Qantas has launched a contest between plane makers to replace its fleet of 28 Airbus A330-200s and A330-300s.

No models have been outlined, however it’s likely the usual 787, A350, A330neo and even A321 mix being considered.

I wonder if they would consider JQs 787-8s once they take on their larger and longer range Airbus narrow bodies?

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-08-25/

They will buy A330neos

This screams for the new Boeing NMA. Qantas flying another generation of A330 in the Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney triangle for another 20 years seems repetitive.

jfk777 wrote:

This screams for the new Boeing NMA. Qantas flying another generation of A330 in the Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney triangle for another 20 years seems repetitive.

Given QF is gradually reducing the use of widebodies on domestic routes with A321s likely to do most of these going forward, this is very much a competition built around the regional operations the A330s currently do principally into Asia. It will principally be a competition between the 789/78X and A359. Either one of these solutions means QF can reduce the number of fleet types it operates with all the savings that brings. The 788 is unlikely given it is a bit of an unloved sibling and the A330NEO is unlikely given it doesn't enable a fleet type to be removed though it is always possible that Airbus offer a killer deal on the NEO to keep it in the competition.

In the same region:
- Malaysia Airlines replaced its 6 A330-200s and 15 A330-300 by 20 A330-900
- Garuda replaced its 5 A330-200s and 15 A330-300 by 16 A330-900 (and maybe 4 A330-800)
- Air Asia X wants to replace its 12 A330-300 by 15 A330-900

jetfuel wrote:

They will buy A330neos

I think for fleet simplification the other two families make more sense. The 789 fleet isn’t that big, and could do with some further members of the same family.

I think we’ll also see a shift in capacity domestically - less 330 flying, but significantly more 321 flying, which will still add more seats over the current 738. And a larger freighter fleet, perhaps peak hours widebodies to move the fleet around the network.

I see Airbus have a slight advantage with the 359 - the can package them with a few more 35K to replace the 380. Equally if the 35K replace the 380, and the 787 is added to replace the 330 - that’s a pretty simple future fleet -

350K - 25 Frames - Sunrise and trunk routes
787 - 30 frames - thin LongHaul and Asia
321 - 50 Frames Domestic, DPS,Tasman,PI, thin Southeast
220 - 30 frames - smaller off peak domestic, regional
320 - 20 WA regional replacing f-100.
Dash-8 / future electric

Lots of capital coming up for QF - going to be interesting how the find it all

LaunchDetected wrote:

In the same region:
- Malaysia Airlines replaced its 6 A330-200s and 15 A330-300 by 20 A330-900
- Garuda replaced its 5 A330-200s and 15 A330-300 by 16 A330-900 (and maybe 4 A330-800)
- Air Asia X wants to replace its 12 A330-300 by 15 A330-900

That’s a bit selective. SQ replaced them with A359 and 787-10s, EVA is getting the -10, too. Vietnam Airlines also chose A359 and 787.

Also note Garuda and Air Asia X cancelled those a lot, so not the best examples.

I personally see them going with some more B787-9 or A350-900. These aircraft have the legs for routes like MEL-DFW or PER-FRA but can easily handle quick trips to Asia as well. Configured similar to the A330-300 now, it could be a winner. They could even add Premium Economy and still fit around 300 passengers. The A330neo is just too niche for Qantas, probably only allowing for Asia or ex.BNE-US flights. I wonder if we will also see some B787-10 or standard A350-1000 (without First) for the premium routes the B747-400 was on.

A330NEO is certainly a strong contender here. The advantage is that the current A330CEO pilots can transition smoothly to A330NEO, and the pool can be shared with the 12x A350 ordered for Sunrise.

However, 787 would have its own advantage in the competition since QF already operates 14x 787-9 and it's quite happy with it. If QF goes with 787, it would reduce one type of aircraft in its fleet, reducing maintenance and operational complexity and cost. Currently, its A330-200 has a config of 28J+243Y=271 and its 787-9 has a lower density config of 42J+28W+166Y=236. A 787-9 cabin config with no premium economy and half the number of business class seats would get that perfectly up to about 270 seats. Ordering more 787-9 would be a direct replacement of the A330-200 from the technical and operational perspective. The A330-300 can be replaced directly with 787-10. Going with 787 will result in a one-off cost of re-training A330 pilots to fly the 787 but that would allow those to merge into the existing 787-9 pilot pool to form a larger and more flexible pool of pilots. In the long run, it's still a financial win. I am sure Boeing will push for that combination and will put up a competitive bid. 787 is the only technical and operational bright spot in its entire offering (from 737MAX to 777-9) right now.

