Reply 38):|
Both the A332s and A333s are built to 233t MTOW specification.
|Quoting Antares (Reply 33):|
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.
|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.