Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:11 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 49):
Is this a higher MTOW variant of the original -9 proposal, or are you just referring to it being heavier than the -8? If it is the former, what is the range?

You can read about it here.

As Boeing has declined to comment on details, I will, too.

 airplane QFA001
 
dalecary
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2000 10:28 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:44 am

Beautifully explained QFA001. I too wish Keesje would shut-up re cabin configurations. As you pointed out the QF A330s have to have narrower Skybed fitted because the cabin is "too narrow". Got that Keesje. QF want to standardise their seating based around the 380 configuration. They can't do that with the 330/340 and will struggle with the 350, but it can be done easily with the 777/787.
You are the one with apparently little experience in configuring cabins, Keesje.
 
Cruiser
Posts: 941
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:08 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:49 am

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 38):
Once QF realized the A330 wouldn't work on the domestic sectors, and placed them on the international ones, I understand QF is pleased with the airframe.

You are right, they were pleased after they sunk millions of dollars strengthening the floors. The domestic floors were not capable of holding the business class seats. I have heard various figures, but I think that it ended up costing roughly $20Million per plane.

James
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:29 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 47):
BTW I expected you guys to fall over the provocative a321 vs 787-3 reply 37, I guess you checked the numbers..

Didn't need to check the numbers, we all already know you are full of ****

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 48):
QF is concentrating on the B767 replacement and new ULR routes.

Hmmmm. . . . that's interesting, as I had heard previously that the -300ER would be firmed, with the -200LR taken as options. You're suggesting the other way around (along with a bulk order of the 787, of course). Was this always the plan, or did it change as the -200LR became more capable through -300ER flight testing?

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 48):
So, I don't think that Airbus can prevent the B787 being ordered. But, if they throw enough money at it, things could happen for them.

But if QF are set to go with the 787-9"HGW", what could Airbus possibly hope to do by "throwing money" at the A350 and QF? I suppose any fleet's CASM is going to be comparitively competitive at the right purchase price, but that seems a little excessive, even for Airbus.


Regards,

Hamlet69
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:50 am

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 53):
Hmmmm. . . . that's interesting, as I had heard previously that the -300ER would be firmed, with the -200LR taken as options. You're suggesting the other way around (along with a bulk order of the 787, of course). Was this always the plan, or did it change as the -200LR became more capable through -300ER flight testing?

As far as I was aware the bulk of the order was always going to for a 767 replacement as that is the more pressing need at the moment. QF has to commit now for it otherwise they wont obtain delivery decent delivery slots for the 787. Although I would expect a small number of 773's for firm delivery as well to assist in either replacing the 743's/non RR 744's replacement or to free 744's from Asian services so they can cover expansion to Europe/America. However in any order you could expect 787/773/772LR options to be taken so that every eventuality is covered.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 53):
But if QF are set to go with the 787-9"HGW", what could Airbus possibly hope to do by "throwing money" at the A350 and QF?

By "throwing money" at Qantas isn't that how the A330 got into QF colours?? Correct me if I'm, wrong.
 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:13 pm

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 51):
Beautifully explained QFA001.

Thank you, sir.

Quoting Cruiser (Reply 52):
You are right, they were pleased after they sunk millions of dollars strengthening the floors.

FWIW, QF hasn't altered any of their A330-200s. Yet.

Quoting Cruiser (Reply 52):
I have heard various figures, but I think that it ended up costing roughly $20Million per plane.

Various figures are floating around. However, I can verify that the cost of upgrading the floors is nowhere near that value. I once pointed out in another post that $20m would buy you a B747-400 freighter conversion (not the airplane, just the conversion). The changes for QF's A330-200s are nowhere near that level of work.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 53):
Didn't need to check the numbers, we all already know you are full of ****

Hamlet, I have a short fuse. When I see a calm chap like you show your disgust, then I know that I'm on the right track to be annoyed.  Wink

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 53):
Hmmmm. . . . that's interesting, as I had heard previously that the -300ER would be firmed, with the -200LR taken as options. You're suggesting the other way around (along with a bulk order of the 787, of course). Was this always the plan, or did it change as the -200LR became more capable through -300ER flight testing?

First, I'd like to qualify that QF's fleet studies traditionally change a lot prior to signing the dotted line. So, even though the -300ER isn't a priority now, that could change again. However, AFAIK, about mid-year the -300ER fell out of priority and the "hub-busting" -200LR rose up the ranks. As to how many of which QF is likely to buy will almost ultimately depend on what Boeing offers.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 53):
But if QF are set to go with the 787-9"HGW", what could Airbus possibly hope to do by "throwing money" at the A350 and QF? I suppose any fleet's CASM is going to be comparitively competitive at the right purchase price, but that seems a little excessive, even for Airbus.

Well, what I meant is that it is always possible that QF could buy both A350s and B787s. I don't mean that expressly for QF mainline, either, but rather the kind of business plans they could do for their subsidiaries, AO & JQ. Also, QF owns 46% of FJ. So, without expressing exactly what I mean, I hope that it gives you some food for thought...

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 54):
By "throwing money" at Qantas isn't that how the A330 got into QF colours?? Correct me if I'm, wrong.

Well, yes. However, the A330 was also the airplane that did fit QF's requirements at the time. The B777 was too large. Having said that, the requirements that QF drew-up were not ... realistic.

 airplane QFA001
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:22 pm

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 48):
Keesje, do shut up. You are one reason why I would seriously consider deleting the A.net address from my favourites (another is NAV20). Why you continue to regurgitate 15 year-old Airbus marketing brochures is beyond me.

QF, come on mate. Such characters are what makes this such a fun place to visit.  Smile I love Keesje's "business middle" seat arguement... Instead of focusing on fuel costs, sales, structural efficiency etc, we get the middle business seat arguement. Priceless!  laughing  I also like Nav's posts a lot; lots of useful and informed material filled in with the usual dire 380 will not fly predictions. Great stuff!  sly 

BTW, hopefully QF will not do to the 777 what SQ did to this..