LaunchDetected wrote:

In the same region:
- Malaysia Airlines replaced its 6 A330-200s and 15 A330-300 by 20 A330-900
- Garuda replaced its 5 A330-200s and 15 A330-300 by 16 A330-900 (and maybe 4 A330-800)
- Air Asia X wants to replace its 12 A330-300 by 15 A330-900

These airlines do not have 787 in service with them. That is a big difference vs QANTAS for comparison.

I think a few more B789s to cover their longer flights (e.g. to HNL) and B787-10s or A339s for their shorter flights (up to 8 hrs). They are talking about replacement in 12-18 months and the A339 will be able to deliver in that time.

Aren't the QF 330's rather young? It's not like the technology has changed much since '94 in the industry.

Why can't they just ask Airbus for an ESG?

SEAorPWM wrote:

Aren't the QF 330's rather young? It's not like the technology has changed much since '94 in the industry.

Why can't they just ask Airbus for an ESG?

The original A332s and A333s are around 20 years old. Some of the original A332s have done quite a lot of domestic work meaning their cycle count is also quite high.

Here we go again, QF marketing spin doctors trying to divert so much of the negative publicity regarding service delivery currently in the news.

QF have shafted just about every employee and single frequent flyer they’ve got/had, myself included, AJ offered me $50 off a return flight yesterday via an email apology.

If trends continue QF won’t need widebodies, as nobody will be flying them!

QF744ER wrote:

Here we go again, QF marketing spin doctors trying to divert so much of the negative publicity regarding service delivery currently in the news.

QF have shafted just about every employee and single frequent flyer they’ve got/had, myself included, AJ offered me $50 off a return flight yesterday via an email apology.

If trends continue QF won’t need widebodies, as nobody will be flying them!

I do wonder how long before the luster of the Qantas namesake wears off. They were the poster child for decades but have lost their way and if they want to right the ship maybe offer employees an olive branch.

[url][/url]

flee wrote:

I think a few more B789s to cover their longer flights (e.g. to HNL) and B787-10s or A339s for their shorter flights (up to 8 hrs). They are talking about replacement in 12-18 months and the A339 will be able to deliver in that time.

I think the RFP concludes in 12-18 months, deliveries are likely to start 3-4years after that. Can Boeing deliver a 787 in 5yrs surely? They may still have 789 options to exercise too.

Their initial order was enormous at 65 or something before being scaled back - not sure anyone but QF and Boeing know how many options they have left now!

So very much can change in that time period!

I thought this was a given that it would just be more 787s ??

Does not make sense to me to see QF operating A330/787/A350/A380 families when it's not even a significant amount of each type. Just add 20 to the 787 fleet and then they will have a solid fleet of 787 - domestic, med-haul, and long haul backbone / A350 - specialized ULH flying / A380 - specialized high-capacity markets. IMO this is Boeing's to lose and they have every reason to fight for this after major Airbus wins with QF as of late with A350/A321neo/A220.

JohanTally wrote:

QF744ER wrote:

Here we go again, QF marketing spin doctors trying to divert so much of the negative publicity regarding service delivery currently in the news.

QF have shafted just about every employee and single frequent flyer they’ve got/had, myself included, AJ offered me $50 off a return flight yesterday via an email apology.

If trends continue QF won’t need widebodies, as nobody will be flying them!

I do wonder how long before the luster of the Qantas namesake wears off. They were the poster child for decades but have lost their way and if they want to right the ship maybe offer employees an olive branch.

I do wonder - the shine does come off every few decades, then they get back on the rails - 744 engineering issues, fleet grounding, 767 reliability and poor service- but this is by far the worst. I’m not sure how easily they will recover- depends how loyal/hostage the Australian public is to their FF-points

JohanTally wrote:

I do wonder how long before the luster of the Qantas namesake wears off. They were the poster child for decades but have lost their way and if they want to right the ship maybe offer employees an olive branch.

