Ellofiend wrote:

I am assuming this developed from the SFO downgauge? Where did the extra equipment for SIN come from?

The 2nd PER-SIN (QF77/78) is operated by the 738. It's a seasonal flight operated alongside QF71/72 which is operated by the 332.

IndianicWorld wrote:

qf789 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Makes it sound more likely that it will simply be a MEL swap from Narita. Launching a completely new route with 6-8 weeks notice doesn't sound like a plan.

From my understanding QF has already decided on who gets HND they just have decided not to announce it until January. Im not sure MEL is a given, it may well be but if QF decided to go double daily on HND-SYD they would necessarily be selling a new flight. With the 744 on the way, they would operate a double daily SYD-HND with either 789's or A330's or a mix of both. As a result the second flight would take the overflow from the downgraded flight so depending on what aircraft they use, 2 SYD-HND flights over the current one may only see seat capacity of 100-150 added per day

Still a lot more risk overall to try and sell those seats with a smaller lead in time, especially when NH is also boosting capacity.

MEL makes more sense if they want to reduce risk in an Australia-Japan market that is going to be quite saturated with capacity all of a sudden. It’s likely better to try and maximise yields from both MEL and SYD by flying to HND with less overall capacity to try and fill in this conditions.

If it really needs more SYD-Tokyo capacity at a later stage, it can launch NRT services.

There is no competive advantage to MEL-HND. Precisely who would Qantas be competing against that offers a better schedule than the current QF79/80 to NRT?

I agree with what's said above. In a prime business market, such as SYD-TYO, 100 extra daily seats released relatively close-in is nothing. I don't see how QF don't announce a second daily flight unless they receive approval for A380 ops.

RyanairGuru wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

qf789 wrote:

From my understanding QF has already decided on who gets HND they just have decided not to announce it until January. Im not sure MEL is a given, it may well be but if QF decided to go double daily on HND-SYD they would necessarily be selling a new flight. With the 744 on the way, they would operate a double daily SYD-HND with either 789's or A330's or a mix of both. As a result the second flight would take the overflow from the downgraded flight so depending on what aircraft they use, 2 SYD-HND flights over the current one may only see seat capacity of 100-150 added per day

Still a lot more risk overall to try and sell those seats with a smaller lead in time, especially when NH is also boosting capacity.

MEL makes more sense if they want to reduce risk in an Australia-Japan market that is going to be quite saturated with capacity all of a sudden. It’s likely better to try and maximise yields from both MEL and SYD by flying to HND with less overall capacity to try and fill in this conditions.

If it really needs more SYD-Tokyo capacity at a later stage, it can launch NRT services.

There is no competive advantage to MEL-HND. Precisely who would Qantas be competing against that offers a better schedule than the current QF79/80 to NRT?

I agree with what's said above. In a prime business market, such as SYD-TYO, 100 extra daily seats released relatively close-in is nothing. I don't see how QF don't announce a second daily flight unless they receive approval for A380 ops.

I suppose the argument is that if they go double daily to SYD, not only is QF adding extra seats but so is NH. If the market becomes saturated then yield will go down. QF can control yield better by moving MEL,as well as having a competitive advantage over JL. But QF may well decide on double daily from SYD.

RyanairGuru wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

qf789 wrote:

From my understanding QF has already decided on who gets HND they just have decided not to announce it until January. Im not sure MEL is a given, it may well be but if QF decided to go double daily on HND-SYD they would necessarily be selling a new flight. With the 744 on the way, they would operate a double daily SYD-HND with either 789's or A330's or a mix of both. As a result the second flight would take the overflow from the downgraded flight so depending on what aircraft they use, 2 SYD-HND flights over the current one may only see seat capacity of 100-150 added per day

Still a lot more risk overall to try and sell those seats with a smaller lead in time, especially when NH is also boosting capacity.

MEL makes more sense if they want to reduce risk in an Australia-Japan market that is going to be quite saturated with capacity all of a sudden. It’s likely better to try and maximise yields from both MEL and SYD by flying to HND with less overall capacity to try and fill in this conditions.