-iwok
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14778
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:29 pm

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 48):
The more efficient cabin configuration can't take a full-size SkyBed. The B777/787 can. The A340 cabin can't take QF's new P-class seat that will come with the A380 without modification. The B777/787 can. Of the Airbus models, only the A350 can take the same Y-seats as the A380. Get the message?



Quoting Dalecary (Reply 51):
As you pointed out the QF A330s have to have narrower Skybed fitted because the cabin is "too narrow". Got that Keesje. QF want to standardise their seating based around the 380 configuration. They can't do that with the 330/340 and will struggle with the 350, but it can be done easily with the 777/787.

What a statements, full of .... & you know it. Of each seat type you usually have 6 -7 sub types per aircraft type & you specify them different for each new aircraft type.

On the 4-6-9 config, it has everything to do with how many people fit in an aircraft given a minimum prod spec. That matters for network/revenue planning.

About the shaky contents of your mail, the tone of voice & emotions you express..

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 48):
Now, if you were smart enough to do some research, you'd learn why I'm qualified to tell you that and why you're not qualified to challenge it.

pathetic  shy 
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10143
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Fri Sep 23, 2005 5:24 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 57):

Out of you Keesje and QFA001, QFA001 is a QF employee so obviously he knows more. Keesje can you stop the drabble.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14778
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:09 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 58):
Out of you Keesje and QFA001, QFA001 is a QF employee so obviously he knows more. Keesje can you stop the drabble.

Just because someone works for an airline doesn't make him/her obviously know more.

https://www.airliners.net/discussions...neral_aviation/read.main/227333/6/

Stop worshipping & stick to facts iso views brought up as facts.
 
onedude
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:28 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:18 pm

All,

John Borghetti no-showed to a business breakfast in Sydney today due to "the Airbus tender". Anyone care to shed any light on this?
 
N60659
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:24 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:39 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 47):
No. Still not ETOPS 330.

And I don't hear of any major carriers banging down the door at the FAA or any other regulatory agency worldwide clamoring for ETOPS 330 either. I mean, really, how many routes currently require ETOPS 330. The only reason Boeing is pushing for it is to be ready if the need really arises and a carrier requests it. In most of today's airline environment, most routes can be plied comfortably with ETOPS 180 and the occasional ETOPS 207 on an as-needed basis.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 47):
BTW I expected you guys to fall over the provocative a321 vs 787-3 reply 37, I guess you checked the numbers

I can't recall seeing QF ever express an interest in the A321, even remotely, so I don't know why this is even being brought up. You know, this entire "would you like to have fries with that" philosophy is what got Airbus in trouble with AI. Regardless of how delectable fries are to one's palate, if the person it is being offered to declines and you decide to force feed them anyway, the recipient is bound to choke. There is no point in raising a hue and cry if the "chokee" decided to retaliate soon thereafter.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 53):
Didn't need to check the numbers, we all already know you are full of ****

I am going to spin this a little differently. I suspect Keesje is a closet Boeing fan. Okay before anybody starts flinging stuff in my direction and start accusing me of blasphemy, hear me out. We have all seen some of the stuff Keesje comes up with to incite a vigorous discussion/argument. It is basic human nature to respond to a challenge and typically our responses to challenges are accompanied by rather deep factual information in addition to the emotional outburst. A simple straightforward question will elicit much less true information than a challenge. So, if after you receive a response to your challenge, you are able to separate the emotional stuff from the true information, you would be left with a true wealth of knowledge. Wouldn't you be that much richer knowledge-wise? I suspect this is how he collects information about Boeing. Think about it while I run to my nearest bomb shelter!!  duck 

-N60659
 
kaitak
Posts: 10104
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:51 am

By all accounts, it's going to be a Boeing deal; Qantas has never liked the A330s. There is (or was) talk of the -200s going to Jetstar and I understand our own Aer Lingus has its eye on them if QF wants to get rid of them altogether.

As for the Boeings, I really can't offer anything more than pure guesswork, but I was wondering whether 777-200ERs (leased) might be acquired as an interim solution until the 787-9 (or -10) become available. Even though most -200 rumours have focused on the -200LR, there are plenty of routes where the-200ER would be useful, particularly in Europe.

As for the 787, I tend to think the -800 is a better bet than the -3, on the basis that they can fly the -8 on domestic routes with the MTOW of the -3, then "convert" for use on long haul flying.
 
NYC777
Posts: 5104
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sat Sep 24, 2005 3:02 am

Quoting N60659 (Reply 61):
I suspect Keesje is a closet Boeing fan.

That's priceless!! I'm laughing myself silly at the thought!  bouncy   spin   laughing 
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sat Sep 24, 2005 3:12 am

Quoting Onedude (Reply 60):
John Borghetti no-showed to a business breakfast in Sydney today due to "the Airbus tender". Anyone care to shed any light on this?

maybe he had to go see what Airbus had to offer them......obviously all offers have to be looked at seriously.......

until the orders are announced..its still an open ball game...and don't count Airbus out too quickly!!

[Edited 2005-09-23 20:20:15]
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14778
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:28 am

Quoting N60659 (Reply 61):
I suspect Keesje is a closet Boeing fan.

oh no, I'm exposed..

 cry 
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sat Sep 24, 2005 5:01 am

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 55):
Hamlet, I have a short fuse. When I see a calm chap like you show your disgust, then I know that I'm on the right track to be annoyed

QFA001, having been both in-directly and directly involved with the industry for nearly a decade now, and I recognize that the knowledge level on a forum such as this is going to vary from highly technical to novice. Therefore I generally have the patience for most everyone.  cool 

However, when I continuously run into a few individuals from the die-hard Boeing or Airbus camps that absolutely refuse to listen to reality, and instead willing choose to live in a world of their own making based on nothing, then insist that that world is reality, I get more than a little annoyed.  bomb 

I obviously can't speak for Keesje outside this forum. Here, however, you are talking about someone who has lost track of reality a long time ago, and now lives off nothing but Airbus press releases and his own imaginings.