I experienced my first long haul flight on QF1 back in the days when Qantas was a premium airline. These days, they are overshadowed by Middle Eastern and Asian carriers. I am sure the reasons for their decline are multifactorial and they need to take a close look at all aspects of the airline. However, they are still the only airline in the world with an outstanding safety record. Lets hope they choose their next generation aircraft wisely and not just let the bean counters run riot!

I would be fairly surprised if they didn’t just go with additional A321s and 787-9s. I see very little chance for the A330neo and I would think the A350-900 may be a bit large for what they’d be used for.

CBBW wrote:

I would be fairly surprised if they didn’t just go with additional A321s and 787-9s. I see very little chance for the A330neo and I would think the A350-900 may be a bit large for what they’d be used for.

I agree. I’m sure they will consider bids for the 359 and 330neo if they are competitive enough on pricing, but all else being equal the A321 and 787 combination reduces fleet complexity while giving them a very efficient and flexible fleet. With more A321 freighters coming, they have increasingly less need for widebody domestic flights, and the 789 (maybe 78X) with a less premium configuration will be perfectly economical across the international A330 network.

As others have said above, I'm not too sure that the A330NEO would be in the running here because there is really no need for it. Unlike Garuda, MH etc QF isn't located in the heart of Asia and needs a flexible aircraft family that can do routes such as MEL-HND and MEL- DEL non-stop year round. So I can see A350's or 787's being picked but couldn't see others as realistically being in the race unless QF got an absolutely unbelievable deal.

In relation to future domestic flying, widebodies will still fly domestically on transcon services for many, many years to come. Even with A321's, and we haven't seen the config yet, there is still going to be a need for the lift of an A330 sized aircraft for peak hour golden triangle services and for trans-con. So this aircraft, whichever they pick, will also be used for those as well.

Also unlikely that we'll see any replacement of the A330's until at least the 2026 to 2027 mark. QF already have A350's, A321's and A220's coming in in fairly large numbers with Jetstar on top of this so trying to fit this replacement in as well might stretch the Balance Sheet a little too far.

A359 is great candidate, it can cover all QF 332/333 international mission with more range. Where these extra range can be supportive to North American during peak season, or explore some opportunities for new routes, almost perfect for BNE-LAX. Plus they probably already operated 35K when 359 arrives (if QF order 359 off course)
Personally, I would like to see 338 (close to 0% possibility) & 339 in the fleet though.

Perhaps the most intriguing RFP in recent times, because it can go so many ways. They already fly all the contenders. I would lean 787 and A321 but A359s are flown regionally by SQ, CX and JL.. With the Sunrise A350s already coming in, adding some A359s would be pretty straight forward.. I don't see the A330NEO unless AB gives a killer deal.

tullamarine wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

This screams for the new Boeing NMA. Qantas flying another generation of A330 in the Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney triangle for another 20 years seems repetitive.

Given QF is gradually reducing the use of widebodies on domestic routes with A321s likely to do most of these going forward, this is very much a competition built around the regional operations the A330s currently do principally into Asia. It will principally be a competition between the 789/78X and A359. Either one of these solutions means QF can reduce the number of fleet types it operates with all the savings that brings. The 788 is unlikely given it is a bit of an unloved sibling and the A330NEO is unlikely given it doesn't enable a fleet type to be removed though it is always possible that Airbus offer a killer deal on the NEO to keep it in the competition.

Last time I was in Australia I flew on a 743 SYD-PER and 767s PER-MEL and MEL-SYD. Where does QF get the pilots to go all narrowbody?

[threeid][/threeid]

Last time I was in Australia I flew on a 743 SYD-PER and 767s PER-MEL and MEL-SYD. Where does QF get the pilots to go all narrowbody?

QF typically gets pilots from AU pilots flying for foreign airlines who want to return home as well as picking off pilots from regional airlines who want a bigger pay and a bit more glamour. They continue to get pilots from RAAF and QF has an arrangement that they contribute to the cost of RAAF pilot training because the RAAF got a bit sick of the airlines pinching their qualified pilots. QF also has a cadet pilot training program for direct entry younger pilots who typically commence with regional subsidiaries as First Officers or sometimes as Second Officers on the long-haul fleet.

