wait nevermind the 96 thing also includes

A320neo seats – from 150 to 180 for a two-class configuration. 6,300km range
A321neo seats – from 180 to 220 for a two-class configuration. 7,400km range
A321XLR seats – from 180 to 220 for a two-class configuration. 8,700km range

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-renewal/

ABMUC wrote:

QF selected the best planes for them. So 220 is replacing 737.

What’s the range difference between A220 and 717? Must open up lots more opportunities for them?

smi0006 wrote:

ABMUC wrote:

QF selected the best planes for them. So 220 is replacing 737.

What’s the range difference between A220 and 717? Must open up lots more opportunities for them?

3,820 km for the 717

6,390km for the A220

double

Cardude2 wrote:

wait nevermind the 96 thing also includes

A320neo seats – from 150 to 180 for a two-class configuration. 6,300km range
A321neo seats – from 180 to 220 for a two-class configuration. 7,400km range
A321XLR seats – from 180 to 220 for a two-class configuration. 8,700km range

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-renewal/

The press release also states that Qantas have selected Pratt & Whitney engines for the A32Xneo planes. So congrats to P&W as well.

smi0006 wrote:

ABMUC wrote:

QF selected the best planes for them. So 220 is replacing 737.

What’s the range difference between A220 and 717? Must open up lots more opportunities for them?

From PER you're talking most of SE Asia and New Zealand. Quite a capable machine (perhaps unsurprising as the US market with its many 5h+ flights was a big target market).

smi0006 wrote:

What’s the range difference between A220 and 717? Must open up lots more opportunities for them?

Just going off QF’s fleet page 717 range is 2400km while the range for the A220-300 is around 6300km

It’s going to open some interesting markets in the future, for example the A220 just falls short in range for HBA-SIN but but could do a HBA-DPS which would be the right size aircraft for a route like that

I imagine there are more than just a few Boeing stock holders who are... less than pleased.

I wonder what the over and under is on Boeing whining publicly?

WesternDC6B wrote:

I imagine there are more than just a few Boeing stock holders who are... less than pleased.

I wonder what the over and under is on Boeing whining publicly?

Depends on what Qantas told Boeing on other orders (like additional 787s).

jbs2886 wrote:

I think people should stop saying the "best plane" won just because its an A321neo. Is it a great aircraft? Yes. But "best" varies by carrier based on its network an other factors, including cost. Could the A321neo be the "best" for Qantas? Certainly, but the general assumption that because it is the "best" plane that it must be the best for every carrier is false.

No, the best plane won.

When it keeps winning while the MAX keeps losing, there is no debate.

Man oh man, it sure is refreshing to see Boeing get beat up by a plane they try to suffocate with sanctions.

*Deep inhale* karma

Disclaimer: Big Boeing fan here and shame to see the 737 lose out (I’ve flown the QF 737s quite a bit and loved the ride especially between BNE and SYD often).

UA444 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

I think people should stop saying the "best plane" won just because its an A321neo. Is it a great aircraft? Yes. But "best" varies by carrier based on its network an other factors, including cost. Could the A321neo be the "best" for Qantas? Certainly, but the general assumption that because it is the "best" plane that it must be the best for every carrier is false.

No, the best plane won.

When it keeps winning while the MAX keeps losing, there is no debate.

You're missing my point. There are certainly instances where a MAX will be the best plane for a carrier. Not every airline needs the capacity/range/etc. I'm not disputing its the market leader, and justifiably so, but it is not the "best" in every circumstance.

MIflyer12 wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

I imagine there are more than just a few Boeing stock holders who are... less than pleased.

I wonder what the over and under is on Boeing whining publicly?

MrBren wrote:

Firm 20 A321XLR and 20 A220 + 94 options.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-selects-airbus-as-preferred-aircraft-for-domestic-fleet-renewal/

It's a firm order for 40 narrowbody planes. Boeing has about 30 MAX orders bigger than that from carriers and leasing companies.