That said, let's continue. . .

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 55):
However, AFAIK, about mid-year the -300ER fell out of priority and the "hub-busting" -200LR rose up the ranks.

Ok, very good. That falls more in line with what I knew before. As I stated earlier, I had heard from numerous sources that QF's upcoming order was to be for a 767 replacement (787 or A350), and the future 747-300, possibly -400 replacement. That meant 773ER or A346. The ULR requirement was something "down the road." Again, I had been told that Boeing had long been favored.

Though obviously I can't ask you anything that would violate any binding contracts you may still be under, but do you have an idea of the impetus that changed QF's direction on the ULR?

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 55):
I don't mean that expressly for QF mainline, either, but rather the kind of business plans they could do for their subsidiaries, AO & JQ.

An interesting thought. We definitely have evidence of QF going one way for their mainline (738) and another for a subsidiary (A320). But does this make sense in the long run from a cost standpoint?

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 55):
Also, QF owns 46% of FJ.

And FJ has been linked to SQ recently as well, have they not? I don't believe SQ has any stake in FJ, however. . .

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 55):
So, without expressing exactly what I mean, I hope that it gives you some food for thought...

One of these days, I'm going to get you to "express exactly what you mean". . .  mischievous 

Quoting Keesje (Reply 59):
Just because someone works for an airline doesn't make him/her obviously know more.

Perhaps not. But expressing knowledgable and informed thoughts and opinions usually does.  sarcastic 


Regards,

Hamlet69
 
dalecary
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2000 10:28 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:20 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 57):
Quoting QFA001 (Reply 48):
The more efficient cabin configuration can't take a full-size SkyBed. The B777/787 can. The A340 cabin can't take QF's new P-class seat that will come with the A380 without modification. The B777/787 can. Of the Airbus models, only the A350 can take the same Y-seats as the A380. Get the message?



Quoting Dalecary (Reply 51):
As you pointed out the QF A330s have to have narrower Skybed fitted because the cabin is "too narrow". Got that Keesje. QF want to standardise their seating based around the 380 configuration. They can't do that with the 330/340 and will struggle with the 350, but it can be done easily with the 777/787.


What a statements, full of .... & you know it. Of each seat type you usually have 6 -7 sub types per aircraft type & you specify them different for each new aircraft type.

What is full of .......Keesje? Do you deny that the A330 uses a narrower Skybed than the 744s? Well it does and that's a fact my friend.
The narrowness of the cabin is a major factor why the 340 won't win at QF, along with other key issues when compared to the 777, such as range, pax/cargo capacity, speed, reliability, efficiency and weight. You can deny it, but QF won't order your beloved 340. You can think of that what you like.
QF are using the introduction of the A380 to standardise their seating in all classes on international routes. We are not talking about seating configurations, but the types of seats used. One seat for F, one seat for J and one seat for Y. Again, you could deny that, and again you would be wrong.
You are clearly very wrong here, and very deluded if you can't see that. I am starting to feel a bit sorry for you, actually!!!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14778
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:47 am

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 67):
You are clearly very wrong here, and very deluded if you can't see that. I am starting to feel a bit sorry for you, actually!!!

Lets me say determining, negotiating a seat/cabin spec & implementing it on several types is no theory for me.. But that aside the 787/350/340 cabins are pratically identical.
If you step into a 744 at this moment many seats have slightly different specs; width´s, reclines, shapes and other details. Of course an airline aims to offer product consistancy & never communicate it.

Back to Qantas a 772 & A346 would both most probably have a six abreast cabin, the A340 is longer.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jason Milligan


Qantas A330, International Business, domestics have the odd 7 abreast.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bailey - AirTeamImages


Singapore 777 new Raffles, Iwok´s reply 56 is the old cabin (purposely?)
 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sat Sep 24, 2005 8:48 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 57):
What a statements, full of .... & you know it. Of each seat type you usually have 6 -7 sub types per aircraft type & you specify them different for each new aircraft type.

You obviously don't understand what QF is aiming to achieve with their new fleet. They are looking to standardise their product offered to that on the A380. That includes a significant reduction in sub-types.

Before I forget, you also said this:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 35):
In that respect the a346's extra 14 ft really makes a difference in comfortably housing as many passengers as possible, also in the cargo belly it makes a difference.

Bzzzt.

1. The A346 is 4' longer than the B773ER, not 14'.
2. The A346 carries 42 LD-3s; the B773ER carries 44. So, the B773ER has more room for cargo.
3. Considering that you made your A346 claim on being 14' longer, is it any wonder that people think you are deluded. Do us all a favour, and before you comment on an airline configuration that you don't know about, at least check your facts about the respective airplanes!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 59):
Just because someone works for an airline doesn't make him/her obviously know more.

https://www.airliners.net/discussions...neral_aviation/read.main/227333/6/

Stop worshipping & stick to facts iso views brought up as facts.

You are no Sherlock Holmes.  Yeah sure

If you bothered to look at my registration date, you will have noted that I joined A.net on 26-May-00. Yet, the post that you quoted was posted on 24-May-00 -- two days earlier!

So, how on this great earth could I have possibly claimed that QF had bought B777s? I obviously couldn't have.

Furthermore, if you had bothered to look up my first two posts to A.net in 2000 (I didn't make my third until 2005) that I never made such a claim. Obviously, PerthWA had incorrectly remembered someone else's username.

I expect a full apology from you, Keesje. You have shown both with your claims on airplanes and now this slanderous attempt against me that you are incapable of finding even elementary facts.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 66):
QFA001, having been both in-directly and directly involved with the industry for nearly a decade now, and I recognize that the knowledge level on a forum such as this is going to vary from highly technical to novice. Therefore I generally have the patience for most everyone.