If it really needs more SYD-Tokyo capacity at a later stage, it can launch NRT services.

There is no competive advantage to MEL-HND. Precisely who would Qantas be competing against that offers a better schedule than the current QF79/80 to NRT?

I agree with what's said above. In a prime business market, such as SYD-TYO, 100 extra daily seats released relatively close-in is nothing. I don't see how QF don't announce a second daily flight unless they receive approval for A380 ops.

We need to look at it as an Australia-Japan market, not just one route in isolation.

As a whole, the market has already had a significant injection of seats added or planned in a relatively small period, so the aim will likely have to be to protect yields to some point.

QF will make their decision based on what works for them so let’s just wait and see.

RyanairGuru wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

qf789 wrote:

From my understanding QF has already decided on who gets HND they just have decided not to announce it until January. Im not sure MEL is a given, it may well be but if QF decided to go double daily on HND-SYD they would necessarily be selling a new flight. With the 744 on the way, they would operate a double daily SYD-HND with either 789's or A330's or a mix of both. As a result the second flight would take the overflow from the downgraded flight so depending on what aircraft they use, 2 SYD-HND flights over the current one may only see seat capacity of 100-150 added per day

Still a lot more risk overall to try and sell those seats with a smaller lead in time, especially when NH is also boosting capacity.

MEL makes more sense if they want to reduce risk in an Australia-Japan market that is going to be quite saturated with capacity all of a sudden. It’s likely better to try and maximise yields from both MEL and SYD by flying to HND with less overall capacity to try and fill in this conditions.

If it really needs more SYD-Tokyo capacity at a later stage, it can launch NRT services.

There is no competive advantage to MEL-HND. Precisely who would Qantas be competing against that offers a better schedule than the current QF79/80 to NRT?

I agree with what's said above. In a prime business market, such as SYD-TYO, 100 extra daily seats released relatively close-in is nothing. I don't see how QF don't announce a second daily flight unless they receive approval for A380 ops.

The competitive advantage is flying to HND itself rather than NRT, why does it have to be that QF is “responding to competition”?

There are many advantages flying into HND which have already been described in this thread. Wouldn’t you want QF to have first-mover advantage?

Also if it was a SYD double daily and QF was announcing a simultaneous downgauge of the 747 (eg 787 / A330) beginning end of March, how is QF going to decide who gets kicked off to the second daily flight, knowing some passengers probably booked the overnight flights intentionally for business/personal reasons?

Looks like JQ's VH-JQL is now doing some Qantas Link flights in WA. Is this another JQ aircraft due to be transferred and painted in QantasLink colours? At first thought it might be because of todays cancellations, but has been happening for at least a few days.

Looks like the A35K for PS https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-sunrise/

VHZNE wrote:

Looks like the A35K for PS https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-sunrise/

Oh well. I was hoping for the 777x

VHZNE wrote:

Looks like the A35K for PS https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-sunrise/

Although no order has been placed as of yet.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B5_Va4ogrgP/

A graphic of the A350-1000 in the QF Livery.

Great to see some traction on this finally!! This is a huge boost for the project rest is really putting IR pressure on pilots.

I’d say we’ll see some ULR 350K for PS, and some 350-9 in a denser cabin than the 789 (and a small top up order of 789) to add to replace remaining 744 routes, and up gauge 789 routes which will in turn boost frequency, and maybe move to some Asian flying. In the future with eventual 380 replacement as 350K.

350K - LAX,LHR,JFK,SIN,ORDE (PS & 380 replacement.
350-9 SYD-SFO/YVR/HKG/JNB/DFW, MEL-HKG, BNE-LAX, PER-LHR
789 - PER-CDG/JNB/FRA, MEL/BNE-SFO/DFW/SIN/HKG & Asian flying
330s - moved to domestic, and slowly moved off Asian flying into retirement. Replaced by 321XLR & 797 domestically and in Asia.