QF operates 75 737s (and Qantaslink adds 20 717s, 11 A320s and 17 Fokker 100s). This order is a pathway to replacing 100+ aircraft at a highly renowned airline for Airbus and Boeing/Embraer one that Boeing/Embraer should really have held an edge on. Numbers might not be huge, but they will likely grow, and it's quite a statement for a pretty enthusiastic 737 operator to be switching in the medium-long term.

foxalphazulu wrote:

Man oh man, it sure is refreshing to see Boeing get beat up by a plane they try to suffocate with sanctions.

I couldn't agree more.
As a complete Boeing fanboy, I lost so much respect for them over that.
In hindsight, they should have been minding their own product engineering, and making the MAX a safer airplane, rather than suddenly discovering that Bombardier had a winner on their hands, and then trying to sue it to crib death.
Such an epic, disappointing decade for us Boeing fans.

I love flying in the C-Series/A220 overall; my only complaints are that the cabin is loud in cruise (wind noise, not engine noise), and that blasted Bombardier PTU that must always run any time the flaps are =/= up. I don't know why BBD can't engineer a hydraulic system without that stupid thing running so much.

MIflyer12 wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

I imagine there are more than just a few Boeing stock holders who are... less than pleased.

I wonder what the over and under is on Boeing whining publicly?

MrBren wrote:

Firm 20 A321XLR and 20 A220 + 94 options.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-selects-airbus-as-preferred-aircraft-for-domestic-fleet-renewal/

It's a firm order for 40 narrowbody planes. Boeing has about 30 MAX orders bigger than that from carriers and leasing companies.

I tend to agree with MrHMSH on this one.
40 is just the beginning. Over the next 10 years this is likely to grow into a 3 figure order.
It also represents a switch from an established 737 operator.
It also represents a success for a plane that Boeing tried to squash in court.
It also represents a reality that being able to sell the A32XNEO and A220 side by side has allowed Airbus to be able to "package up" in a way that Boeing couldn't with just the 737.
And with the same engine family - something else the 737/E2 package can't deliver.

Potentially from a 120 seater with 3,500Nm range to a 200 seater with 4,700Nm range, all in one package that can be tailored - that's got to offer an appealing flexibility.

I don't think Boeing will be sitting there with a "pffft - it's only 40 planes - who cares?" attitude. This one has to hurt.
If KLM go the same way as well....

Rgds

If KLM also jumps ship on their NB fleet, the two oldest and high regarded airlines will have moved away from Boeing for the majority of their planes. That's a huge blow.

Airbus narrowbody is not a surprise. The A321XLR can reach most of East and SE Asia from SYD/MEL/BNE.

Genuinely thought the MAX had this in the bag. Market is gonna market I guess. Will be great seeing those new birds taking off from Australia.

gatibosgru wrote:

Genuinely thought the MAX had this in the bag. Market is gonna market I guess. Will be great seeing those new birds taking off from Australia.

How? The max never made sense to me in this region.

Duke91 wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

Genuinely thought the MAX had this in the bag. Market is gonna market I guess. Will be great seeing those new birds taking off from Australia.

How? The max never made sense to me in this region.

Doesn’t seem to be making sense in a lot of regions it’s beginning to appear to me

smi0006 wrote:

ABMUC wrote:

QF selected the best planes for them. So 220 is replacing 737.

What’s the range difference between A220 and 717? Must open up lots more opportunities for them?

A220-100 range is double that of Boeing 717. Sounds unusual but Delta did this and it worked for them.

Duke91 wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

Genuinely thought the MAX had this in the bag. Market is gonna market I guess. Will be great seeing those new birds taking off from Australia.

How? The max never made sense to me in this region.

At least from a commonality point of view, the MAX had to have a slight edge.

Cardude2 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

ABMUC wrote:

QF selected the best planes for them. So 220 is replacing 737.

What’s the range difference between A220 and 717? Must open up lots more opportunities for them?

3,820 km for the 717

6,390km for the A220

double

qf789 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

What’s the range difference between A220 and 717? Must open up lots more opportunities for them?

Just going off QF’s fleet page 717 range is 2400km while the range for the A220-300 is around 6300km

It’s going to open some interesting markets in the future, for example the A220 just falls short in range for HBA-SIN but but could do a HBA-DPS which would be the right size aircraft for a route like that

Wow - that’s brilliant! Opens up some amazing opportunities, going to be a big shift in flying. Seems a perfect fit for NZ, PI, not to mention - CBR, ADL, HBA, PER! I’m sure we will see a top up beyond 717 replacement!