A350-900 is probably the top contender here. Quick conversion course for existing 330 flight crew and fleet commonality with the incoming A350-1000 will mean it’ll be a success for QF. Wonder if existing 787-9 frames will make their way to Jetstar and be replaced with more 900s to create more fleet commonality.

Sydscott wrote:

As others have said above, I'm not too sure that the A330NEO would be in the running here because there is really no need for it. Unlike Garuda, MH etc QF isn't located in the heart of Asia and needs a flexible aircraft family that can do routes such as MEL-HND and MEL- DEL non-stop year round. So I can see A350's or 787's being picked but couldn't see others as realistically being in the race unless QF got an absolutely unbelievable deal.

In relation to future domestic flying, widebodies will still fly domestically on transcon services for many, many years to come. Even with A321's, and we haven't seen the config yet, there is still going to be a need for the lift of an A330 sized aircraft for peak hour golden triangle services and for trans-con. So this aircraft, whichever they pick, will also be used for those as well.

Also unlikely that we'll see any replacement of the A330's until at least the 2026 to 2027 mark. QF already have A350's, A321's and A220's coming in in fairly large numbers with Jetstar on top of this so trying to fit this replacement in as well might stretch the Balance Sheet a little too far.

With an MTOW of 251T, an A339 has a range of 7200nm, meaning that MEL-HND (4387nm) and MEL- DEL (5494nm) are comfortably within range.

DCA350 wrote:

Perhaps the most intriguing RFP in recent times, because it can go so many ways. They already fly all the contenders. I would lean 787 and A321 but A359s are flown regionally by SQ, CX and JL.. With the Sunrise A350s already coming in, adding some A359s would be pretty straight forward.. I don't see the A330NEO unless AB gives a killer deal.

Indeed, it is a fascinating RFP as there are many possible permutations. I wouldn’t rule out the 330NEO as the cost of the sub-fleet has largely been absorbed but it is less likely.

I’m sure some of you will say of course i think the 787 but hear me out

1. QF still has many 787 options including 787-10 options and -9 obviously

2. Qantas was one of the original airlines to ask for the 787-10, they never ordered it but they took options

3. Getting more 787s takes out a whole fleet leaving you with an excellent fleet of 220, 320, 350 and 787

4. I don’t know Qantas was single source supply

5. 787 generally gives them more flexibility out of Australia anyway.

And the balance works. 330s out more 787s.

380s out more 350s I don’t see Qantas then going for the 777X again. It becomes a bit unecessary

350-900 is an excellent option too but it’s still a different plane to the 1000, quite considerably actually

jfk777 wrote:

This screams for the new Boeing NMA. Qantas flying another generation of A330 in the Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney triangle for another 20 years seems repetitive.

But the no such nma exist. Can't buy what not exists.

7810 makings the most sensible choices here.

tullamarine wrote:

Either one of these solutions means QF can reduce the number of fleet types it operates with all the savings that brings.

QF is keeping the A330 around as a freighter.

raylee67 wrote:

These airlines do not have 787 in service with them. That is a big difference vs QANTAS for comparison.

It is indeed completely selective and probably biaised.
On a different market Virgin Atlantic operates 787-9 and A350-1000 but decided to replace its A330-300 by A330-900.

From my uninformed point of view the ideal airline would have only one type of aircraft to optimize costs, but I have an engineering background, not route planning. We can find plenty of airlines that are using both 787 and A350 despite their apparent overlapping.

To oppose the "reduce number of types" argument, a sub-fleet of 30 A330neo might be large enough to ensure a kind of optimization in itself.
But without figures it is impossible to have an opinion. It will be interesting to see nonetheless.

Opus99 wrote:

350-900 is an excellent option too but it’s still a different plane to the 1000, quite considerably actually

Beside the MLG there is no much differences in terms of commonality. Or I am missing something.

mxaxai wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Either one of these solutions means QF can reduce the number of fleet types it operates with all the savings that brings.

QF is keeping the A330 around as a freighter.

