Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:09 am

Antarius wrote:

Given than WN operates a 737 fleet ten times the size of QF and don't have issues, I think it's safe to say that there's something else at play (if anything). There are thousands of non containerized craft worldwide.

Causation/Correlation and all that.


The difference is Qantas is based in Australia where workplace health and safety is like the cart driving the horse. Go to any of the domestic Qantas lounges across the country it is normally full of a sea of orange high visibility clothing.

What WN gets away with has no bearing on the payouts of time off Qantas has to pay in Australia.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
Antarius
Posts: 3436
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:19 am

zeke wrote:
Antarius wrote:

Given than WN operates a 737 fleet ten times the size of QF and don't have issues, I think it's safe to say that there's something else at play (if anything). There are thousands of non containerized craft worldwide.

Causation/Correlation and all that.


The difference is Qantas is based in Australia where workplace health and safety is like the cart driving the horse. Go to any of the domestic Qantas lounges across the country it is normally full of a sea of orange high visibility clothing.

What WN gets away with has no bearing on the payouts of time off Qantas has to pay in Australia.


Australia isn't the only country with strong workplace health and safety rules. And non containerized luggage is present in many of these places without incident.

You're drawing a line between two points without any proof. Correlation.

If you have a source with more detail, I'll stand corrected, but the one cited does not make the point you want it to.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:58 am

a36001 wrote:
It is not as if the 738's are on their last legs, they are all well maintained and can carry on for now. Most are owned outright too if I am correct, so QF have breathing room before they need to order a replacement.


Quite right. The dispatch reliability for the 737NG is still very high, even for the A/C approaching 20 years of service life. Much higher than the Qlink and JQ 320s for example. The first replacement aircraft won’t need to arrive until about 2025, so there’s a bit of breathing space.

Roughly half of the 75 738s in QF are less than ten 10 years old, so are quite capable of continuing to the early to mid 2030s. This may be an advantage to order the MAX, due to cross crewing and parts advantages. You would only need to order 35-40 MAX to arrive mid this decade to operate alongside the 40 youngest NGs. Order the Airbus then there’s crewing and standardisation issues for a decade unless you spend big and get 80 320 Neos at once, which due to the company’s cash position and the desire to order the A351 soon won’t be able to be funded.

Another fleet replacement approaching is the oldest A330s. Maybe this is where a more premium product A321LR would replace them (just like how the 789 sort of replaced the much larger 744s). Or perhaps more 789s? Either way there’s another fleet replacement decision that will need to be made within a year or two which will cost money so the desire to splash out on 80 brand new narrow bodies when they only need 40 will be limited to say the least.

What I do know from my own experience is most of the 'golden oldies' cabin crew would love a Airbus order so they don't have bend down to arm their doors!


I can assure you, out of all the factors QF will consider when choosing to buy an aircraft, the comfort and satisfaction of the cabin crew working on that aircraft will be the last thing in their minds.

Most of the “golden oldies” are gone anyway. Thousands took VR or retirement. Newer crew on more efficient contracts now form the bulk of QF cabin staff. After the next round of contract negotiations the “golden oldie” QF Cabin staff will have their contracts modernised to the point where they will be just as efficient as newer contract crew as well.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:32 am

Antarius wrote:
If you have a source with more detail, I'll stand corrected, but the one cited does not make the point you want it to.


I provided the except and link from the article “Qantas's wounded baggage handlers” above, 20% of the workers at one airport reported were injured.

Please this this report for the high injury report for the under floor loading of narrow body aircraft https://flightsafety.org/ao/ao_sept_oct98.pdf

You can download the original thesis here
https://researchonline.federation.edu.a ... vital:1010

“A major focus of this research project was also to measure the effect of ACE and Sliding Carpet, two commercially available retro-fit baggage systems, on the risk of back injuries to baggage handlers stacking baggage within Boeing B737 narrow-body aircraft.”

Under Australian law, as the manual loading is a known hazardous task, Qantas is obliged by law to take this into account. Eg.

“ 60
Managing risks to health and safety
(1)A person conducting a business or undertaking must manage risks to health and safety relating to a musculoskeletal disorder associated with a hazardous manual task, under part 3.1.
Note—

WHS Act—section 19 (see section 9).
(2)In determining what control measures to implement under subsection (1), the person conducting the business or undertaking must have regard to all relevant matters that may contribute to a musculoskeletal disorder, including—
(a)postures, movements, forces and vibration relating to the hazardous manual task; and
(b)the duration and frequency of the hazardous manual task; and
(c)workplace environmental conditions that may affect the hazardous manual task or the worker performing it; and
(d)the design of the work area; and
(e)the layout of the workplace; and
(f)the systems of work used; and
(g)the nature, size, weight or number of persons, animals or things involved in carrying out the hazardous manual task.”

From https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view ... 240#sec.60

Similar legislation exists across the country, that is the workplace legislation Qantas has to abide by.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
LTEN11
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:09 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 6:14 am

zeke wrote:
LTEN11 wrote:

You've mentioned the compo line before, do you have any links to provide some details ?

In any case, all domestic ground handling is being contracted out, so compo cases aren't going to be QF's problem.

This will be simply down to price and in a further 1000 posts about this competition, it will still be down to price.


I don’t have specific cases to post as I believe workers compensation cases involve medical information which is not made public for the privacy of those claiming. This is a general article relating to Qantas and the percentage of baggage handlers that have been injured. https://indaily.com.au/news/2013/12/04/ ... -handlers/

“ Evidence given by a Qantas safety advisor at Adelaide airport said that when she began in November 2009, more than one-fifth of the then 116 air services officer (ASO) employees had an ongoing compensation claim.

The high rate meant the airline was unable to provide permanent alternate work to the long-term injured.

The compensation rate had become such a problem, Safework SA imposed an action plan on Qantas designed to reduce the risk and frequency of manual-handling injuries.”

If they are directly employed or subcontracted, the cost of workplace injuries will still be paid by Qantas in one form or another.