With JQ pilot strike I’d also say we’ll see QF steering away from 320NEOs as they’ll want to keep separate fleet types between the two carriers.

I’m not sure I see the 359 in the fleet. There is a lot of overlap with the 789. I would make more sense to converge on two aircraft. The 789 for thinner routes and the 35K for thicker routes.

Glad a decision has been made though.

That will kill off the 778 I think. But that’s another discussion.

I’m not sure I see the 359 in the fleet. There is a lot of overlap with the 789. I would make more sense to converge on two aircraft. The 789 for thinner routes and the 35K for thicker routes.

Glad a decision has been made though.

That will kill off the 778 I think. But that’s another discussion.

F100Flyer wrote:

Looks like JQ's VH-JQL is now doing some Qantas Link flights in WA. Is this another JQ aircraft due to be transferred and painted in QantasLink colours? At first thought it might be because of todays cancellations, but has been happening for at least a few days.

Think I read it either here or in Qantas Fleet thread that JQL is already part of QF Link. Planespotters also said it went to QFLink on 28 Nov.

Michael

smi0006 wrote:

Great to see some traction on this finally!! This is a huge boost for the project rest is really putting IR pressure on pilots.

Do you think the pilots should be forced to fly the new aircraft on less money? I bet management won't take a reduced salary or bonus due to the new aircraft.

The pilots won’t fly it on less money. This push back of the deadline is evidence that IR can’t get the pilots, through the union, to agree to their IR agenda. The pilots (of which I am one) are not swayed at all.

vhebb wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Great to see some traction on this finally!! This is a huge boost for the project rest is really putting IR pressure on pilots.

Do you think the pilots should be forced to fly the new aircraft on less money? I bet management won't take a reduced salary or bonus due to the new aircraft.

They're actually offering them more money for the new aircraft which they would need to in order for Pilots to want to fly. In return they are wanting some more flexibility in work rules. Lets see how that pans out because between the pilots and CASA QF needs a few things to fall into place to get this across the line and I'd be surprised if the pilots are going to be all that flexible on conditions given what they, can cabin crew, are being asked to do for these long flights.

Whatsaptudo wrote:

The pilots won’t fly it on less money. This push back of the deadline is evidence that IR can’t get the pilots, through the union, to agree to their IR agenda. The pilots (of which I am one) are not swayed at all.

So do the pilots think that PS is DOA. Just out of curiosity Qantas has said they wanted 30% efficiency gains from the pilot , though at the same time those 787 pilots have said they gave too much, can you elaborate on what they actually want and what the pilots actually want. It would be great to get some insight into this

I don’t think we completely believe an aircraft order is dead. We just don’t believe it’s for PS. At one of the webinars one of the Senior managers let it slip that this aircraft order could in the future replace the A380, which at the moment is the highest paid aircraft in the fleet. I find today’s announcement interesting with regards to the numbers. We have 12 A380’s. They promised us the 787 was for growth. All it has done so far is replace the 747. They lied to us. And we believe they are doing it again. We do not believe it will be growth, all this PS rubbish is about getting an A380 replacement on the 787 contract, which represents about a 30% saving. They want to introduce a B scale (on top of the 30% saving to have already explained). I suppose you can ask Zeke how damaging that was to Cathay pilots in the early 90’s. We will not accept that. There are many many more adverse “requirements” the company are asking for, but I’m not going to go into them here. But I’ve never seen so much unity in the LH pilots against something in my over 2 decades in QF. They won’t get a deal unless they loosen the purse strings. We just won’t do it.

RyanairGuru wrote:

I don't see how QF don't announce a second daily flight unless they receive approval for A380 ops.

Maybe this is me being picky but won't the aircraft size difference between an A380 and A333 (or whatever JAL might run as the alternative) be somewhat imbalanced on SYD-HND if they do go 2pd SYD-HND? Ie lots of inbound people on the A380 flight, say overnight, but the day flight back might not be as preferred and so the loads wouldnt balance (it could be vice versa too)? The only way to counter this would be a day layover but this does nothing to help improve fleet utilisation...