I hope that I have never treated a novice poorly. If I have, I apologise. However, I would never apologise to those who falsify facts. Unfortunately, some users see fit to continue to pledge fiction rather than fact.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 66):
Though obviously I can't ask you anything that would violate any binding contracts you may still be under, but do you have an idea of the impetus that changed QF's direction on the ULR?

I do have an idea. I'll save it for those beers that we'll share down the track.  Wink

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 66):
And FJ has been linked to SQ recently as well, have they not?

Well, they do have SQ B744s on lease and considered SQ B772ERs, too. However, I don't think their relationship extends to the A350/B787 contest.

 airplane QFA001
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10143
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:28 am

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 66):
And FJ has been linked to SQ recently as well,

B747-412s, leased from SQ
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14778
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sat Sep 24, 2005 8:34 pm

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 69):
Considering that you made your A346 claim on being 14' longer,

As you could have read I was talking about the 772.


Quoting QFA001 (Reply 69):
So, how on this great earth could I have possibly claimed that QF had bought B777s?

That it must have been a different QFA001 that claimed the 777 was ordered (however "a" QFA001 did post in the same thread, reply 24..)
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10143
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sat Sep 24, 2005 8:50 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 71):
(however "a" QFA001 did post in the same thread, reply 24..)

On the 27th, 1 day after QFA001 said he joined a.net.
 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:08 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 71):
As you could have read I was talking about the 772.

Rubbish. Not only did you not mention the B772, but the A346 is 37' longer than a B772, not 14'. But let's not let facts ruin a good Keesje story...

Here's a tip for you: go back to the drawing board.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 71):
That it must have been a different QFA001 that claimed the 777 was ordered...



Is that your lame-ass attempt at an apology, is it?  

Anyway, IIRC, it was a user by name "QFA747" or similar that made the claim. The claim was based on an article in ATW.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 71):
...(however "a" QFA001 did post in the same thread, reply 24..)

Yes. Me. So?

  QFA001

[Edited 2005-09-25 00:10:43]
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14778
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:38 am

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 73):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 71):
As you could have read I was talking about the 772.

Rubbish. Not only did you not mention the B772

Again: you could have read I was talking about the 772

Quoting Keesje (Reply 68):
Back to Qantas a 772 & A346 would both most probably have a six abreast cabin, the A340 is longer.



Quoting QFA001 (Reply 73):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 71):
...(however "a" QFA001 did post in the same thread, reply 24..)

Yes. Me. So?

QFA001 From Australia, joined May 2000, 565 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted Sat May 27 2000 00:53:39 UTC+2 and read 353 times:

You guys have got to keep the faith in QFA001.


 idea 

FYI I´m not further wasting my time again on this
 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:00 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 74):
Again: you could have read I was talking about the 772

Keesje, one of the strongest points against you is that you seem to be the only one who "knows" what you are talking about. Typically, if someone is talking about something, they will actually mention that something. You said that the A346 was 14' longer than "something". Well, the A346 is closer to being 14' longer than the B773 than the B772. Also, the A346 is generally regarded to be in competition with the B773, not the B772.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 74):
FYI I´m not further wasting my time again on this

Here is what is going to happen, then: because you made a claim against me that was untrue and failed to apologise, I will be launching a formal and direct complaint to A.net for (an admittedly trivial, but important) slander against me and indirectly against my former employer.

Eventually, you are going to have to answer for your false accusations.

Have a nice day.

 airplane QFA001
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16423
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:53 pm

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 75):
Also, the A346 is generally regarded to be in competition with the B773

You always seem to compare a 550 seat aircraft (773ER) to a 440 seat (A346). They are not in the same market, you cannot do the full 773ER load with a A346, however if you have a A346 load, the A346 will do that trip cheaper than a 773ER will do it as its being used closer to its optimum design than the 773ER.

The 773ER is seen to be a replacement for the 744, the A346 a replacement for the 743.

The Q network needs A380, 744, 773/773ER, A346, A330, 738/A320. It also desperately needs to retire all the fuel hungry 734, 767's, and 743's.

The 773/773ER is needed as a feeder for the 380 in the Asian hubs, and for direct flights to northern China and India and other parts of Asia that the 743 is used for. The A346 is needed on the network where a 773ER is too big for some of its longer thin routes, and would open up ports that they pulled out of like Rome and Paris where the 744 is too expensive.

Australia has only a small population (20 million area) throwing excess capacity onto a network does not mean you will be able to utilise all that capacity. It is obvious that flying around with excess unused capacity does not return dividends to the shareholders, when does not lead to bonuses for board members or senior management.

The 330 is a default winner for some routes, nothing is around today that can do the 250-300 seat market as efficiently as the 330, the long term plan, 5-10 years away, the 787/350 will come into play. However a fix is needed now for the 767.

For example SQ operates 3x777 services a day to BNE from SIN, whilst QF will operate one A333. SQ will on average take 400-500 pax and 60 t of freight over its three daily services, QF 300 pax an 20 t of freight on one service. QF's yield is much higher on the route than SQ.

SQ needs the flights to give its frequency it needs for on carriage in and out of SIN, their main hub is SIN, they have connecting flight leaving all the time, however they don’t have a smaller aircraft than 772 on the route.

QF don’t need the frequency, as all flights from Australia to Singapore arrive within an hour or two of each other, and passengers transferred onto the other QF, or QF codeshare flight onwards out of SIN to Europe that leave around the same time.

As for the skybeds issue, what skybed has been fitted to a 737, 767, 743 ?

My understanding is that the skybed was always designed with a 744 cabin footprint, marketing in their "wisdom" wanted to extend them to the 330 but not the 767. This is for a common look and feel for their onward journey if transferring to an European service from an Asian hub. The sector lengths on the A333 are not like the 744 onto Europe or USA.