So, it doesn't define whether this employee, or any of the others were working in the holds of 737's, they could've been loading, unloading conveyor belts at the terminal, including containers off international flights, or indeed Jetstar flights. They could've been injured in the bulk hold of a 330 or 767, specifics count in these cases. As it also said, QF were told to reassess the work practices in ADL, so it may have been the case of doing things differently in ADL than other ports. As it is, bulk loading narrow bodies has been done since year dot, if it was seriously that much of a hazard to be a deciding factor in an aircraft order, authorities would have outlawed the practice long ago. Before you say that that the 320 uses ULD's, there are plenty of 320 series airlines who choose to bulk load and there is still the bulk hold to load anyway.

Sure QF will pay somehow for workplace injuries, but that's going to be included in the negotiated contract with the chosen ground handler. They will be released from the burden of finding suitable duties for anybody on compo, whether they be a baggage handler, tug driver, etc, that will be the contracted ground handlers problem, as will work practices. Also, choosing the 320 series and deciding to use containers, will have the added cost of purchasing the required containers and loaders, of course these may, or may not be purchased by QF directly, but would definitely increase the cost of any ground handling contract if they are supplied by the ground handler. As it is, it is doubtful that all ports currently serviced by QF narrow bodies have container loaders that could possibly be shared with other airlines aircraft.

So being realistic, having the occasional injury to a baggage handler, will have zero impact on the choice of aircraft.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10299
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 6:28 am

Maybe 737-8s and launch customers for the 797, as QF really wants the MoM.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 6:45 am

vhtje wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
"QF seem to have a habit of surfing between crises when refreshing their narrow body fleets. IIRC a lot of their current 738s were bought cheaply as cancelled AA frames post-9/11.


'Surfing between crises' is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? In the jet era, QF never had narrow bodies, except for, going back, the 707 of course, when it was the first non-US airline to use the type.

QF did order 737-838s, but the rushed timing of that had more to do with the collapse of domestic competitor AN (which happened on the 9th September 2001) than the tragic events on the same day in NYC. AN's collapse handed QF nearly 80% of the domestic market, and meant QF needed additional capacity, and fast; QF did manage take advantage of an unneeded AA order for quick delivery. Fifteen aircraft thus arrived within 3 months; these aircraft were easy to spot as they had AA fabric on the seats for a few years - you can see photos of this in the database.

QF's domestic predecessor, TN, did not, as far as I know, ever order any aircraft 'between crises'.


How do you see the 9th of September & the 11th of September as the same day?
 
a320fan
Posts: 926
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:04 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:16 am

rbavfan wrote:
vhtje wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
"QF seem to have a habit of surfing between crises when refreshing their narrow body fleets. IIRC a lot of their current 738s were bought cheaply as cancelled AA frames post-9/11.


'Surfing between crises' is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? In the jet era, QF never had narrow bodies, except for, going back, the 707 of course, when it was the first non-US airline to use the type.

QF did order 737-838s, but the rushed timing of that had more to do with the collapse of domestic competitor AN (which happened on the 9th September 2001) than the tragic events on the same day in NYC. AN's collapse handed QF nearly 80% of the domestic market, and meant QF needed additional capacity, and fast; QF did manage take advantage of an unneeded AA order for quick delivery. Fifteen aircraft thus arrived within 3 months; these aircraft were easy to spot as they had AA fabric on the seats for a few years - you can see photos of this in the database.

QF's domestic predecessor, TN, did not, as far as I know, ever order any aircraft 'between crises'.


How do you see the 9th of September & the 11th of September as the same day?


Probably not the hardest mistake to make considering that in Australia we write the date in the opposite format to the US, where the day is the first number. So thinking ‘nine eleven’ it’s easy to see where he made the slip.

I’d be surprised if the health and safety factor is a big driver, if it had any significant impact on their operations already they would have dealt with it before now, then there’s the fact that ground handling has been completely outsourced so from QF point of view this will be an issue for the provider of that service. If the provider raises prices because of it I’m sure there’s some other bottom of the barrel outfit that QF will hire instead.
A319, A320, A321, A330-200, A350-900, A380, 737-700, 737-800, 777-200ER, 777-300, 777-300ER, 787-8, Q300, Q400
 
EBT
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:04 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:33 am

zeke wrote:

Another factor QF have had in the past with the 737 is workplace injury compensation for baggage loaders, either from lost days at work or compensation awards. One of the reasons JQ uses containers.


When I worked at JQ, I was told that the reason they went with containers for the A320s is that due to the additional height, if bags were bulk loaded there would have to be someone dedicated to being a "spotter" during each turn to make sure that the guys moving the bags inside the aircraft didn't fall out. So an additional labour unit was not favourable when you could use cans instead.

The way I see it, this could go either way and Qantas will push both manufacturers for a hard bargain. At this stage, I'm not sure that the Jetstar Group (so including the Japan and Singapore operations) will be in a hurry to renew their fleets, which could mean some of the A320neos end up in Qantas colours - especially the A321LRs/XLRs as they would offer additional range for hops into Asia and the Pacific, while also offering additional capacity on the key trunk routes. But Boeing will drive a hard bargain and have the incumbency advantage.

To those saying that Sunrise won't have an impact on this decision, I wouldn't be so sure. In the crazy world of COVID-19, anything could be on the table and Qantas are known for being hard bargainers. I remember that in the early 2000s they locked in the A380s and A330s, but also ordered the six 747-400ERs at the same time, and I wouldn't discount something like that happening as well. And with the original 738 order, it came down to them being able to take up the AA frames quicker than they could get A320s from Toulouse. I think we will see some interesting deals come out of this one that could well set up a whole of fleet renewal over the next decade.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8667
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:41 am

Just for the record, the A320s at QantasLink (Network Aviation) are bulk loaded. Clearly Qantas aren’t too concerned by any inherent risk, opting to not use ULDs when it is an option.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:34 am

rbavfan wrote:
How do you see the 9th of September & the 11th of September as the same day?