It’s worth noting that the Qantas Freight, operated by Express Freighters Australia, is an entirely separate division with different pilot groups etc. You won’t find a pilot flying passengers one day and cargo the next (Covid-era cargo only flights notwithstanding). As such, there isn’t much commonality to be gained from operating the A339 alongside the A332F. While it could assist with parts (how much commonality is there between the two?) EFA have operated 1 767 for years after QF retired the type, so presumably commonality isn’t too much of a concern for EFA.

LaunchDetected wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

These airlines do not have 787 in service with them. That is a big difference vs QANTAS for comparison.

It is indeed completely selective and probably biaised.
On a different market Virgin Atlantic operates 787-9 and A350-1000 but decided to replace its A330-300 by A330-900.

From my uninformed point of view the ideal airline would have only one type of aircraft to optimize costs, but I have an engineering background, not route planning. We can find plenty of airlines that are using both 787 and A350 despite their apparent overlapping.

To oppose the "reduce number of types" argument, a sub-fleet of 30 A330neo might be large enough to ensure a kind of optimization in itself.
But without figures it is impossible to have an opinion. It will be interesting to see nonetheless.

Opus99 wrote:

350-900 is an excellent option too but it’s still a different plane to the 1000, quite considerably actually

Beside the MLG there is no much differences in terms of commonality. Or I am missing something.

The Engines have been modified for the A350K, but considering most RR contracts are PBH, I don't think that matters much..

Sydscott wrote:

As others have said above, I'm not too sure that the A330NEO would be in the running here because there is really no need for it. Unlike Garuda, MH etc QF isn't located in the heart of Asia and needs a flexible aircraft family that can do routes such as MEL-HND and MEL- DEL non-stop year round. So I can see A350's or 787's being picked but couldn't see others as realistically being in the race unless QF got an absolutely unbelievable deal.

In relation to future domestic flying, widebodies will still fly domestically on transcon services for many, many years to come. Even with A321's, and we haven't seen the config yet, there is still going to be a need for the lift of an A330 sized aircraft for peak hour golden triangle services and for trans-con. So this aircraft, whichever they pick, will also be used for those as well.

Also unlikely that we'll see any replacement of the A330's until at least the 2026 to 2027 mark. QF already have A350's, A321's and A220's coming in in fairly large numbers with Jetstar on top of this so trying to fit this replacement in as well might stretch the Balance Sheet a little too far.

Widebodies will continue playing a role in domestic service, but a less prominent role. With the exception of Perth, the larger A321 will diminish the importance of A330s vis 737s. 4x A321s per hour from SYD-MEL is roughly equivalent passenger capacity to 3x 73H plus 1x A332. In fact it’s marginally more seats. The operating cost of 4x A321 is likely much lower as well.

QF occasionally operated 787s on SYD/MEL/BNE flights before Covid, plus SYD-AKL and of course MEL/SYD-PER as part of QF8/9 and QF5/6. They will have a very good idea of the type’s operating costs on shortish flight costs against A330s on the same routes.

LaunchDetected wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

These airlines do not have 787 in service with them. That is a big difference vs QANTAS for comparison.

It is indeed completely selective and probably biaised.
On a different market Virgin Atlantic operates 787-9 and A350-1000 but decided to replace its A330-300 by A330-900.

From my uninformed point of view the ideal airline would have only one type of aircraft to optimize costs, but I have an engineering background, not route planning. We can find plenty of airlines that are using both 787 and A350 despite their apparent overlapping.

To oppose the "reduce number of types" argument, a sub-fleet of 30 A330neo might be large enough to ensure a kind of optimization in itself.
But without figures it is impossible to have an opinion. It will be interesting to see nonetheless.

Opus99 wrote:

350-900 is an excellent option too but it’s still a different plane to the 1000, quite considerably actually

Beside the MLG there is no much differences in terms of commonality. Or I am missing something.

The A359 and A35K might as well be different fleets, it's preposterous that a major international airline like QF could operate them concurrently. Apparently.

All three widebody families - the A330NEO, A350 and 787 - are highly capable and would make great A332/A333 replacements, each with their own merits. Here’s my take:

A330NEO - a cheap, plug-and-play replacement. Compatible type / maintenance ratings mean that Qantas could take new frames slowly and as needed, maximising the economic life of their current A330ceo fleet. The A339 also has more than enough range, capable of operating routes like SYD-SFO/JNB/SCL - anything the 744 could do, the NEO can also handle, making it a cheap yet flexible option.