As for the 330 order configuration, Airbus supplied the product specified by the client (QF). The people in QF who ordered the configuration that did not meet QF needs got their bonuses and left QF. The mess has been left with others to fix up.

Galley configurations are not made by Airbus, the same people who make the 767 galley make the A330 one at QF, QF could have had a 767 galley in the 330 if they had ordered and paid for it.

IFE configurations are not made by Airbus, the same people who make the 744 IFE make the A330 one for QF, however the A330 is different, more advanced, it has movies on demand, and more features, whereas the 744 is fixed time slots I think its 2.5 hrs a loop, then they get rewound.

Cabin crew complain about the internal lighting controls on the A330, the one supplied to QF is they one they ordered, other airlines like CX and EK chose a different configuration that has mood lighting. QF could always upgrade if they wanted to, its not seen as a real issue.

As for ETOPS statistics mentioned above, the FAA does not do ETOPS statistics for any Australian airline. ETOPS statistics are three fold, one involved the engine variant worldwide, e.g. CFM56 installations on A320/737/A340/KC135/E3/DC8, about 160 million flight hours, and then the engine airframe combination say 738 18 million flight hours, and then the operator QF.

The three levels are there to look at the worldwide core reliability of the engine, the worldwide engine airframe combination, and thirdly the operator. The operator statistics are there to see if local operating techniques, operation areas, ordered configuration, or maintenance procedures warrant an increase or decrees in the ETOPS approval or any approval at all.

If the engine, airframe/engine, and operator meet the requirements the local authority, this case CASA will issue the ETOPS approval. It has nothing to do with the FAA.

Instead of debating what airframe can do what, QF fleet planning will first get marketing to look at its network, what are its yields over different routes, what are the loads, what is the anticipated growth.

Marketing will look to see what seating configurations they will suit them for the routes and yields, e.g. the seating configuration for the USA routes are different to the European routes. These are translated into loads and used by the operations people.

At the same time as looking at the seating configurations, fleet planning will be getting the operations people to run dummy flight plans through the flight planning computer with book minus 1%-2% fuel burns, utilizing loads supplied fleet planning, as the loads will effect the fuel burn also. This will give the planning people know what the real costs (route and landing and parking charges) for the airframe on the network, and what the real fuel loads will be meeting the Australian requirements, and QF fuel policy requirements in terms of suitable alternate aerodromes, depressurisation, and one engine inoperative critical legs, and average seasonal hold fuel for destinations.

Quite often for long haul flying the flight fuel for a say a 10 hour leg is less than the fuel required to say get half way, depressurise, and then fly to a QF approved emergency aerodrome. The 773ER poses a number of new issues as the high tire pressures make it unsuitable for operating into most Australian airports at max weight, and significantly limits what emergency aerodromes are available that meet the Australian regulations.

You may remember that AF has been caught out at some of its aerodromes with the tire pressure issue on the 773ER.

The manufacturers web sites normally don’t take into account realistic requirements like a depressurised diversion to an emergency aerodrome when they specify the range of their aircraft, however an airline must take this into account for every flight.

Fleet planning will also call for and receive submission from manufacturers for the supply of equipment, with basic and optional costs, and contract terms.

Commercial risk will also be assessed, with both manufactures not in the good books at the moment. Boeing unable to deliver 737 and 777 airframes timely, and Airbus with A380 delays. The commercial consider will be how will this relate to expected delivery dates in 2007.

Once that is done then a complex recommendation is made to the board with all the inputs to the matrix.

Above is a simplistic summary of the process, all it is doing is seeking what tool is best suited for the job for the next 5-10 years. Anything beyond that is just guess work.

Most of the debate on this site is ill informed and misdirected. No point arguing what aircraft can do what, when you don’t know what the aircraft needs to do for the client. I guess in simple terms the horse pulls the cart, the cart cannot pull the horse.
 
blsbls99
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:07 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:02 pm

Why are Qantas and CX evaluating the A340-600 and 777-300ER as if they are competing airframes then? As did Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic and Singapore Airlines...
The 777-300ER seats 550??
 
Adam T.
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 7:01 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:13 pm

A few clarifications if I may so request:

The 787's are being looked at as a possible 763 replacement, right? Does this include intl. routes that the 763 uses as well, in particular to New Zealand and Hawaii? Or will the A330s be used on those routes?

I know someone mentioned the 773ER as a replacement for the 743s and to be used on routes to Asia to free up the 744ER's for flights to Europe and North America. But why is the 777LR being looked at? Is it for replacement as well or strictly for expansion?

Cheers

Adam  Smile
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16423
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:23 pm

Quoting Blsbls99 (Reply 77):
Why are Qantas and CX evaluating the A340-600 and 777-300ER as if they are competing airframes then?

Because 350 passengers don’t magically book flights with you if you have 350 empty seats. For CX the 773ER is too small for Taiwan, and too big for Adelaide, just right for others. Airframes need to match route structures, route structures don’t get built around airframes.

Quoting Blsbls99 (Reply 77):
The 777-300ER seats 550??

That’s what its certified for.
 
blsbls99
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:07 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:30 pm

And the A340-600 is certified for how many passengers?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16423
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:37 pm

Quoting Blsbls99 (Reply 80):
And the A340-600 is certified for how many passengers?

440 as per my pervious post
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10143
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:43 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 76):
It also desperately needs to retire all the fuel hungry 734

What happened to the rumor of QF giving some of its B734s to Jetconnect (Qantas New Zealand) as B733 replacements

Quoting Zeke (Reply 76):
As for the skybeds issue, what skybed has been fitted to a 737, 767, 743 ?

B737s don't have Skybeds. I know B743s have them but not sure about B767s

Quoting Zeke (Reply 76):
You always seem to compare a 550 seat aircraft (773ER) to a 440 seat (A346).