My mistake; I was trying not to use American date formatting and in my haste, got confused/careless. For clarity, AN actually collapsed on the morning of 12th September 2001, which was, of course, still the 11th September in the United States.
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
TC957
Posts: 4078
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:00 am

Come on QF - beat AF to being the launch customer for the A220-500, especially with the recently announced range / weight improvements.
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:05 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
Just for the record, the A320s at QantasLink (Network Aviation) are bulk loaded. Clearly Qantas aren’t too concerned by any inherent risk, opting to not use ULDs when it is an option.


Network Aviation primarily service remote mining airports, they usually don't have the infrastructure to handle ULDs.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:08 am

LTEN11 wrote:
So, it doesn't define whether this employee, or any of the others were working in the holds of 737's, they could've been loading, unloading conveyor belts at the terminal, including containers off international flights, or indeed Jetstar flights.


I would encourage you to read the thesis I posted above by Geoff Dell, before he wrote the thesis he was the Manager, Ground Operations Safety for Australian Airlines. Australian Airlines if you are not aware was the domestic airline in Australia that operated the 737, this was merged into Qantas. He specifically explores injuries caused by loading the 737.

LTEN11 wrote:
Sure QF will pay somehow for workplace injuries, but that's going to be included in the negotiated contract with the chosen ground handler.


I am not an expert on this, read the following document of cleaning contractors that were injured on Qantas aircraft still being the responsibility of Qantas. https://www.worksafe.act.gov.au/__data/ ... ys-Ltd.pdf


LTEN11 wrote:
Also, choosing the 320 series and deciding to use containers, will have the added cost of purchasing the required containers and loaders, of course these may, or may not be purchased by QF directly, but would definitely increase the cost of any ground handling contract if they are supplied by the ground handler. As it is, it is doubtful that all ports currently serviced by QF narrow bodies have container loaders that could possibly be shared with other airlines aircraft.


QF group already do this, all the JQ aircraft have containers, I was told the reasons were three fold, faster turn arounds (containers are packed prior to the aircraft landing), fewer staff required, and fewer injuries.

I am not for a second trying to suggest that the 737 will not be chosen because of its poor historical record of workplace injuries within the QF group, whatever is chosen part of the analysis will include the ground handling aspects. That will incur costs, both upfront and ongoing which will form part of the analysis.

Too many times on this site people concentrate of fuel burn, or number of passengers, or range/payload, in reality there are a large number of factors which impact a purchase decision, and many of those are less tangible on the surface.

RyanairGuru wrote:
Just for the record, the A320s at QantasLink (Network Aviation) are bulk loaded. Clearly Qantas aren’t too concerned by any inherent risk, opting to not use ULDs when it is an option.


I don’t understand this, all the aircraft from what I understand are ex Jetstar/ Jetstar Asia all setup for containers.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
zkncj
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:21 am

I would think QF moving to a320/321NEO fleet, would stillhave some cost benefit to be shared with JQ.

QF will use COVID as an excuse with the unions to justify, that need to refocus there business model to keep operating.

The fact that QFLink has growing fleet of a320s, seems to suggest that QF is happy with them.....
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:23 am

I kind of hope they go for the A32Xneo, but it's as close to a 50/50 as you can get. A32Xneos might have a slight advantage in that the A321XLR could be useful for QF, and it'd slot in with little bother. Virtually all of SE Asia is reachable from SYD with the 4200nm (real world) range.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2848
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:48 am

Polot wrote:
Depends on what price you are talking about. Total price? There is no way Airbus can match a Boeing 737 proposal with an equal number of A320neos + A350s. They are not going to give QF A350s for free. QF may not be willing to commit extra capital for wide bodies at this time preferring to get a better understanding of how recovery will look like for them.


That is certainly the case. 75 A32Ns + 12 35S will not be less expensive than 75 7MXs. What I was saying was more along the lines of AB matching/bettering the cost of the MAX side, and leveraging the existing 350 proposal via incentive. It would be a case of opportunism for QF, but hardly the first time such a thing has happened in this —or many other for that matter— business.

However...


Polot wrote:
At this point I believe QF wants negotiate the narrow bodies and project sunrise separately. They are talking about reassessing the viability of the Project Sunrise entirely, not firming the prices with Airbus. I don’t think they are going to hold up the narrow body replacement as they figure out long haul.


If Sunrise is subject to outright viability, then what you say becomes more likely to be the case. This goes back to why I said it would be a draw earlier if QF were to withdraw their Sunrise needs. I do wonder in this market though what QF's actual replacement needs are for the NGs. They are not new, but hardly geriatric either.

Upthread, another user suggested the possibility of AB leveraging a different cross product option. Namely replacing the NGs & 717s with a comprehensive 32N/220 deal. I like this possibility as it is something BCA outright cannot do. This becomes a more likely result if QF are not in a rush as the 32N backlog is obviously in much better shape than the MAX.


sierrakilo44 wrote:
Quite right. The dispatch reliability for the 737NG is still very high, even for the A/C approaching 20 years of service life. Much higher than the Qlink and JQ 320s for example. The first replacement aircraft won’t need to arrive until about 2025, so there’s a bit of breathing space.

Roughly half of the 75 738s in QF are less than ten 10 years old, so are quite capable of continuing to the early to mid 2030s. This may be an advantage to order the MAX, due to cross crewing and parts advantages. You would only need to order 35-40 MAX to arrive mid this decade to operate alongside the 40 youngest NGs. Order the Airbus then there’s crewing and standardisation issues for a decade unless you spend big and get 80 320 Neos at once, which due to the company’s cash position and the desire to order the A351 soon won’t be able to be funded.


Makes sense. Joyce' comments seem to be very exploratory in nature. I would not expect movement here this year.

TC957 wrote:
Come on QF - beat AF to being the launch customer for the A220-500, especially with the recently announced range / weight improvements.


That would be something. I do not think anyone would complain either.

zeke wrote:

Too many times on this site people concentrate of fuel burn, or number of passengers, or range/payload, in reality there are a large number of factors which impact a purchase decision, and many of those are less tangible on the surface.