Also I’m sure the 321XLR will be fantastic to PI, Tasmans, South East Asia. Not to mention Transcon. Potentially freeing up more 330s for flying into Asia.

This is very much part of the shift to enable QF to fly the right sized aircraft at the right frequency- domestic and international, something AJ has been building for sometime.

Next up - 350 orders, and hopefully a 787 top up!

UA444 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

UA444 wrote:

No, the best plane won.

When it keeps winning while the MAX keeps losing, there is no debate.

You're missing my point. There are certainly instances where a MAX will be the best plane for a carrier. Not every airline needs the capacity/range/etc. I'm not disputing its the market leader, and justifiably so, but it is not the "best" in every circumstance.

There is nothing the MAX does better than the neo. The proof is in the pudding. More and more Boeing customers are switching. Which means there are fewer and fewer that the MAX fits for. The MAX only wins on price, if that, and because of WN.

How many "inferior" Maxes did United just order again?

Congrats to Qantas for getting the right plane for their fleet, and Airbus for another A220 customer.

An informative quote from Reuters

"This is a clear sign of our confidence in the future and we've locked in pricing ahead of what is likely to be a big uptick in demand for next-generation narrowbody aircraft," Qantas Chief Executive Alan Joyce said in a statement.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-12-15/

gatibosgru wrote:

An informative quote from Reuters

"This is a clear sign of our confidence in the future and we've locked in pricing ahead of what is likely to be a big uptick in demand for next-generation narrowbody aircraft," Qantas Chief Executive Alan Joyce said in a statement.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-12-15/

Waaaaiiiiiiiit. aren't A321NEOs going close to full sticker?

william wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

An informative quote from Reuters

"This is a clear sign of our confidence in the future and we've locked in pricing ahead of what is likely to be a big uptick in demand for next-generation narrowbody aircraft," Qantas Chief Executive Alan Joyce said in a statement.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-12-15/

Waaaaiiiiiiiit. aren't A321NEOs going close to full sticker?

Another quote from that article

Vertical Research Partners analyst Rob Stallard said the Qantas deal was a sign that Airbus was more focused on building up its narrowbody backlog than raising prices even though it already has a higher market share than Boeing.

astuteman wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

I imagine there are more than just a few Boeing stock holders who are... less than pleased.

I wonder what the over and under is on Boeing whining publicly?

MrBren wrote:

Firm 20 A321XLR and 20 A220 + 94 options.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-selects-airbus-as-preferred-aircraft-for-domestic-fleet-renewal/

It's a firm order for 40 narrowbody planes. Boeing has about 30 MAX orders bigger than that from carriers and leasing companies.

I tend to agree with MrHMSH on this one.
40 is just the beginning. Over the next 10 years this is likely to grow into a 3 figure order.
It also represents a switch from an established 737 operator.
It also represents a success for a plane that Boeing tried to squash in court.
It also represents a reality that being able to sell the A32XNEO and A220 side by side has allowed Airbus to be able to "package up" in a way that Boeing couldn't with just the 737.
And with the same engine family - something else the 737/E2 package can't deliver.

Potentially from a 120 seater with 3,500Nm range to a 200 seater with 4,700Nm range, all in one package that can be tailored - that's got to offer an appealing flexibility.

I don't think Boeing will be sitting there with a "pffft - it's only 40 planes - who cares?" attitude. This one has to hurt.
If KLM go the same way as well....

Rgds

And regarding the "only 40 planes"...just read the official statement by Qantas in detail. This order and the former >100 Airbus A320 family order for Jetstar will be combined to a single order of in total 299 Airbus narrowbody jets....And now 299 planes in total is a completely different number, it is now something really big.
And additional, Qantas is a really imporatnt player in the airline industry, Qantas is a key player and a key opinion leader. Pretty sure, it will have impact on the decision of other airlines, when they have to decide for their next orders. The switch of an established B737 and mixed regional planes (non Airbus narrowbody (Qantas mainline)) operator, to an all Airbus narrowbody (including all subsidiaries) operator is.... huge and a big signal also for others.