Or is this not a problem and im overthinking this?

EK413 wrote:

The latest addition to the QantasLink fleet “Golden Wattle” VHJQL



https://www.instagram.com/p/B4_j5I7BtqE ... 9hvdo53p1i

eamondzhang wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:

Looks like JQ's VH-JQL is now doing some Qantas Link flights in WA. Is this another JQ aircraft due to be transferred and painted in QantasLink colours? At first thought it might be because of todays cancellations, but has been happening for at least a few days.

Think I read it either here or in Qantas Fleet thread that JQL is already part of QF Link. Planespotters also said it went to QFLink on 28 Nov.

Michael

Correct, has been discussed in the QF Fleet discussion thread.

Qantas Fleet Thread - 2019

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411865

Great to see QF have finally made a decision and no surprise considering they cancelled the last 8 x A380’s on order which probably equates to 10-12 x A350’s.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

vhebb wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Great to see some traction on this finally!! This is a huge boost for the project rest is really putting IR pressure on pilots.

Do you think the pilots should be forced to fly the new aircraft on less money? I bet management won't take a reduced salary or bonus due to the new aircraft.

Sorry - I wasn’t meaning to express an opinion either way on what pilots should be getting. More suggesting this is QFs strategy to put pressure on the pilots as now they will publicly be the bad guys.

I think airline management is pushing front line staff, and pilots too far, as are many industries. It’s all about driving labour costs down, as opposed to unlocking value or efficiency.

Whatsaptudo wrote:

They promised us the 787 was for growth. All it has done so far is replace the 747. They lied to us.

To be fair, the 787 mega order was done under previous management (ie Dixon/Gregg/Borghetti et al) who we all know were ego driven rather than business driven and so that might have been correct then. But with the change in management to Joyce et al, the strategy was definitely revised and so it may not have been a lie but a change in strategic direction made by people who could see a looming disaster (ie fleet overcapacity) and made use of the commitments they'd been lumbered with?

Not trying to be controversial here but would be interested in pilot views on this and what the alternative could have been (ie red ink).

No. It was promised as a growth type 3 years ago during the last EA negotiation. The same management team. We don’t have to go back to the early 2000’s.

vhebb wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Great to see some traction on this finally!! This is a huge boost for the project rest is really putting IR pressure on pilots.

Do you think the pilots should be forced to fly the new aircraft on less money? I bet management won't take a reduced salary or bonus due to the new aircraft.

I dont know, go and look at the current range of management retrenchments that are going on and tell me that the management group isnt also being targeted in cost cutting?

vhebb wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Great to see some traction on this finally!! This is a huge boost for the project rest is really putting IR pressure on pilots.

Do you think the pilots should be forced to fly the new aircraft on less money? I bet management won't take a reduced salary or bonus due to the new aircraft.

It's against Australian law for workers to be "worse off" under a new contract. From my understanding the issues are unrelated to pay but more so on penalties and ability to QF to recruit. Obviously more pilots means less overtime.

tmwj1 wrote:

getluv wrote:

Not all pilots, unionised pilots. People forget that Unions have a monetary incentive to keep negotiations going for as long as possible. In order to this they must continue to play hardball. No one looks good in an outcome of no Project Sunrise.

I'm sure the numbers do stack up for PS, its just that another 1% saving will go a long way.

What’s the rationale in doing that? Why would the union have monetary incentives to drag out contract negotiations?

If a union kept agreeing to a company's demands or resolving new EBAs without any issues, what is the incentive for a member to stay and keep paying fees.

getluv wrote:

vhebb wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Great to see some traction on this finally!! This is a huge boost for the project rest is really putting IR pressure on pilots.

Do you think the pilots should be forced to fly the new aircraft on less money? I bet management won't take a reduced salary or bonus due to the new aircraft.