Cannot be said enough. Far too often the church of a.net fixates on very small aspects of these decisions, and curiously enough, completely discounts other, very relevant factors.
Well, you know what they say. Whatever doesn't kill you...
... Must not be an MD-11.
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:54 am

zkncj wrote:
I would think QF moving to a320/321NEO fleet, would stillhave some cost benefit to be shared with JQ.

QF will use COVID as an excuse with the unions to justify, that need to refocus there business model to keep operating.

The fact that QFLink has growing fleet of a320s, seems to suggest that QF is happy with them.....


Those 320s are primarily for FIFO resource flying. It's low density (sometimes aircraft just utilised for 3hrs a day a few days a week) so doesn't require aircraft with a terribly high dispatch reliability or product. None of the 320s were from the 99+ Neo order and the company that operates them isn't really setup to expand to takeover all domestic short haul flying. There's also little cross co-operation with JQ.

Conspiracy theories aside Qantas have said any future narrow body aircraft will be operated by their mainline division. Just like how JQ could've easily taken on the QF B789s they were operated inhouse instead. It'll be hard to justify Covid as an excuse for cost cutting soon as the projection for the Australian domestic network is to be back at 100% of pre-Covid capacity very soon. International networks are another thing however.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:09 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
Polot wrote:
Depends on what price you are talking about. Total price? There is no way Airbus can match a Boeing 737 proposal with an equal number of A320neos + A350s. They are not going to give QF A350s for free. QF may not be willing to commit extra capital for wide bodies at this time preferring to get a better understanding of how recovery will look like for them.


That is certainly the case. 75 A32Ns + 12 35S will not be less expensive than 75 7MXs. What I was saying was more along the lines of AB matching/bettering the cost of the MAX side, and leveraging the existing 350 proposal via incentive. It would be a case of opportunism for QF, but hardly the first time such a thing has happened in this —or many other for that matter— business.

However...


Polot wrote:
At this point I believe QF wants negotiate the narrow bodies and project sunrise separately. They are talking about reassessing the viability of the Project Sunrise entirely, not firming the prices with Airbus. I don’t think they are going to hold up the narrow body replacement as they figure out long haul.


If Sunrise is subject to outright viability, then what you say becomes more likely to be the case. This goes back to why I said it would be a draw earlier if QF were to withdraw their Sunrise needs. I do wonder in this market though what QF's actual replacement needs are for the NGs. They are not new, but hardly geriatric either.

Upthread, another user suggested the possibility of AB leveraging a different cross product option. Namely replacing the NGs & 717s with a comprehensive 32N/220 deal. I like this possibility as it is something BCA outright cannot do. This becomes a more likely result if QF are not in a rush as the 32N backlog is obviously in much better shape than the MAX.


sierrakilo44 wrote:
Quite right. The dispatch reliability for the 737NG is still very high, even for the A/C approaching 20 years of service life. Much higher than the Qlink and JQ 320s for example. The first replacement aircraft won’t need to arrive until about 2025, so there’s a bit of breathing space.

Roughly half of the 75 738s in QF are less than ten 10 years old, so are quite capable of continuing to the early to mid 2030s. This may be an advantage to order the MAX, due to cross crewing and parts advantages. You would only need to order 35-40 MAX to arrive mid this decade to operate alongside the 40 youngest NGs. Order the Airbus then there’s crewing and standardisation issues for a decade unless you spend big and get 80 320 Neos at once, which due to the company’s cash position and the desire to order the A351 soon won’t be able to be funded.


Makes sense. Joyce' comments seem to be very exploratory in nature. I would not expect movement here this year.

TC957 wrote:
Come on QF - beat AF to being the launch customer for the A220-500, especially with the recently announced range / weight improvements.


That would be something. I do not think anyone would complain either.

zeke wrote:

Too many times on this site people concentrate of fuel burn, or number of passengers, or range/payload, in reality there are a large number of factors which impact a purchase decision, and many of those are less tangible on the surface.


Cannot be said enough. Far too often the church of a.net fixates on very small aspects of these decisions, and curiously enough, completely discounts other, very relevant factors.

It’s the same thing you’re doing by swinging around a combo deal. When there are also much more relevant factors than THAT. I would even rate this baggage issue as far more relevant than a completely different project that Qantas has to completely re-evaluate for a non standard aircraft. Since it’s so relevant why doesn’t everybody do combo deal. Dealing with two completely different assets, two completely different kinds of financing, two different kind of risks.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:23 am

Opus99 wrote:
Do you honestly think airbus will come in at the price Boeing will potentially come in at?


Sometimes bargain cheap pricing turns out to be extremely expensive.

What is Australia's position on price dumping?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2848
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:32 am

Opus99 wrote:
It’s the same thing you’re doing by swinging around a combo deal.


Swing and a miss. Good effort though.

Read that exchange from the start. What I responded to was the very inexperienced notion that that somehow was not a possibility.

I did not say that QF are going to do a deal for that reason. I said it was foolish —and that remains true— to assume that it was somehow impossible for it to be a factor.



Opus99 wrote:
Since it’s so relevant why doesn’t everybody do combo deal. Dealing with two completely different assets, two completely different kinds of financing, two different kind of risks.


Why do you assume they do not? QF literally have done before. You are making the erroneous assumption that because something does not always happen, it therefore never happens.
Well, you know what they say. Whatever doesn't kill you...
... Must not be an MD-11.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:52 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
It’s the same thing you’re doing by swinging around a combo deal.


Swing and a miss. Good effort though.

Read that exchange from the start. What I responded to was the very inexperienced notion that that somehow was not a possibility.

I did not say that QF are going to do a deal for that reason. I said it was foolish —and that remains true— to assume that it was somehow impossible for it to be a factor.



Opus99 wrote:
Since it’s so relevant why doesn’t everybody do combo deal. Dealing with two completely different assets, two completely different kinds of financing, two different kind of risks.


Why do you assume they do not? QF literally have done before. You are making the erroneous assumption that because something does not always happen, it therefore never happens.

I'm not saying it does not happen, you're making it seem like its a combo. The reality is the assets in question are different this time around. Especially on the 350 side of things and the two completely different projects that it will be odd to price them together, Linking PS to this deal does not equate to what QF did in the past.