And we shall not forget, Airbus has already won recently the Qantas Sunrise project....

The main advantage Airbus had was

- Ability to make the A220 part of the order. Any Boeing order could not be exclusive as Boeing doesn't have a 717 replacement aircraft. This means negotiating with 2 manufacturers and a smaller order with each.
- Fleet commonality with Jetstar
- And the A321XLR which Alan seems to love.


Now on those A321XLRs can we get the new Jetblue Mint seats from the 321LR? They would be an unbeatable product for Tanscon and Tanstasman services.


Also, I can't wait to see what new interesting routes QF come up with for the A220 and A321XLR recent moves into DEL and FCO are a good indication that a post covid Qantas is going to be more innovative and is willing to take on different routes.

william wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

An informative quote from Reuters

"This is a clear sign of our confidence in the future and we've locked in pricing ahead of what is likely to be a big uptick in demand for next-generation narrowbody aircraft," Qantas Chief Executive Alan Joyce said in a statement.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-12-15/

Waaaaiiiiiiiit. aren't A321NEOs going close to full sticker?

I'm not sure I understand your confusion. Joyce said the price was "locked in". He gave no clue as to what that price was.

gatibosgru wrote:

Genuinely thought the MAX had this in the bag. Market is gonna market I guess. Will be great seeing those new birds taking off from Australia.

Indeed. With Qantas now chooses Airbus for SH, I bet VA will continue to use Boeing for Domestic flights. Right?

log0008 wrote:

The main advantage Airbus had was

- Ability to make the A220 part of the order. Any Boeing order could not be exclusive as Boeing doesn't have a 717 replacement aircraft. This means negotiating with 2 manufacturers and a smaller order with each.
- Fleet commonality with Jetstar
- And the A321XLR which Alan seems to love.


Now on those A321XLRs can we get the new Jetblue Mint seats from the 321LR? They would be an unbeatable product for Tanscon and Tanstasman services.

Airlines love the A321NEO because it’s fuel burn is about the same as an A320CEO yet you get much more capacity.

log0008 wrote:

The main advantage Airbus had was

- Ability to make the A220 part of the order. Any Boeing order could not be exclusive as Boeing doesn't have a 717 replacement aircraft. This means negotiating with 2 manufacturers and a smaller order with each.
- Fleet commonality with Jetstar
- And the A321XLR which Alan seems to love.


Now on those A321XLRs can we get the new Jetblue Mint seats from the 321LR? They would be an unbeatable product for Tanscon and Tanstasman services.

Airbus also had a large existing backlog and Project Sunrise that it could leverage. We saw how this can play out in greater detail at Singapore.

scbriml wrote:

william wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

An informative quote from Reuters



https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-12-15/

Waaaaiiiiiiiit. aren't A321NEOs going close to full sticker?

I'm not sure I understand your confusion. Joyce said the price was "locked in". He gave no clue as to what that price was.

With a 10 year backlog Airbus does not need to discount NEO much if at all. If that is the case then there is not much discount to lock in. The fact the CEO mentioned it tells me the discounts were substantial. We will get an idea when Qantas Financials for the quarter are released.

The A220/A320/A321 is a compelling and complete package, and Qantas got a "Blue Chip" discount too. Boeing's chances were small and they knew it.

Now on those A321XLRs can we get the new Jetblue Mint seats from the 321LR? They would be an unbeatable product for Tanscon and Tanstasman services.

They'd be a great product but probably wasted on a 3 hour service where the lie-flat capability would not be used. You'd think that at least some of the XLRs will have a lie-flat product so they can do service 7 hour routes into Asia so they must be thinking of a subfleet as it makes no sense having a large J class product if the A321XLR is going to be a domestic workhorse doing mostly sub 2 hour sectors.

Of course, it is arguable that the XLR is too much plane for a lot of the domestic sectors and QF will have the right to shuffle its options between XLRs and other A32X products over the next decade. Likewise, if the A220-500 ever comes into existence, QF may shuffle its orders again and use the biggest A220 as a replacement for some of the 738 fleet.

qf789 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

What’s the range difference between A220 and 717? Must open up lots more opportunities for them?