550 seats would be all economy. Qf would never operate them like that, unless QF wants to be knowen as Sardine Class on them.

Quoting Adam T. (Reply 78):
The 787's are being looked at as a possible 763 replacement, right? Does this include intl. routes that the 763 uses as well, in particular to New Zealand and Hawaii?

Yes B787s are being looked at for B763 replacement. B787-3 for Domestic, could these be used on some short haul international also? B787-8s for International flights that currently use B763s (New Zealand and Pacific Island flights)

Quoting Adam T. (Reply 78):
But why is the 777LR being looked at?

QF wants ULH aircraft for by-passing other airports which would require a fuel stop with other aircraft, like LAX for example with B744s on LHR flights.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16423
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:42 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 82):
What happened to the rumor of QF giving some of its B734s to Jetconnect (Qantas New Zealand) as B733 replacements

The majority of the Jetconnect business is a labor hire company for long haul cabin crew, last I heard it had about 1000 cabin crew used on QF long haul.

Jetstar has stated to take over Jetconnect on the trans-tasman run, and will expand the NZ base further. Jetconnect with 737's days are numbered.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 82):
B737s don't have Skybeds. I know B743s have them but not sure about B767s

My point exactly, they will not fit in them either. As for the 743 with skybeds, that’s news to me, last I heard they had only 3 out of the 6 743's flying, none of which I thought had skybeds.

More than happy to be corrected.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 82):
550 seats would be all economy. Qf would never operate them like that, unless QF wants to be knowen as Sardine Class on them.

My point exactly, 550 is the maximum certified passengers load for the 773ER, and 440 max certified for the A346, and 660 is the maximum certified for the 744. Qantas flies some of their 744's with only 343 pax, i.e. 52% of the maximum certified passenger load.

On a thinner route a A346 will do 300 pax for about 50% of the cost of a 744.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 82):
QF wants ULH aircraft for by-passing other airports which would require a fuel stop with other aircraft, like LAX for example with B744s on LHR flights.

A380s will be going onto trunk routes like HKG-LHR, SIN-LHR, SYD-LAX, MEL-LAX freeing up 744's

My understanding is that ULH will not be an immediate decision, east coast Australia to east coast USA, and east coast Australia to Europe, problems with both manufactures being able to do viable non-stop return trips.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10143
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:45 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 83):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 82):
What happened to the rumor of QF giving some of its B734s to Jetconnect (Qantas New Zealand) as B733 replacements

The majority of the Jetconnect business is a labor hire company for long haul cabin crew, last I heard it had about 1000 cabin crew used on QF long haul.

Nope. QF long haul FAs based in NZ are not Jetconnect employees.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 83):
As for the 743 with skybeds, that’s news to me, last I heard they had only 3 out of the 6 743's flying,

As Part of QFs plans for extending the life of the B743s, Skybeds were installed on them. Only one B743 is now in storage in AVV


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Phil Vabre



Quoting Zeke (Reply 83):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 82):
QF wants ULH aircraft for by-passing other airports which would require a fuel stop with other aircraft, like LAX for example with B744s on LHR flights.

A380s will be going onto trunk routes like HKG-LHR, SIN-LHR, SYD-LAX, MEL-LAX freeing up 744's

Yes A380s would go main trunk but either A345 or B772LR would also go main trunk on flights to LHR etc
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:15 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 84):
As Part of QFs plans for extending the life of the B743s, Skybeds were installed on them.

Negative. No Skybeds on the 747-300s, they have the older Dreamtime seat.

V/F
 
Adam T.
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 7:01 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:18 pm

Is the 777LR also being considered for possible expansion into other areas of North America and Europe?

Also, what are the A330s at QF being primarily used for now that they weren't too successful on the domestic Australian routes?

Thanks guys  Smile
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10143
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:24 pm

Quoting Adam T. (Reply 86):
Also, what are the A330s at QF being primarily used for now that they weren't too successful on the domestic Australian routes?

Asian routes

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 85):
No Skybeds on the 747-300s, they have the older Dreamtime seat.

Do the B743s have a new cabin
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:54 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 76):
You always seem to compare a 550 seat aircraft (773ER) to a 440 seat (A346). They are not in the same market, you cannot do the full 773ER load with a A346, however if you have a A346 load, the A346 will do that trip cheaper than a 773ER will do it as its being used closer to its optimum design than the 773ER.

Well, Airbus seems to think they compete and are in the same market as they have gone head-to-head with Boeing at Singapore, Air India, Air Canada, Jet Airways, Qantas, and Cathay.

In fact, the 773ER and A346HGW have nearly identical payload-range. Your comparison of certified passenger loads is irrelevant. When Airbus modified the initial A346 to create the A346HGW, it increased the MZFW to match the 773ER. This a better measure of the market the airplanes compete in.

The main differences are that the A346HGW OEW is about 13-14 tonne higher and its MTOW is 28.5 tonne more. The A346HGW is not more efficient or cheaper to operate than the 773ER at any payload or any range.

Given the difference in OEW, a 773ER with about 110 passengers onboard has the same zero fuel weight as a completely empty A346HGW. This weight difference alone would result in the A346 burning about 6% more fuel than the 773ER. When you combine the better aerodynamics and engine SFC of the 773ER, the advantage grows to 8 - 10%. As confirmation, the standard/optional fuel volumes Airbus quotes for the A346HGW are about this much higher than the 773ER fuel volume.
 
onedude
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:28 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:23 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 87):
Do the B743s have a new cabin

As stated above, no Skybeds on the 743s, but the cabin has been "refreshed" with the international economy seating and in seat AV (a huge improvement on the 80s style seating) and business class has the Dreamtime seats out of the 744's.

I heard the 743's were only staying around until the A380's arrived, but I guess with the delay on these, it might be a bit longer than anyone thought.

Cheers.
 