Is it even smart for Airbus to do that? Since we too often ignore the "details" please enlighten us
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8667
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:11 am

WIederling wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Do you honestly think airbus will come in at the price Boeing will potentially come in at?


Sometimes bargain cheap pricing turns out to be extremely expensive.

What is Australia's position on price dumping?


It’s not relevant as Australia doesn’t manufacture aircraft. The Australian government would not bother with the cost, hassle and diplomatic fallout of bringing a WTO action when it has zero impact on their domestic economy.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2848
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:34 am

Opus99 wrote:
Especially on the 350 side of things and the two completely different projects that it will be odd to price them together


That is only your' confusing product differentiation for contract incentives. AB obviously have the ability to not get fouled up by all that.


Opus99 wrote:
Is it even smart for Airbus to do that?


If it makes more money for them than not doing it, yes it obviously would be. If it does not, then no, it would not be.

It may be difficult to fully understand. But if AB & QF theoretically find a way to tie that up that makes financial sense, it is unlikely they will check with a forum to make sure some enthusiasts approve. B2B transactions work that way in a variety of industries.

Note that that is not the same as saying it is sure thing. It is the same, however, as saying that it is not a sure impossibility. As has been asserted in error.


Opus99 wrote:
I'm not saying it does not happen


So there is not much else to say then?
Well, you know what they say. Whatever doesn't kill you...
... Must not be an MD-11.
 
Antarius
Posts: 3436
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:42 pm

zeke wrote:
Antarius wrote:
If you have a source with more detail, I'll stand corrected, but the one cited does not make the point you want it to.


I provided the except and link from the article “Qantas's wounded baggage handlers” above, 20% of the workers at one airport reported were injured.

Please this this report for the high injury report for the under floor loading of narrow body aircraft https://flightsafety.org/ao/ao_sept_oct98.pdf

You can download the original thesis here
https://researchonline.federation.edu.a ... vital:1010

“A major focus of this research project was also to measure the effect of ACE and Sliding Carpet, two commercially available retro-fit baggage systems, on the risk of back injuries to baggage handlers stacking baggage within Boeing B737 narrow-body aircraft.”

Under Australian law, as the manual loading is a known hazardous task, Qantas is obliged by law to take this into account. Eg.

“ 60
Managing risks to health and safety
(1)A person conducting a business or undertaking must manage risks to health and safety relating to a musculoskeletal disorder associated with a hazardous manual task, under part 3.1.
Note—

WHS Act—section 19 (see section 9).
(2)In determining what control measures to implement under subsection (1), the person conducting the business or undertaking must have regard to all relevant matters that may contribute to a musculoskeletal disorder, including—
(a)postures, movements, forces and vibration relating to the hazardous manual task; and
(b)the duration and frequency of the hazardous manual task; and
(c)workplace environmental conditions that may affect the hazardous manual task or the worker performing it; and
(d)the design of the work area; and
(e)the layout of the workplace; and
(f)the systems of work used; and
(g)the nature, size, weight or number of persons, animals or things involved in carrying out the hazardous manual task.”

From https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view ... 240#sec.60

Similar legislation exists across the country, that is the workplace legislation Qantas has to abide by.


So no source that shows your point about QF to be true. Just speculation.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:53 pm

If cargo is a key deciding factor for Qantas, the 737 has some options including having more cargo capacity.

They can use cargo containers

Image

Source: https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ ... -converted

They also can use the Telair flexible loading system that some 737 MAX operators have selected

The FLS includes three components: an onboard conveyer system for loading and unloading bulk cargo some 40% lighter than existing variants; new containers for use with the conveyer on the 737; and a powered doorway ball mat for transferring the containers on and off the aircraft, and to and from standard ground-handling equipment.


Image

Source: https://theloadstar.com/innovative-new- ... edentials/

Or they can take advantage of the 737-10 having a larger cargo capacity than the A321 (55.5 m3 vs 51 m3) if Qantas wants to fly more cargo in their network. Being that Qantas operates narrowbody freighters, the 737-10 having a larger cargo volume may be useful for Qantas. Containers reduce the useable cargo volume so they may choose to bulk load or use one of the various cargo loading system options available on the 737.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:50 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
It’s not relevant as Australia doesn’t manufacture aircraft. The Australian government would not bother with the cost, hassle and diplomatic fallout of bringing a WTO action when it has zero impact on their domestic economy.


I understand that Australian law states that if a good is sold into Australia at a rate lower than it is available in the country of manufacture it is considered as dumping. As I understand this is stop foreign companies from dumping and preventing a domestic competitor from being established in competition.

While less likely in Aircraft due to the high cost and time of development, it would be applicable say in the field of electric vehicles.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2369
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:08 pm

737-10 will win this with 199 seats in a 2 class cabin.

Image

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max10/index.page
 
aschachter
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:37 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:50 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
737-10 will win this with 199 seats in a 2 class cabin.

Image

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max10/index.page


Sorry, but no, it will be 737-8s as they seem to be a good fit and more versatile, as can be seem by how many 737-800s they operate and also the 737-10 would only be needed for the golden triangle.

Also, some more knowledgeable in this forum will advise, but I would think a 737-10 would need at least an additional cabin crew member based on the number of passengers and also QF have mentioned many times that they would prefer a NMA type aircraft for the golden triangle that could also be operated into Asia and to replace some of the domestic A330s.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2369
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:49 pm

aschachter wrote:
Sorry, but no, it will be 737-8s as they seem to be a good fit and more versatile, as can be seem by how many 737-800s they operate and also the 737-10 would only be needed for the golden triangle.

Also, some more knowledgeable in this forum will advise, but I would think a 737-10 would need at least an additional cabin crew member based on the number of passengers and also QF have mentioned many times that they would prefer a NMA type aircraft for the golden triangle that could also be operated into Asia and to replace some of the domestic A330s.

The 737-10 is only 15% bigger than the 737-8. So you overstate the issue of the extra capacity.