It's against Australian law for workers to be "worse off" under a new contract. From my understand the issues are unrelated to pay but more so on penalties.

tmwj1 wrote:

getluv wrote:

Not all pilots, unionised pilots. People forget that Unions have a monetary incentive to keep negotiations going for as long as possible. In order to this they must continue to play hardball. No one looks good in an outcome of no Project Sunrise.

I'm sure the numbers do stack up for PS, its just that another 1% saving will go a long way.

What’s the rationale in doing that? Why would the union have monetary incentives to drag out contract negotiations?

If a union kept agreeing to a company's demands or resolving new EBAs without any issues, what is the incentive for a member to stay and keep paying fees.

With regard to the statement about the Union delaying as some kind of incentive. There is nothing stopping Qantas sending a document directly to the pilots for a vote. The pilots union (AIPA) is just the “bargaining representative”. This statement is totally untrue with regard to Australian Law.

Whatsaptudo wrote:

getluv wrote:

vhebb wrote:

Do you think the pilots should be forced to fly the new aircraft on less money? I bet management won't take a reduced salary or bonus due to the new aircraft.

It's against Australian law for workers to be "worse off" under a new contract. From my understand the issues are unrelated to pay but more so on penalties.

tmwj1 wrote:

What’s the rationale in doing that? Why would the union have monetary incentives to drag out contract negotiations?

If a union kept agreeing to a company's demands or resolving new EBAs without any issues, what is the incentive for a member to stay and keep paying fees.

With regard to the statement about the Union delaying as some kind of incentive. There is nothing stopping Qantas sending a document directly to the pilots for a vote. The pilots union (AIPA) is just the “bargaining representative”. This statement is totally untrue with regard to Australian Law.

If a majority of QFi pilots are members of the AIPA then they it is pretty much a QF Management vs AIPA situation. Also holding a vote for a new EBA is also a time consuming process.

Re: Better off overall test that the FWC uses to approve new EBAs. https://www.fwc.gov.au/enterprise-agree ... erall-test

getluv. The better off overall test is true. However, QF don’t operate the A350. It is not in the current contract. There is no benchmark. It’s a moot point.

qf789 wrote:

Whatsaptudo wrote:

The pilots won’t fly it on less money. This push back of the deadline is evidence that IR can’t get the pilots, through the union, to agree to their IR agenda. The pilots (of which I am one) are not swayed at all.

So do the pilots think that PS is DOA. Just out of curiosity Qantas has said they wanted 30% efficiency gains from the pilot , though at the same time those 787 pilots have said they gave too much, can you elaborate on what they actually want and what the pilots actually want. It would be great to get some insight into this

Sticking point was duty hours extension by 30% subject to CASAs approval without adding flight crew members. So PS will still have 4 person crew Captain,FO & 2 SOs. But this will increase the minimum rest hours before/after flight.

Whereas the unions want additional Captain added & the legacy guaranteed 75hrs from 747 crew. Whether Qantas will hire foreign cabin crew like they do with Perth to London one wonders.

Captdasbomb wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Whatsaptudo wrote:

The pilots won’t fly it on less money. This push back of the deadline is evidence that IR can’t get the pilots, through the union, to agree to their IR agenda. The pilots (of which I am one) are not swayed at all.

So do the pilots think that PS is DOA. Just out of curiosity Qantas has said they wanted 30% efficiency gains from the pilot , though at the same time those 787 pilots have said they gave too much, can you elaborate on what they actually want and what the pilots actually want. It would be great to get some insight into this

Sticking point was duty hours extension by 30% subject to CASAs approval without adding flight crew members. So PS will still have 4 person crew Captain,FO & 2 SOs. But this will increase the minimum rest hours before/after flight.

Whereas the unions want additional Captain added & the legacy guaranteed 75hrs from 747 crew. Whether Qantas will hire foreign cabin crew like they do with Perth to London one wonders.

Where do you get this 75 hour guarantee from? Qantas legacy longhaul pilots (which includes the 747, but excludes the 787) get paid a credit system with a min guarantee over 56 days of 160-175 hours. Your use of this 75 hour guarantee (a couple of times now) indicates you don’t actually know how the contract works but seem to be telling this thread that you do. And that is not what we are asking for. The increase in duty time to complete these missions is at the moment is not legal.

Interesting developments re A35K. I’m particularly intrigued by the initial order number of 12 - what does this realistically achieve:

5 aircraft can do SYD/MEL-LHR
6 for SYD-JFK/ORD and maybe MEL-DFW

Leaves 1 operational spare which could also do SYD-HKG or HND?

qf789 wrote:

Is there something wrong with ZNJ, on top of the PER-LHR changes tonight's MEL-SFO has been cancelled

Hydraulic leak, -ZNJ will op tonight’s QF95 MELLAX.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Is there something wrong with ZNJ, on top of the PER-LHR changes tonight's MEL-SFO has been cancelled

Hydraulic leak, -ZNJ will op tonight’s QF95 MELLAX.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, IIRC ZNJ had an issue with it prior to delivery as well

QF742 wrote:

Interesting developments re A35K. I’m particularly intrigued by the initial order number of 12 - what does this realistically achieve:

5 aircraft can do SYD/MEL-LHR
6 for SYD-JFK/ORD and maybe MEL-DFW

Leaves 1 operational spare which could also do SYD-HKG or HND?

PER-DFW, LOL. Only 51 miles shorter than SYD-LHR.

But seriously, is this tentatively their A380 replacement? If they're going for high premium capacity it'll likely perform well on SYD-DFW replacing the A380.

Ishrion wrote:

QF742 wrote:

Interesting developments re A35K. I’m particularly intrigued by the initial order number of 12 - what does this realistically achieve:

5 aircraft can do SYD/MEL-LHR
6 for SYD-JFK/ORD and maybe MEL-DFW

Leaves 1 operational spare which could also do SYD-HKG or HND?

PER-DFW, LOL. Only 51 miles shorter than SYD-LHR.

But seriously, is this tentatively their A380 replacement? If they're going for high premium capacity it'll likely perform well on SYD-DFW replacing the A380.

I don’t think the 12 will replace the entire a380 fleet - why would they add an additional fuel tank for aircraft they don’t intend to push for long journeys (ie current a380 journeys).

The a35k will inadvertently replace the a380 - eg SYD-SIN-LHR will no longer be needed. They will need to order more (in a standard form) if they want to totally replace the a380.

VARA has added a 6th A320 to its fleet, VH-VNF has been transferred over from TT

QF742 wrote:

Interesting developments re A35K. I’m particularly intrigued by the initial order number of 12 - what does this realistically achieve:

Theres probably a fair bit of financial management here - QF has been doing small orders at a time so they can keep the credit rating. The large A380 and 787 orders impacted this for some time as the ratings agencies considered QF's position weaker because of the capital commitments.

Jetstar has been ordered by Worksafe NSW to ensure all equipment on the tarmac is fit for purpose within 7 days and that by the end of January those servicing aircraft are in teams of 5

https://7news.com.au/business/jetstar/j ... --c-604277

qf2220 wrote:

Whatsaptudo wrote:

They promised us the 787 was for growth. All it has done so far is replace the 747. They lied to us.

To be fair, the 787 mega order was done under previous management (ie Dixon/Gregg/Borghetti et al) who we all know were ego driven rather than business driven and so that might have been correct then. But with the change in management to Joyce et al, the strategy was definitely revised and so it may not have been a lie but a change in strategic direction made by people who could see a looming disaster (ie fleet overcapacity) and made use of the commitments they'd been lumbered with?

Not trying to be controversial here but would be interested in pilot views on this and what the alternative could have been (ie red ink).

So we all know Dixon was ego driven ? Qantas is now looking at having quite an aged fleet. AJ has kicked renewal down the road to maximize returns.

QF742 wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

QF742 wrote:

Interesting developments re A35K. I’m particularly intrigued by the initial order number of 12 - what does this realistically achieve:

5 aircraft can do SYD/MEL-LHR
6 for SYD-JFK/ORD and maybe MEL-DFW

Leaves 1 operational spare which could also do SYD-HKG or HND?

PER-DFW, LOL. Only 51 miles shorter than SYD-LHR.

But seriously, is this tentatively their A380 replacement? If they're going for high premium capacity it'll likely perform well on SYD-DFW replacing the A380.

I don’t think the 12 will replace the entire a380 fleet - why would they add an additional fuel tank for aircraft they don’t intend to push for long journeys (ie current a380 journeys).

The a35k will inadvertently replace the a380 - eg SYD-SIN-LHR will no longer be needed. They will need to order more (in a standard form) if they want to totally replace the a380.

The 12 A350s are the exact 12 craft needed for Project Sunrise. You have BNE/SYD/MEL going to both JFK and LHR. Each of those flights is 19-20.5 hours, so to have one ready for takeoff at daily cadence, you need 2 planes per city pair, and really you need some extras. I don't think SYD-SIN-LHR is realistically going anywhere, just down-gauging to an A330/787 eventually. Oddly enough that also means SYD-IAH has no replacement yet.

It's too bad. The 777-9 was perfect for SYD-DFW and MEL-LAX to down-gauge off the A380. Oh well. I suppose we'll have to see how load factors rebalance.

patrickjp93 wrote:

QF742 wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

PER-DFW, LOL. Only 51 miles shorter than SYD-LHR.

But seriously, is this tentatively their A380 replacement? If they're going for high premium capacity it'll likely perform well on SYD-DFW replacing the A380.

I don’t think the 12 will replace the entire a380 fleet - why would they add an additional fuel tank for aircraft they don’t intend to push for long journeys (ie current a380 journeys).

The a35k will inadvertently replace the a380 - eg SYD-SIN-LHR will no longer be needed. They will need to order more (in a standard form) if they want to totally replace the a380.

The 12 A350s are the exact 12 craft needed for Project Sunrise. You have BNE/SYD/MEL going to both JFK and LHR. Each of those flights is 19-20.5 hours, so to have one ready for takeoff at daily cadence, you need 2 planes per city pair, and really you need some extras. I don't think SYD-SIN-LHR is realistically going anywhere, just down-gauging to an A330/787 eventually. Oddly enough that also means SYD-IAH has no replacement yet.

It's too bad. The 777-9 was perfect for SYD-IAH and MEL-LAX to down-gauge off the A380. Oh well. I suppose we'll have to see how load factors rebalance.

You mean DFW, not IAH, right?

NTLDaz wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Whatsaptudo wrote:

They promised us the 787 was for growth. All it has done so far is replace the 747. They lied to us.

To be fair, the 787 mega order was done under previous management (ie Dixon/Gregg/Borghetti et al) who we all know were ego driven rather than business driven and so that might have been correct then. But with the change in management to Joyce et al, the strategy was definitely revised and so it may not have been a lie but a change in strategic direction made by people who could see a looming disaster (ie fleet overcapacity) and made use of the commitments they'd been lumbered with?

Not trying to be controversial here but would be interested in pilot views on this and what the alternative could have been (ie red ink).

So we all know Dixon was ego driven ? Qantas is now looking at having quite an aged fleet. AJ has kicked renewal down the road to maximize returns.

As well Joyce should. It's Jetstar--where fares are bare bones--that needs the most efficient planes currently available and always, but for QF, there's just too many possibilities cooking in terms of A330NEO, 787 GE PIP potential, eventual A350 NEO, still a remote chance of the NMA, a sudden FSA launch, or the A220-500 stretch. Making an order right now without some of these details firming up is a real roll of the dice. He's cautious. Younger A320s can come off of Jetstar into QF if the 737-800s really hit issues. I suppose some A220s would also be a good idea depending on delivery slots. The MAX crisis probably scuttled any 737 NG replacement plans, if for no other reason than appearances.

Ishrion wrote:

patrickjp93 wrote:

QF742 wrote:

I don’t think the 12 will replace the entire a380 fleet - why would they add an additional fuel tank for aircraft they don’t intend to push for long journeys (ie current a380 journeys).

The a35k will inadvertently replace the a380 - eg SYD-SIN-LHR will no longer be needed. They will need to order more (in a standard form) if they want to totally replace the a380.

The 12 A350s are the exact 12 craft needed for Project Sunrise. You have BNE/SYD/MEL going to both JFK and LHR. Each of those flights is 19-20.5 hours, so to have one ready for takeoff at daily cadence, you need 2 planes per city pair, and really you need some extras. I don't think SYD-SIN-LHR is realistically going anywhere, just down-gauging to an A330/787 eventually. Oddly enough that also means SYD-IAH has no replacement yet.

It's too bad. The 777-9 was perfect for SYD-IAH and MEL-LAX to down-gauge off the A380. Oh well. I suppose we'll have to see how load factors rebalance.

You mean DFW, not IAH, right?

Who said anything about IAH? /jk Yup, my bad.

NTLDaz wrote:

So we all know Dixon was ego driven ? Qantas is now looking at having quite an aged fleet. AJ has kicked renewal down the road to maximize returns.

Yes they've had a gap but they've taken on quite a few 787s now.

By end of next year mainline LH fleet wont be too bad.
12 A380s 2008-2011 8-11
14 787s 2017-2020 0-3
10 A333s 2003-2005 15-17
8 A332s 2009-2011 9-11


The domestic fleet is beginning to age though with a big chunk of 2002-2004 737s.

moa999 wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

So we all know Dixon was ego driven ? Qantas is now looking at having quite an aged fleet. AJ has kicked renewal down the road to maximize returns.

Yes they've had a gap but they've taken on quite a few 787s now.

By end of next year mainline LH fleet wont be too bad.
12 A380s 2008-2011 8-11
14 787s 2017-2020 0-3
10 A333s 2003-2005 15-17
8 A332s 2009-2011 9-11


The domestic fleet is beginning to age though with a big chunk of 2002-2004 737s.

Any bets on whether QF joins the A220 camp or holds out to place a MAX order if/when the dust settles?

VH-ZNK delivery and PS flights (from QF website):
13/11 PAE 1300 : 1535 LAX QF6027
16/11 LAX 0955 : 1805 JFK QF6027
16/11 JFK 2100 : 0810+2 SYD QF7879

vhebb wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Great to see some traction on this finally!! This is a huge boost for the project rest is really putting IR pressure on pilots.

Do you think the pilots should be forced to fly the new aircraft on less money? I bet management won't take a reduced salary or bonus due to the new aircraft.

Pilots are generally paid by aircraft weight. So a smaller plane than a 747 or a380 equals less pay. You cant get a pay rise for moving to a bigger aircraft and not get a pay cut for moving to a smaller bird.

EK413 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Is there something wrong with ZNJ, on top of the PER-LHR changes tonight's MEL-SFO has been cancelled

Hydraulic leak, -ZNJ will op tonight’s QF95 MELLAX.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Domestic legs of QF9/10 are cancelled again today along with QF95 (assuming QF96 will be as well). ZNJ not ready for service yet? Might not be required until Sunday now.

getluv wrote:

If a union kept agreeing to a company's demands or resolving new EBAs without any issues, what is the incentive for a member to stay and keep paying fees.

Maybe you do not realise that contract negotiations is only one part of union's function, but being in the union also affords a pilot the legal protections and representations when it comes to having incidents and accidents, as well as HR related issues in the company. The union is also representing the pilots in these new flight and duty rules in discussion right now, in order for the project sunrise flights to happen.

A pilot union is not like a labour union where there seems to be a pathway into politics or making connections in the business world, the pilots pay fees to not just to have their contract negotiated, but for many other things (See above). So yes, without members the union is useless, but the whole point of a pilot union is to represents the interests of the pilots and the membership fees go towards achieving those, as most of the union's representatives serve on a voluntary basis, there is no monetary incentive for anyone in the union to drag out a contract negotiation.