Just going off QF’s fleet page 717 range is 2400km while the range for the A220-300 is around 6300km

It’s going to open some interesting markets in the future, for example the A220 just falls short in range for HBA-SIN but but could do a HBA-DPS which would be the right size aircraft for a route like that

I find it interesting you looked at Asia when looking the A220 internationally. For me the more likely option that it opens up is Trans-Tasman. HBA-AKL (off-peak), CBR-AKL/CHC, ADL-CHC/WLG etc. It also opens up some interesting secondary to secondary domestic routes like HBA to CNS.

tullamarine wrote:

Now on those A321XLRs can we get the new Jetblue Mint seats from the 321LR? They would be an unbeatable product for Tanscon and Tanstasman services.

They'd be a great product but probably wasted on a 3 hour service where the lie-flat capability would not be used. You'd think that at least some of the XLRs will have a lie-flat product so they can do service 7 hour routes into Asia so they must be thinking of a subfleet as it makes no sense having a large J class product if the A321XLR is going to be a domestic workhorse doing mostly sub 2 hour sectors.

Of course, it is arguable that the XLR is too much plane for a lot of the domestic sectors and QF will have the right to shuffle its options between XLRs and other A32X products over the next decade. Likewise, if the A220-500 ever comes into existence, QF may shuffle its orders again and use the biggest A220 as a replacement for some of the 738 fleet.

Agreed. The standard A321NEO may be a better fit for most of the East coast and Tasman services with the XLR going to PER and medium-haul Asian destinations. I would not be surprised to see some standard NEO's at some point down the line.

william wrote:

scbriml wrote:

william wrote:

Waaaaiiiiiiiit. aren't A321NEOs going close to full sticker?

I'm not sure I understand your confusion. Joyce said the price was "locked in". He gave no clue as to what that price was.

With a 10 year backlog Airbus does not need to discount NEO much if at all. If that is the case then there is not much discount to lock in. The fact the CEO mentioned it tells me the discounts were substantial. We will get an idea when Qantas Financials for the quarter are released.

The A220/A320/A321 is a compelling and complete package, and Qantas got a "Blue Chip" discount too. Boeing's chances were small and they knew it.

The A220 is interesting, but let's also reconise that , even in Australia, Qantas Group is already almost 50-50 Boeing/Airbus on narrowbodies (leaving aside the 717). Ditching Boeing seems a little shocking, but the Group knows both products well.

77west wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Now on those A321XLRs can we get the new Jetblue Mint seats from the 321LR? They would be an unbeatable product for Tanscon and Tanstasman services.

They'd be a great product but probably wasted on a 3 hour service where the lie-flat capability would not be used. You'd think that at least some of the XLRs will have a lie-flat product so they can do service 7 hour routes into Asia so they must be thinking of a subfleet as it makes no sense having a large J class product if the A321XLR is going to be a domestic workhorse doing mostly sub 2 hour sectors.

Of course, it is arguable that the XLR is too much plane for a lot of the domestic sectors and QF will have the right to shuffle its options between XLRs and other A32X products over the next decade. Likewise, if the A220-500 ever comes into existence, QF may shuffle its orders again and use the biggest A220 as a replacement for some of the 738 fleet.

Agreed. The standard A321NEO may be a better fit for most of the East coast and Tasman services with the XLR going to PER and medium-haul Asian destinations. I would not be surprised to see some standard NEO's at some point down the line.

That's true and yes I did and still expect the standard 321neo to feature.

I would add that rotating a few A321XLRs on a red eye PER-MEL/SYD/BNE may still be seen.

log0008 wrote:

77west wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

They'd be a great product but probably wasted on a 3 hour service where the lie-flat capability would not be used. You'd think that at least some of the XLRs will have a lie-flat product so they can do service 7 hour routes into Asia so they must be thinking of a subfleet as it makes no sense having a large J class product if the A321XLR is going to be a domestic workhorse doing mostly sub 2 hour sectors.

Of course, it is arguable that the XLR is too much plane for a lot of the domestic sectors and QF will have the right to shuffle its options between XLRs and other A32X products over the next decade. Likewise, if the A220-500 ever comes into existence, QF may shuffle its orders again and use the biggest A220 as a replacement for some of the 738 fleet.

Agreed. The standard A321NEO may be a better fit for most of the East coast and Tasman services with the XLR going to PER and medium-haul Asian destinations. I would not be surprised to see some standard NEO's at some point down the line.

That's true and yes I did and still expect the standard 321neo to feature.

I would add that rotating a few A321XLRs on a red eye PER-MEL/SYD/BNE may still be seen.

Agreed - this break down surprises me, and I wonder if we are seeing greater flexibility in types than simply a one for one replacement? I would have thought with the prior order they would have had enough XLRs coming in, and NEO would have been enough. Be interesting to actually see the final breakdown!

smi0006 wrote:

log0008 wrote:

77west wrote:

Agreed. The standard A321NEO may be a better fit for most of the East coast and Tasman services with the XLR going to PER and medium-haul Asian destinations. I would not be surprised to see some standard NEO's at some point down the line.

That's true and yes I did and still expect the standard 321neo to feature.

I would add that rotating a few A321XLRs on a red eye PER-MEL/SYD/BNE may still be seen.

Agreed - this break down surprises me, and I wonder if we are seeing greater flexibility in types than simply a one for one replacement? I would have thought with the prior order they would have had enough XLRs coming in, and NEO would have been enough. Be interesting to actually see the final breakdown!

This quote from the release is interesting

"The XLR can carry around 15 per cent more passengers on each flight than the airline’s existing B737-800s, making it well suited to busy routes between capital cities like Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Its longer range means it can also be used to open up new city pairs."

They are clearly suggesting that the XLRs will be used on domestic routes. Is it possible they see the higher payload (for fuel on the long flights) being used to boost cargo capacity for Australia Post when used on domestic flights?

Would a normal A321neo be more limited by cargo capacity by volume or weight on a domestic service?

gatibosgru wrote:

An informative quote from Reuters

"This is a clear sign of our confidence in the future and we've locked in pricing ahead of what is likely to be a big uptick in demand for next-generation narrowbody aircraft," Qantas Chief Executive Alan Joyce said in a statement.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-12-15/

The way I interpret this statement is NOT that Qantas received a huge discount.

Rightly or wrongly, I interpret this comment as saying Qantas expects the price of narrow body airliners to increase in the months and years ahead as the global demand for flights returns, but they have managed to get fixed prices that provide protection against these anticipated higher prices in the future as part of the draft contract.

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/airbus-wins-order-renew-qantas-fleet-sources-2021-12-15/

Airbus has won. Again. Boeing loses narrow body market share. Again.

Congratulations Airbus. The best plane won


But more widely what the KLM (soon to be order) and this order is that customers generally do not have faith in Boeing and will not for a long time. Given before the MAX crisis the MAX was Boeings fastest selling jet and has struggled to make headway out of the usual customers is telling. Boeing needed this to instil confidence IMO and I think pre max crisis they would’ve gotten it.

It is 10am here in most of part of South East Asia and we are just waking up to the day. Can I just say "Wow, what a swing?!" Really did not expect this. Congratulations to both Airbus and Qantas Group!

I must say Airbus must have been putting on a great presentation to Qantas board of director and management to win this deal. I can see several points why they for Airbus:
1. Jetstar currently and will have a large talent pool in flying and maintaining A320ceo/neo family. This order will further expand the fleet and reduce cost in greater amount for the Group.
2. Eliminating the need to two separate crew pool : B737/B717. If they have gone B737MAX and Embraer E-2, it will be two separately crew pool with almost nil commonality.
3. Opening up a whole new flying experience. A320neo family will unlock a lot of opportunities in Australia/NZ, South East Asia and China/ Taiwan. Some of the international route may no longer support widebody, A321XLR/ A321LR will come in handy for Qantas to upgrade or downgrade their offering as per market/seasonal demands. Also there are a lot of second or third tier cities that QF can now fly which previously only covered by Jetstar.

I would say all is not lost for Boeing. They still have a very solid product which is selling (proven by this year 737max sales figure), despite the two horrendous crash (RIP). Perhaps this might give them the jolt to start a clean sheet design.

As for Airbus, time to churn up those production lines, 80 A320neo family per month soon perhaps! If I am their suppliers, I will be happy and worried at the same time. 0.0

MrHMSH wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

If it suits the majority of airlines, including a huge number of 'blue chip' companies and quite a few 'converted' operators, it's probably the best and most compelling product available in its segment. Doesn't necessarily mean the best in every situation, but the overall trend is quite clear.

Hopefully looking forward to seeing what QF do with their Airbus fleet.

Yeah but if you dare say 777-9 is the best aircraft for the large wide body market you will get constantly berated about how A350-1000 exists and is the best so I think when people say the "best" it has more so to do with what they like.

Another debate for an ongoing thread. Though evidence is pretty clear in both cases.

Tbh, there are no such thing as "best plane", every airline has their own metrics on how to make their fleet work at their best. Whatever is relevant to Qantas might not be relevant to Singapore Airlines etc. Airlines select "best-suited" aircraft to suit their missions.

log0008 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

log0008 wrote:

That's true and yes I did and still expect the standard 321neo to feature.

I would add that rotating a few A321XLRs on a red eye PER-MEL/SYD/BNE may still be seen.

Agreed - this break down surprises me, and I wonder if we are seeing greater flexibility in types than simply a one for one replacement? I would have thought with the prior order they would have had enough XLRs coming in, and NEO would have been enough. Be interesting to actually see the final breakdown!

This quote from the release is interesting

"The XLR can carry around 15 per cent more passengers on each flight than the airline’s existing B737-800s, making it well suited to busy routes between capital cities like Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Its longer range means it can also be used to open up new city pairs."

They are clearly suggesting that the XLRs will be used on domestic routes. Is it possible they see the higher payload (for fuel on the long flights) being used to boost cargo capacity for Australia Post when used on domestic flights?

Would a normal A321neo be more limited by cargo capacity by volume or weight on a domestic service?

I would say volume, as the 200ish pax bags will take a few containers, weight would normally be an issue on the longer sectors I would think. The XLR does haul around a big permanent fuel tank (cuts into cargo capacity a bit) and the added structural weight but it may be judged that overall keeping it simple with a single type works better overall.

77west wrote:

log0008 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Agreed - this break down surprises me, and I wonder if we are seeing greater flexibility in types than simply a one for one replacement? I would have thought with the prior order they would have had enough XLRs coming in, and NEO would have been enough. Be interesting to actually see the final breakdown!

This quote from the release is interesting

"The XLR can carry around 15 per cent more passengers on each flight than the airline’s existing B737-800s, making it well suited to busy routes between capital cities like Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Its longer range means it can also be used to open up new city pairs."

They are clearly suggesting that the XLRs will be used on domestic routes. Is it possible they see the higher payload (for fuel on the long flights) being used to boost cargo capacity for Australia Post when used on domestic flights?

Would a normal A321neo be more limited by cargo capacity by volume or weight on a domestic service?

I would say volume, as the 200ish pax bags will take a few containers, weight would normally be an issue on the longer sectors I would think. The XLR does haul around a big permanent fuel tank (cuts into cargo capacity a bit) and the added structural weight but it may be judged that overall keeping it simple with a single type works better overall.

I suppose an XLR still probs is more efficient than a 330 and better right size of capacity domestically? especially on the triangle? QF is also ramping up domestic freight so I wonder if its less of an issue now? They still have JQ to move freight about on their 320s, and I'd image their pax carry less baggage.

So this is on top of the current group order is that correct? So below fleet summary of firm orders:

- A220 - 20
- A320NEO x 45
- A321LR x 28
- A321XLR x 76
*flexible options x 50
- 789 x 3
* unclear how many options remain

Plus:
- A321 P2F conversion x 1
- A330 P2F conversion x 2

I wonder if we will see the LRs come to JQ initially, before being moved to Jetstar Asia and Japan and replaced by the XLR in AU once available. I can't see 3K or GK needing the XLR, but the LR could open some interesting routes. 76 must be too many for both JQ and QF to base in Australia? Brilliant thing about this order is the flexibility to move the fleet around the four carriers as needed.