Airlines need a minimum of one cabin crew per 50 passengers. The 737-10 with Qantas 2 class layout is 195-199 seats. That is 4 cabin crew and the same number as 177 seat 737-800. So no increase in crew costs but extra revenue from 20 additional seats.

The 737-10 while carrying 20 more passengers has more range than the current 737-800. It can fly every route operated by the 737-8.

What NMA?
 
Opus99
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:00 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
aschachter wrote:
Sorry, but no, it will be 737-8s as they seem to be a good fit and more versatile, as can be seem by how many 737-800s they operate and also the 737-10 would only be needed for the golden triangle.

Also, some more knowledgeable in this forum will advise, but I would think a 737-10 would need at least an additional cabin crew member based on the number of passengers and also QF have mentioned many times that they would prefer a NMA type aircraft for the golden triangle that could also be operated into Asia and to replace some of the domestic A330s.

The 737-10 is only 15% bigger than the 737-8. So you overstate the issue of the extra capacity.

Airlines need a minimum of one cabin crew per 50 passengers. The 737-10 with Qantas 2 class layout is 195-199 seats. That is 4 cabin crew and the same number as 177 seat 737-800. So no increase in crew costs but extra revenue from 20 additional seats.

The 737-10 while carrying 20 more passengers has more range than the current 737-800. It can fly every route operated by the 737-8.

What NMA?

looking at the -10, it seems like a decent aircraft for the range it covers. It should be doing better compared to the 321NEO. Is it because it has not entered service yet or what?
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8667
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:01 am

RJMAZ wrote:
aschachter wrote:
Sorry, but no, it will be 737-8s as they seem to be a good fit and more versatile, as can be seem by how many 737-800s they operate and also the 737-10 would only be needed for the golden triangle.

Also, some more knowledgeable in this forum will advise, but I would think a 737-10 would need at least an additional cabin crew member based on the number of passengers and also QF have mentioned many times that they would prefer a NMA type aircraft for the golden triangle that could also be operated into Asia and to replace some of the domestic A330s.

The 737-10 is only 15% bigger than the 737-8. So you overstate the issue of the extra capacity.

Airlines need a minimum of one cabin crew per 50 passengers. The 737-10 with Qantas 2 class layout is 195-199 seats. That is 4 cabin crew and the same number as 177 seat 737-800. So no increase in crew costs but extra revenue from 20 additional seats.

The 737-10 while carrying 20 more passengers has more range than the current 737-800. It can fly every route operated by the 737-8.

What NMA?


Actually in Australia the ratio is 1:37, not 1:50. CASA does grant exemptions, and QF, VA and JQ all have an exemption for 4 on the 737 and A320 (technically should be 5). Jetstar also have an exemption for 5 on the A321 (should be 6). While likely that Qantas could get an exemption for 4, CASA might insist on 5. Either way on an aircraft that large Qantas would almost certainly staff 5 on short flights with meal service.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:23 am

If Boeing moves forward with an NMA then I expect them to offer Max as an interim solution with buyback agreements for an NMA order.
 
hannah9898
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2020 12:58 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:39 am

I think the MAX is likely Qantas replacement for it's NG's while JQ replaced the CEO's with NEO's in my opinion.
 
LTEN11
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:09 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:40 am

zeke wrote:
LTEN11 wrote:
So, it doesn't define whether this employee, or any of the others were working in the holds of 737's, they could've been loading, unloading conveyor belts at the terminal, including containers off international flights, or indeed Jetstar flights.


I would encourage you to read the thesis I posted above by Geoff Dell, before he wrote the thesis he was the Manager, Ground Operations Safety for Australian Airlines. Australian Airlines if you are not aware was the domestic airline in Australia that operated the 737, this was merged into Qantas. He specifically explores injuries caused by loading the 737.

LTEN11 wrote:
Sure QF will pay somehow for workplace injuries, but that's going to be included in the negotiated contract with the chosen ground handler.


I am not an expert on this, read the following document of cleaning contractors that were injured on Qantas aircraft still being the responsibility of Qantas. https://www.worksafe.act.gov.au/__data/ ... ys-Ltd.pdf


LTEN11 wrote:
Also, choosing the 320 series and deciding to use containers, will have the added cost of purchasing the required containers and loaders, of course these may, or may not be purchased by QF directly, but would definitely increase the cost of any ground handling contract if they are supplied by the ground handler. As it is, it is doubtful that all ports currently serviced by QF narrow bodies have container loaders that could possibly be shared with other airlines aircraft.


QF group already do this, all the JQ aircraft have containers, I was told the reasons were three fold, faster turn arounds (containers are packed prior to the aircraft landing), fewer staff required, and fewer injuries.

I am not for a second trying to suggest that the 737 will not be chosen because of its poor historical record of workplace injuries within the QF group, whatever is chosen part of the analysis will include the ground handling aspects. That will incur costs, both upfront and ongoing which will form part of the analysis.

Too many times on this site people concentrate of fuel burn, or number of passengers, or range/payload, in reality there are a large number of factors which impact a purchase decision, and many of those are less tangible on the surface.

RyanairGuru wrote:
Just for the record, the A320s at QantasLink (Network Aviation) are bulk loaded. Clearly Qantas aren’t too concerned by any inherent risk, opting to not use ULDs when it is an option.


I don’t understand this, all the aircraft from what I understand are ex Jetstar/ Jetstar Asia all setup for containers.


First, sorry I don't know how to reply with the quotes in point form.

I'm not bothered on reading the thesis, as I'm really not that into it. However, this guy has chosen the 737 as he was obviously familiar with it, it could well have been the DC-9 or 727 when T.A.A. were operating them (yes, I'm well aware of who Australian Airlines were) if he had been working with the airline then. Just as he could've chosen the MD80, 717, 757, IL62, VC-10, etc, etc If the findings had been that damning to the loading of bulk holds, then something would've been done about it by regulatory authorities to ban hold sizes that are seen as too small. As it is, modern work practices really can't be compared to some of the things that were accepted as the norm in the past.