A359 - slightly larger than the A330, and with a lot more performance. Relatively easy for crews to cross over from the A330, and QF plan on adding the A35K anyway so crew / maintenance commonality isn’t a concern here either. Very flexible, too - the A359 (at 283T MTOW) will take 300 passengers 14000km as easily as it does 4000km.

B787 - available in multiple variants, is already in the Qantas fleet, and probably has the lowest operating costs of the three types. A common fleet with Jetstar means that capacity can be easily shuffled across the QF group, and having up to three different variants would provide lots of flexibility in matching capacity with demand.

In short, all are great options with more range and lower operating costs than the existing A330 fleet. In order of probability, I would place the 787 first, followed by the A359 and then the A339 in with an outside chance. It will largely come down to what deal Boeing and especially Airbus are willing to offer, but I think that all three options are similar enough that maintenance or crewing considerations could easily be the deciding factor instead of aircraft performance. One thing is for sure though - there is no bad choice.

Fuling wrote:

I personally see them going with some more B787-9 or A350-900. These aircraft have the legs for routes like MEL-DFW or PER-FRA but can easily handle quick trips to Asia as well. Configured similar to the A330-300 now, it could be a winner. They could even add Premium Economy and still fit around 300 passengers.

If the configuration is the same as the A330-300 on either the B787-9 or A350-900, there is no way I will be on MEL-DFW or PER-FRA. In addition there will be an inconsistent product on the UULH routes and potentially will have to block seats and have no cargo.

QF744ER wrote:

Here we go again, QF marketing spin doctors trying to divert so much of the negative publicity regarding service delivery currently in the news.

QF have shafted just about every employee and single frequent flyer they’ve got/had, myself included, AJ offered me $50 off a return flight yesterday via an email apology.

If trends continue QF won’t need widebodies, as nobody will be flying them!

QF are not the only ones ... have you seen the mess happening in the States and with BA?

JohanTally wrote:

I do wonder how long before the luster of the Qantas namesake wears off. They were the poster child for decades but have lost their way and if they want to right the ship maybe offer employees an olive branch.

Most likely never, for a western airline with high labour costs and regulations, IMHO QF provides the most superior service in comparison with North American and European airlines. I would not be surprised that SQ, NH and JL's labour costs and regulations are lower than their western counterparts.

flee wrote:

However, they are still the only airline in the world with an outstanding safety record. Lets hope they choose their next generation aircraft wisely and not just let the bean counters run riot!

I thank the bean counters with their involvement with the Airbus narrow body order as well as the A350-1000 for project sunrise.

CBBW wrote:

I would be fairly surprised if they didn’t just go with additional A321s and 787-9s. I see very little chance for the A330neo and I would think the A350-900 may be a bit large for what they’d be used for.

You beat me to it.

FluidFlow wrote:

Theoretically QF has the option to go single fleet for long haul in the distant future by offloading the 787s. On the other side, leaving options open a split order 787/359 will also make a lot of sense. Even going all 787 below the 35K is a viable option, because the 35K pilot group might be more expensive than the 787 group. So grouping everyone in the expensive pool is not too smart. Now I am not 100% about which group costs how much but normally the bigger the aircraft the bigger the pay...

Valid point ... I am so confused.

Opus99 wrote:

2. Qantas was one of the original airlines to ask for the 787-10, they never ordered it but they took options

QANTAS was also one of the original airlines asking for B777-300ER ... haven't seen that bad girl with a kangaroo stamped on her nasty tail.

Who knows this time it could be different.

LaunchDetected wrote:

Beside the MLG there is no much differences in terms of commonality. Or I am missing something.

In order to reduce manufacturing costs, they modified the -900 ever since the 280 tonne W/V entered service to have near identical parts to the -1000 so they are almost the same.

MrHMSH wrote:

LaunchDetected wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

These airlines do not have 787 in service with them. That is a big difference vs QANTAS for comparison.

It is indeed completely selective and probably biaised.
On a different market Virgin Atlantic operates 787-9 and A350-1000 but decided to replace its A330-300 by A330-900.