NumberTwelve
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:57 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:38 pm

I highly doubt that QF will buy the T7 because of optical reasons (T7 looking great in QF colours) - when they need that plane, they will buy. Very simple.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16423
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:51 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 88):
Given the difference in OEW, a 773ER with about 110 passengers onboard has the same zero fuel weight as a completely empty A346HGW. This weight difference alone would result in the A346 burning about 6% more fuel than the 773ER. When you combine the better aerodynamics and engine SFC of the 773ER, the advantage grows to 8 - 10%. As confirmation, the standard/optional fuel volumes Airbus quotes for the A346HGW are about this much higher than the 773ER fuel volume.

This is factually incorrect. An Australian registered and operated 773ER cannot plan to depart or use an alternate whereby the maximum PCN/ACN for the pavement will be exceeded.

Only one airport in Australia, Sydney can accomodate a 773ER unrestricted without pavement concessions, every other airport in Australia is restricted as due to the PCN for the subgrade of the runway. Darwin and Perth also fail on maximum PSI.

Yes you can operate to and from other ports than SYD with concessions or reduced payloads, if you do so you need to make allowance for that in your comparison. If you dont make allowance for that in your comparison, you dont understand the market or the client.

On a SYD-JNB flight the payload is very limited with a 773ER, Australian rules prevent flights further than 65S for all aircraft, and for ETOPS a northerly track would be required which put you into the jetstreams, then the additional problem of no suitable alternates for a lot of the flight requireing large amount of diversion fuel, I am talking in the order of 3-4 hours additional of contingency fuel alone for the 773ER, not to mention the higher average headwind.

All the fancy numbers you have given above are unrealistic, they do not take into account Australian regulatory requirements, and the QF planning requirements for alternates, refiles, and diversions, and ETOPS.

In addition the 777 will not get automatic ETOPS approval in Australia, further limiting the payload and range on introduction.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 88):
In fact, the 773ER and A346HGW have nearly identical payload-range. Your comparison of certified passenger loads is irrelevant. When Airbus modified the initial A346 to create the A346HGW, it increased the MZFW to match the 773ER. This a better measure of the market the airplanes compete in.

I will agree to disagree, the A346 is closer to a 772 than a 773ER, its been marketed against a 773ER as for many routes a 744 or 773ER is too much capacity. Boeing and yourself are saying bigger is better, Airbus is saying yield is better than size.

The airline I am with we have the 773 configured for 385 pax, 772 for 336 pax and the 346 for 278. Like QF these are close to the 60-70% mark of the maximum certifed pax number for the aircraft types.

So for us, a route that we have a 90% yeild on a for the 346, would have a 65% yeild on the 773, i.e. a 25% waste of capacity if a 773 was used.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:01 am

After other distractions in recent days I tried to read all of this thread.

It seems to me that some people are painting themselves into a difficult corner.

We have to ask the question why Qantas might not do what almost everyone things they will do, and buy medium sized Boeings rather than Airbuses.

Among the reasons that might crop up are 1...Contractual reluctance on the part of Boeing to guarantee everything Qantas deems essential in whichever 777s or 787s it would otherwise buy, and 2...Specific issues which may render the Boeings uniquely unsuited to some routes, such as to South Africa or South America.

Personally, I still think the 777 stands an excellent chance. Despite the concerns expressed about pavement strengths I see many 777s successfully flying through mahjor Australian airports for profitable carriers like EK and SQ as well as carriers that are not in dire financial straights.

Provided the 787 models are not going to turn out too heavy I cannot for the life of me see why this incredibly desirable jet won't also be selected for an important role in the future.

But no-one among the major Qantas competitors is going broke flying A345s or A346s. I've just done more flights on the EK A345 and Sydney-Bangkok on the 773ER. Got to say both are wonderful jets but the Airbus is supremely quiet and the 777 is a noisy shed by comparison. I'm ignoring product issues here, because EK could have chosen to put the suites into the Boeing but went for a less luxurious fit out than the A345.

Emirates is said by European analysts to be planning to use its A380s to great effect on all sorts of routes where the Boeing analysis says they won't work. I suspect they will work, and I think Boeing will have to respond with an all new VLA, not just stretches, but external factors including the state of the energy crisis and international trade really do caste a deep shadow over the future.

Antares
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:50 am

A question for Antares......
are there any indications from your contacts that QF could be talking to CASA about ETOPS 330 in respect of the -300ER and the -200LR?
 
georgiabill
Topic Author
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 11:53 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:07 am

Then should Boeing go ahead with the 747ADV wouldn't Qantas be eyed as a potential customer?
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:43 am

SunriseValley,

Hi. We don't make any inquiries with CASA. If we have a question we ask one of a very few technical media people to find out. The last time we did that was to try and ascertain how serious the maintenance situation was with Ansett. The answers made us stop flying Ansett. To specifically answer your question...I can't. I just don't know.

But I do know that Qantas takes a very hard (and proper) view of the ferocious operating realities of deep southern latitudes. They spend a lot of time rehearsing the most awful scenarios you could imagine for a crisis on one of their 744 sightseeing flights to the ice. Those southern latitudes comprise a vastly more intimidating environment than the high northern latitudes for a whole range of reasons apparently.

Georgiabill. Hi. Logic may or may not say Yes but Qantas shows zero interest in a jet which will not solve any of its growth issues over slot constained city pairs.

The real question I think is whether or not they are contemplating using the A380 stretch around 2012. The history of the 747 suggests the same may apply in this case. I will have that question asked when the next opportunity arises.

Antares
 
RichardJF
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 7:07 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:11 am

Quoting Antares (Reply 92):
Emirates is said by European analysts to be planning to use its A380s to great effect on all sorts of routes where the Boeing analysis says they won't work

The A380's are of course uniquely suited to what Emirates is trying to do.
The knock on effect on SQ,TG,MH will make non economic ideas such as QF flying to London less and less viable. QF should just run A380's in a premium arrangement and depart the bottom end the market to London so as to not tie up too many planes making nothing.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:52 am

RichardJF,

I think that had merit before the yields on the top end of the market fell apart. At the moment Qantas will try to sell you first class return to London from SYD/MEL for almost $A 15,000, when the going price a year ago was just over $10K or slightly less than they try to sell business class for at the moment.

But those figures are for rich individuals, of whom there are too few. Most of the premium sales go to corporate accounts, and jacking up the 'official' fares is an attempt from where we sit to claw back to the blood letting in the corporate accounts caused by their good friends in CX,SQ and of course EK.

Estimates vary, but I think there just aren't enough premium plus premium discounted corporate account fares out there to make your idea work anymore.

But all is not lost. I'm increasingly of the view that Qantas will get a breakthrough agreement from the Feral governmint to lift the limitations on foreign ownership in Qantas, which means it will solve a number of very large funding issues rather faster than some of us dared believe a year ago.

This in turn will give Qantas much more of the equality of opportunity it has been arguing for in relation to the unfair competition it alleges (not always convincingly) comes from SQ and EK and so forth.

As a result Qantas will be better able to deal with EK, and may even force it to blink in the Australian and New Zealand market.

Antares
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:20 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 88):
Given the difference in OEW, a 773ER with about 110 passengers onboard has the same zero fuel weight as a completely empty A346HGW. This weight difference alone would result in the A346 burning about 6% more fuel than the 773ER. When you combine the better aerodynamics and engine SFC of the 773ER, the advantage grows to 8 - 10%. As confirmation, the standard/optional fuel volumes Airbus quotes for the A346HGW are about this much higher than the 773ER fuel volume.

This is factually incorrect. An Australian registered and operated 773ER cannot plan to depart or use an alternate whereby the maximum PCN/ACN for the pavement will be exceeded.

What did I say that was factually incorrect? I was talking about airplane efficiency. Where did I say anything about pavement loading?

But since we're on the subject, it is an interesting topic. Consider that the 773ER and the A346HGW have the same number of main gear tires. Since the A346HGW weighs more than the 773ER (380t vs 351.5t) each of its tires puts about 8% more load on the pavement than the 773ER. The distribution is different though since the A346HGW gear is 3X4 while the 773ER is 2X6.

What does this all mean? Well in general, the A346HGW arrangement is better for rigid pavements like concrete while the 7773ER is better for flexible pavement like asphalt. In actuality, each airport needs to be approached on a individual basis since pavement type and thickness as well as the substrate needs to be considered. However, given its lower wheel loading, the 773ER usually has a slight advantage.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
I will agree to disagree, the A346 is closer to a 772 than a 773ER, its been marketed against a 773ER as for many routes a 744 or 773ER is too much capacity. Boeing and yourself are saying bigger is better, Airbus is saying yield is better than size.

The airline I am with we have the 773 configured for 385 pax, 772 for 336 pax and the 346 for 278. Like QF these are close to the 60-70% mark of the maximum certifed pax number for the aircraft types.

How do you like working for CX?

The passenger counts you are quoting reflect the different nature of the routes these airplanes are used on. The CX 773 flies regional routes while their A346 flies to JFK. The 773 doesn't have the payload range capability to fly HKG - JFK and CX didn't by it to do so.

The CX A346's are configured at 278 so they can fly HKG - JFK. While they could carry the same number of passengers as a CX 773 ala LH, they couldn't carry that many on the route nor would the comfort level be the same.

You need to compare the two models CX is now considering for this route, the A346HGW and the 773ER.

Let's assume the same passenger count for the A346HGW is the same as the CX A346, 278 pax. The 773ER has more than 10% more floor area so it can carry about 10% more pax. Let's assume the 773ER can carry 305 pax at the same comfort level.

With each pax at 110 kg (includes bags), the 773ER payload will be 3t heavier than the A346HGW. But the OEW of the A346 starts out at least 13t higher than the 773ER. Therefore, the ZFW of the 773ER will be 10t lighter than the A346HGW. All other things being equal, the 773ER will burn less fuel than the A346HGW and be cheaper to operate while having the advantage of carrying a potential 27 more revenue passengers.

If the passengers aren't there, the 773ER is still cheaper to operate at the same revenue because its ZFW advantage is now 13t.

Of course this isn't the whole story because airplane purchase price impacts total airplane economics. By keeping the A346HGW price low, Airbus can still compete but at the potential cost to their bottom line.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
All the fancy numbers you have given above are unrealistic, they do not take into account Australian regulatory requirements, and the QF planning requirements for alternates, refiles, and diversions, and ETOPS.

In addition the 777 will not get automatic ETOPS approval in Australia, further limiting the payload and range on introduction.

There is nothing fancy about the numbers I've given. They're a very simple but accurate approach to airplane operations.

The A346 must also face the same QF planning and Australian regulatory requirements. With regard to ETOPS, Qantas and CASA have been pioneers in this area. I suspect the 777 will have no more problems than the 767 did previously.

JNB - SYD operation is a challenge, but the establishment of 330 min ETOPS requirements, expected in Dec '05, should make the route feasible.
 
RichardJF
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 7:07 pm

RE: Qantas And The 777, How Soon?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:53 am

Antares - You made a point a while back that 787's could fly CBR-LAX and CBR-HGK and got dumped on by somebody.
The way of the future is CBR-LAX-Salzburg-HGK-CBR
ADL-SFO-Salzburg-KIX-ADL
Whose flying LAX-Pisa (tuscany) nobody is.

QF and obviously NZ can't focus on flying their own citizens to London.
It is simply a dead end street. They should if at all do it based around flying some exotic route to get there.
The A380's make good sense for SAA because they can fly nonstop to London, Frankfurt, JFK, HGK.
QF should look to do a tie up with SAA and send their A380's over to JNB.

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