With the compo case in Canberra you highlighted, the report notes that Star Aviation the contractor paid the compo. QF were obliged to do a report on it, which they did and it also notes that they put in place new work practices and even how much they cost to implement.

Qantas group use the containers for JQ, yer sure, but you know full well that JQ and QF are completely different entities when it comes to operations, in particular ground ops. If QF decide to go with the 320 they'll have to invest in the containers and suitable ground handling equipment not currently needed at current 717, 737 ports, unless that is all included in a ground handling contract of course. Still it is an added investment required and there will be operational difficulties during the years that the 737 and 320 will be operated. JQ didn't really have that problem, as they only had a handful of 717's at the start whilst the 320 was introduced into the fleet.

The QantasLink 320's only operate to mine sites, there is absolutely no need to invest in additional ground equipment for a few flights a week.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2794
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:40 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
If Boeing moves forward with an NMA then I expect them to offer Max as an interim solution with buyback agreements for an NMA order.

The economics of the NMA problem for Boeing is the problem already. Boeing are struggling to work out how they can bring anything like it to market, price it competitively against the A321NEO and make a profit. The last thing they need is a series of buyback agreements on planes that they sold cheaply in the first place.
717, 721/2, 732/3/4/5/7/8/9, 742/3/4, 752/3, 762/3, 772/E/W, 788/9, 300,310, 319,320/1, 332/3, 359, 388, DC9, DC10, F28, F100, 142,143, E75/90, CR2, D82/3/4, SF3, ATR
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:43 am

tullamarine wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
If Boeing moves forward with an NMA then I expect them to offer Max as an interim solution with buyback agreements for an NMA order.

The economics of the NMA problem for Boeing is the problem already. Boeing are struggling to work out how they can bring anything like it to market, price it competitively against the A321NEO and make a profit. The last thing they need is a series of buyback agreements on planes that they sold cheaply in the first place.


1) You are mistaken. Airbus isn't able to provide all operators with an A321 who want that size category. They don't have the production capability. 2) A.net is not privy to Boeing engineering. None of us know what is feasible and what isn't. 3) Obviously a buyback agreement is only offered if the NMA is sold.
 
Antarius
Posts: 3436
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:47 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
If Boeing moves forward with an NMA then I expect them to offer Max as an interim solution with buyback agreements for an NMA order.

The economics of the NMA problem for Boeing is the problem already. Boeing are struggling to work out how they can bring anything like it to market, price it competitively against the A321NEO and make a profit. The last thing they need is a series of buyback agreements on planes that they sold cheaply in the first place.


1) You are mistaken. Airbus isn't able to provide all operators with an A321 who want that size category. They don't have the production capability. 2) A.net is not privy to Boeing engineering. None of us know what is feasible and what isn't. 3) Obviously a buyback agreement is only offered if the NMA is sold.


Sure, but QF isn't going to wait for an NMA, if or when it happens. That's got as much relevance to their short term narrow body as the Sunrise order does.

This is going to be between the 737 MAX and the a320neo.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
moa999
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:13 am

Antarius wrote:
Sure, but QF isn't going to wait for an NMA, if or when it happens. That's got as much relevance to their short term narrow body as the Sunrise order does.
This is going to be between the 737 MAX and the a320neo.


Agreed Boeing has had about five attempts now at a new aircraft and each time the numbers don't stack up.

I could actually see both aircraft being ordered.
737-10 initially to add capacity at low cost on golden triangle. Particularly as the first set of 332s are retired and there is no NMA, and the 787 isn't really task suitable
737-8 as 1:1 replacements
321XLR configured in an international config for smaller routes and maybe the red-eyes.

Other remote possibility is that as JQ gets 321LRs and XLRs it pushes some of its 788 fleet back to QF for Dom services.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8667
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:35 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
If Boeing moves forward with an NMA then I expect them to offer Max as an interim solution with buyback agreements for an NMA order.


They don’t need a buyback. As already said in this thread, roughly half of the 737 fleet is from the early 2000s and the other half is from the 2010s.

I personally doubt that Boeing is in a position to move forward with the NMA, but in your scenario Qantas could get 40 MAX over the next couple of years and 40 NMA in 10 years to replace the later build frames.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
jrfspa320
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:18 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:35 am

moa999 wrote:
Antarius wrote:
Sure, but QF isn't going to wait for an NMA, if or when it happens. That's got as much relevance to their short term narrow body as the Sunrise order does.
This is going to be between the 737 MAX and the a320neo.


Agreed Boeing has had about five attempts now at a new aircraft and each time the numbers don't stack up.

I could actually see both aircraft being ordered.
737-10 initially to add capacity at low cost on golden triangle. Particularly as the first set of 332s are retired and there is no NMA, and the 787 isn't really task suitable
737-8 as 1:1 replacements
321XLR configured in an international config for smaller routes and maybe the red-eyes.

Other remote possibility is that as JQ gets 321LRs and XLRs it pushes some of its 788 fleet back to QF for Dom services.


I could see the JQ 788s replacing the 332s at QF, at least for domestic and tasman runs. There is little resale value in the -8 models. I guess it depends on how many long haul JQ routes come back (that need the range of the 787).
 
Kent350787
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:50 am

jrfspa320 wrote:
[
I could see the JQ 788s replacing the 332s at QF, at least for domestic and tasman runs. There is little resale value in the -8 models. I guess it depends on how many long haul JQ routes come back (that need the range of the 787).


There's long been toing and froing on whether the JQ 788s move to QF, the the same way that the first couple of A332 did. But mid-size is a whole different question, and QF has never been averse to "misusing" mid-size aircraft for the mix-of capacity and fleet flexibility.

It may be that the A321 is the right size for the triangle post-Covid, but I expect that mid-size will return there. Perhaps SYD-BNE? But it will be hard fought (at a profit) between A&B for this NB order
S340/J31/146-300/F27/F50/Nord 262/ Q100/200/E195/ 733/734/738/744/762/763/77W/788/789/ 320/321/332/333/345/359
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2369
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:48 am

Perth routes need a widebody for premium express freight. So we will not see the Qantas A330 replaced with a narrowbody.