I could see 30 options for 320NEO conversions for QF to bridge the 220-321 gap eventually.

Crazy to see Qantas be basically an all Airbus airline besides the 787s. Wild

smi0006 wrote:

77west wrote:

log0008 wrote:

This quote from the release is interesting

"The XLR can carry around 15 per cent more passengers on each flight than the airline’s existing B737-800s, making it well suited to busy routes between capital cities like Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Its longer range means it can also be used to open up new city pairs."

They are clearly suggesting that the XLRs will be used on domestic routes. Is it possible they see the higher payload (for fuel on the long flights) being used to boost cargo capacity for Australia Post when used on domestic flights?

Would a normal A321neo be more limited by cargo capacity by volume or weight on a domestic service?

I would say volume, as the 200ish pax bags will take a few containers, weight would normally be an issue on the longer sectors I would think. The XLR does haul around a big permanent fuel tank (cuts into cargo capacity a bit) and the added structural weight but it may be judged that overall keeping it simple with a single type works better overall.

I suppose an XLR still probs is more efficient than a 330 and better right size of capacity domestically? especially on the triangle? QF is also ramping up domestic freight so I wonder if its less of an issue now? They still have JQ to move freight about on their 320s, and I'd image their pax carry less baggage.

So this is on top of the current group order is that correct? So below fleet summary of firm orders:

- A220 - 20
- A320NEO x 45
- A321LR x 28
- A321XLR x 76
*flexible options x 50
- 789 x 3
* unclear how many options remain

Plus:
- A321 P2F conversion x 1
- A330 P2F conversion x 2

I wonder if we will see the LRs come to JQ initially, before being moved to Jetstar Asia and Japan and replaced by the XLR in AU once available. I can't see 3K or GK needing the XLR, but the LR could open some interesting routes. 76 must be too many for both JQ and QF to base in Australia? Brilliant thing about this order is the flexibility to move the fleet around the four carriers as needed.

I could see 30 options for 320NEO conversions for QF to bridge the 220-321 gap eventually.

Not sure what the per seat costs for a full A330 vs A321NEO would be but certainly give the options for more frequency, which is important esp. for business customers.

So A220-300 replaces B717 with around 145 seats, 25 more seats for growth, then a big gap to A321 with probably 210-220 seats, it would depend if the A220-500 will ever be a thing as that in my mind would be better than the A320. If the -500 is unlikely to see light of day then yeah a few A320NEO with 165ish pax would fit in nicely.

ikolkyo wrote:

Crazy to see Qantas be basically an all Airbus airline besides the 787s. Wild

Not at all when you base it on rational unbiased strategic, engineering and marketing analysis. Too many opinions seem to be based where they live.

With KLM also reported to be going towards an A321 Neo order, it looks like there's likely to be two black eyes for the Max, from two blue chip airlines, in a matter of months. There are some interesting parallels:
- In both cases, it looks like the carriers particularly liked the A321 Neo and that was effectively the "anchor" of the deal; if the A321 Neo pretty much sold itself, then why not get A320 Neos as well (we don't know it's going to go that way for KLM, but I wouldn't be surprised).
- Both Qantas (or in this case, TAA/Australian) were late to the 737 party, only joining the customer list in the mid-1980s, with the arrival of the 737-300s, to replace the DC9s. Both have been sterling 737 users over 35+ years, with large fleets.
- At the end of the day, while it obviously came down to dollars, one can't help wondering if the perception of the 737 Max has been fatally damaged in the eyes of blue chip carriers. Quite apart from the safety issue, I think there is obviously the issue that the A321 Neo is seen as superior to the 737M-10 and also, that this deal is expected to define QF's fleet for the next 20-30 years and therefore, they wanted to bank on something that they could have the most confidence in, as effectively carrying the QF brand for the next 2-3 decades. Sure, the fact that JQ has A320s and a pool of experience helped, but I still wonder to what extent the 737 Max's problems and customer perception impacted on this deal. Likewise, with KLM, will it be the same.