From my uninformed point of view the ideal airline would have only one type of aircraft to optimize costs, but I have an engineering background, not route planning. We can find plenty of airlines that are using both 787 and A350 despite their apparent overlapping.

To oppose the "reduce number of types" argument, a sub-fleet of 30 A330neo might be large enough to ensure a kind of optimization in itself.
But without figures it is impossible to have an opinion. It will be interesting to see nonetheless.

Opus99 wrote:

350-900 is an excellent option too but it’s still a different plane to the 1000, quite considerably actually

Beside the MLG there is no much differences in terms of commonality. Or I am missing something.

The A359 and A35K might as well be different fleets, it's preposterous that a major international airline like QF could operate them concurrently. Apparently.

Aren’t the wings different too? It’s not that big of a difference I know but it is still a different airplane with slightly different engines.

The benefit of the 787 is 9 and 10 are pretty much identical they can even use the same engines

Look it’s not that big of a deal I just threw it in there because the difference does exist

Opus99 wrote:

Aren’t the wings different too? It’s not that big of a difference I know but it is still a different airplane with slightly different engines.

The benefit of the 787 is 9 and 10 are pretty much identical they can even use the same engines

Look it’s not that big of a deal I just threw it in there because the difference does exist

Your actual words were '350-900 is an excellent option too but it’s still a different plane to the 1000, quite considerably actually'. If these 2 variants are as considerably different as claimed, you should be able to enlighten us as to what these differences are.

My understanding is a difference in the wings that is so slight that I've never even known what the difference is, and I can't find an explanation either. Engines are same family but slightly different, landing gear is 4 vs 6, of course.

If it's not a big deal, don't wade in saying that they're different planes, quite considerably. Really though, this will not factor in for QF, if they want the A359, they get it, the main cost in any case would be pilots, but as far as I'm aware the cockpits would be identical.

MrHMSH wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Aren’t the wings different too? It’s not that big of a difference I know but it is still a different airplane with slightly different engines.

The benefit of the 787 is 9 and 10 are pretty much identical they can even use the same engines

Look it’s not that big of a deal I just threw it in there because the difference does exist

Your actual words were '350-900 is an excellent option too but it’s still a different plane to the 1000, quite considerably actually'. If these 2 variants are considerably different, perhaps you can enlighten us as to what these differences are.

My understanding is a difference in the wings that is so slight that I've never even known what the difference is, and I can't find an explanation either. Engines are same family but slightly different, landing gear is 4 vs 6, of course.

If it's not a big deal, don't wade in saying that they're different planes, quite considerably. Really though, this will not factor in for QF, if they want the A359, they get it, the main cost in any case would be pilots, but as far as I'm aware the cockpits would be identical.

My poor judgement then, aren’t the wings are different size? In terms of complete wing area? I mean again like you say it doesn’t make a difference, okay let me say in comparison to the 787-9 vs 787-10 the difference is wider between the 359 and 35K but I digress

How does the pilot cost come into this exactly? From a flying perspective it’s the same at least as I understand it

The order will get split between A330neo and A350-9/1K… .. QF will make the order large enough to phase out the 787 and go all Airbus

Opus99 wrote:

My poor judgement then, aren’t the wings are different size? In terms of complete wing area? I mean again like you say it doesn’t make a difference, okay let me say in comparison to the 787-9 vs 787-10 the difference is wider between the 359 and 35K but I digress

How does the pilot cost come into this exactly? From a flying perspective it’s the same at least as I understand it

The difference between 789/78X is less than A359/A35K... but only in technical terms. In practical terms, no one's going to refuse an A359 on commonality grounds if they already have A35Ks, and vice versa, making it ultimately irrelevant. The A35K has a larger wing area (442m^2 to 464m^2), but as mentioned I can't see this difference and I've not been able to find a diagram or illustration of the differences. The winglets are different for newer A359s vs A35Ks and older A359s, at least visually.

Pilot cost as in conversion costs, i.e. I don't believe there is any as the cockpits are identical (to my understanding). Not explained well, but what I mean is that pilots can be trained to fly both concurrently.

The big unknown will be what options and at what prices QF have on the 787s.
If they are cheap enough then Airbus may struggle to compete no matter what the conversion costs are.