The current 737-800 aircraft are mainly doing short flight on the east coast of Australia. These flights are where the 737-10 holds a massive advantage over every aircraft on the market.

Opus99 wrote:
looking at the -10, it seems like a decent aircraft for the range it covers. It should be doing better compared to the 321NEO. Is it because it has not entered service yet or what?

The 737-10 was launched two years after the A321LR and two years before the A321XLR

The 737-10 has 483 orders nearly double that of the A321XLR. I would say the A321 is overall more flexible than the 737-10 however if an airline planned to operate nearly all routes below 1000nm then the 737-10 has a big advantage here.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7394
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 5:28 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Perth routes need a widebody for premium express freight. So we will not see the Qantas A330 replaced with a narrowbody.

The current 737-800 aircraft are mainly doing short flight on the east coast of Australia. These flights are where the 737-10 holds a massive advantage over every aircraft on the market.

Opus99 wrote:
looking at the -10, it seems like a decent aircraft for the range it covers. It should be doing better compared to the 321NEO. Is it because it has not entered service yet or what?

The 737-10 was launched two years after the A321LR and two years before the A321XLR

The 737-10 has 483 orders nearly double that of the A321XLR. I would say the A321 is overall more flexible than the 737-10 however if an airline planned to operate nearly all routes below 1000nm then the 737-10 has a big advantage here.


???
I don't know where the 483 number for the MAX-10 came from, but that's not "nearly double" the A321XLR.
The XLR gained over 500 orders in its first year on sale - a dramatically better sales performance than the MAX-10

Rgds.
 
kimshep
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:13 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 5:33 am

Whilst the element of 'price' cannot be underestimated in examination / projection of this QF order, how about we look at some of the other elements that are relevant to both Qantas and the two primary airframe manufacturers?

First, let's be clear about the 'urgency' or timeline of such an order. Qantas has indicated that it will begin preparation towards a tender document within the next 12 months. As has been stated by numerous posters, QF is not in dire need to replace all 75 of their existing B737-800's immediately. On the other hand, pricing incentives for new frames should be sharp for the next 2-3 years, as new aircraft orders will generally be scarce while airlines recover from COVID.

CAPEX at Qantas will be the primary yardstick. Given that the Australian Government has not lavished airlines with copious funds similar to the US Cares Act and the Government bailouts / restructuring funds offered to European and some Asian carriers, QF may well be able to secure 'Government Guaranteed' backing for the funding of new aircraft. Qantas has previously gone to commercial markets to fund aircraft acquisition.

It is an accepted fact that Qantas is an airline with a culture that puts considerable emphasis on safety and longevity. Here are some factors that I believe will come into play in the evaluation.

1. How will Qantas view and assess manufacturing stability and integrity at both vendors ? Clearly, Boeing seems to have more work to do here, with recent FAA documented issues regarding quality control on several Boeing models. There is also the issue of disparate manufacturing facilities and the reorganisation of what will be assembled and where. Questions for Airbus would include what are the effects of ceasing A380 production and how will this affect production lines and factory capability?

2. How will Qantas view the previous record of the B737-MAX8, the recertification and the flying public's perception of that frame? The latter issue of public perception will be interesting to assuage, given that Indonesia and Lion Air are located in a very close geographic area.

3. Given that both manufacturers badly missed delivery deadlines on QF's A380's and B787-8's, I could see some very stringent 'missed delivery' penalty payments being incorporated by QF into any final contract. Qantas was [and still is] highly cogniscent of the effect of late deliveries had on QF profitability and missed opportunities during those four years between 2007 and 2011.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 5:35 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Perth routes need a widebody for premium express freight. So we will not see the Qantas A330 replaced with a narrowbody.

The current 737-800 aircraft are mainly doing short flight on the east coast of Australia. These flights are where the 737-10 holds a massive advantage over every aircraft on the market.

Opus99 wrote:
looking at the -10, it seems like a decent aircraft for the range it covers. It should be doing better compared to the 321NEO. Is it because it has not entered service yet or what?

The 737-10 was launched two years after the A321LR and two years before the A321XLR

The 737-10 has 483 orders nearly double that of the A321XLR. I would say the A321 is overall more flexible than the 737-10 however if an airline planned to operate nearly all routes below 1000nm then the 737-10 has a big advantage here.


Why on Earth would you compare the 737-10 to the A321XLR and not the A321neo? The XLR has too much range where the -10 and A321neo are similar?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10299
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 6:08 am

RJMAZ wrote:
737-10 will win this with 199 seats in a 2 class cabin.

Image

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max10/index.page


Agreed, the MAX should bag this order. it is the perfect fit.
 
moa999
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 7:54 am

seahawk wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
737-10 will win this with 199 seats in a 2 class cabin.

Image

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max10/index.page


Agreed, the MAX should bag this order. it is the perfect fit.
It's funny that that graphic compares most things to the 321neo, other than range.
 
jrfspa320
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:18 am

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:04 am

I'm certainly not sold on the "superior flying experience" I prefer the cabin width, noise levels, and window height of the A320 over the 737 any day.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Qantas 738 replacement competition

Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:06 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Perth routes need a widebody for premium express freight. So we will not see the Qantas A330 replaced with a narrowbody.

The current 737-800 aircraft are mainly doing short flight on the east coast of Australia. These flights are where the 737-10 holds a massive advantage over every aircraft on the market.

Opus99 wrote:
looking at the -10, it seems like a decent aircraft for the range it covers. It should be doing better compared to the 321NEO. Is it because it has not entered service yet or what?

The 737-10 was launched two years after the A321LR and two years before the A321XLR

The 737-10 has 483 orders nearly double that of the A321XLR. I would say the A321 is overall more flexible than the 737-10 however if an airline planned to operate nearly all routes below 1000nm then the 737-10 has a big advantage here.


What kind of advantage does the 737-10 have over the A321? In operational cost there should be no difference and seating capacity wise the A321 has a slight advantage according to analysis of Leeham:
https://leehamnews.com/2017/03/13/boein ... -analyzed/

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos