RichardJF,

Being dumped on here is nothing like being dumped on in the real world, no disrespect to any members either.

This is quite a civilised place to exchange views.

I have to disagree on your routing proposals, interesting though they may be.

Qantas does extremely well from O & D traffic non-stop from here to LAX, and despite crying poor over the competition to London, does very well there too. It has the frequency, the brand, and the straight through via SIN/BKK/HGW flight times that the market wants.

The 787/whatever purchase will allow it to more efficiently feed those major A380 routes with passengers from the likes of Perth, or Auckland, and I believe one day Canberra, at the Asia hub that doesn't involve backtracking and the perdition of connecting in Sydney inparticular.

The medium sized jets will prove very important in addressing new opportunities in China, India, Japan etc. But they will have to be wary of the use by EK of the A380s on such routes, because Qantas believes were strongly that this jet will have a potent cost per seat mile advantage over anything else in the sky, causing quite a tussle even in airports where convenional wisdom would say you don't offer a very large jet.

As I said earlier, we may all been proven to be dreamers...the world could turn very nasty for this industry if the fuel and general economic factors go the wrong way, or we suffer a pandemic of bird 'flu.

Antares

My examples are probably not that good.
Lets take as an example if you said AO should run SYD-SIN-ATH 3x per week
thats probably a low/no profit idea.
If you start thinking QF flying SYD-SIN-ATH-BCN-LAX-SYD it could well be a winner.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 98): What did I say that was factually incorrect? I was talking about airplane efficiency.

Considering this thread is about Qantas 777's, the numbers would only be factually correct if your operating over continental USA LAX-JFK. The numbers don’t represent the real considerations operating internationally out of Australia for an Australian carrier.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 98): 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.

Incorrect. They are configured that way as that’s the loads we needed to carry over a number of routes at the time. CX have 3 class, LH is 2 class.

As far as I know the CX 346 airframes are leased, not purchased, the current 330/343/346 fleet has its place for the CX network, it’s making money with good yield. CX A346 MTOW is 368t, these are early airframe A346. What weights do the A346HGW give you ? or are they the same with a 30% lighter wing ?

I am not going to sit up on a soap box and say the 346 is the wonder aircraft that will do all jobs better over all routes. I am realistic, I know it has its market and the 777/773ER has its.

Unlike Australia, Hong Kong has 1/3 of the worlds population within 3 hrs flying time of the main hub, CX needs capacity on some routes, that’s where the 380/744/773ER/773 come in, also have a good network, and the 346 is a better ship for some of those routes.
The majority of long haul flying in and out of Australia is done in quads, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Likewise the majority of medium haul flying is done by twins and will continue to do so. A number of long haul routes out of Australia are "thin", with a 346 better suited.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 98): 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.

777 being a twin will need more contingency fuel than a quad so your extra passenger numbers just get eaten away and weight differences get eaten away. Real world considerations ... very little difference between them, and can lean more towards the 346 seasonally with enroute diversion airport weather considerations.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 98): However, given its lower wheel loading, the 773ER usually has a slight advantage.

You comments in general are correct, except tire pressure on the 773ER is higher with 1.5 MPa being higher than the 346, 773, 772, 744, and A380. If my memory servers correct the cutover in Australia is 1.50 MPa with below 1.50 MPa being low or medium, 1.50 and above unrestricted.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 98): JNB - SYD operation is a challenge, but the establishment of 330 min ETOPS requirements, expected in Dec '05, should make the route feasible.

What the FAA does with ETOPS approvals is irrelevant for Australia. Australia approves its own ETOPS certifications for each operator, and each airframe/engine combination. VB does not have any ETOPS approval at all for the 737/738 despite the 737/738 having FAA ETOPS approval and about 16 million flight hours.

If QF goes for a mix of 772/773/773ER it could mean three different ETOPS approvals relating to three different airframe engine combinations for the one operator.

The Australian population base, the geographic isolation a closer comparison with South African Airlines than any other North American or Asian carrier. I think they will go for a 772/773 combination for Asian routes, I am not convinced yet about the long haul 772LR or 773ER for their geographic location and their demographic distribution.

Zeke,

so now you have QF and CX lined up to operate 773ER/346HGW in the same fleet??? Just won't happen. It will be one or the other. At QF it won't be the 346, but CX may be a different case.
I know EK/EY have ordered both 346/773ER, and I would think the EK 346 order is in real jeopardy as they look headed down the 359/777 pathway, but it just doesn't make sense for most airlines to operate them side-by-side.
The only route in the QF network that favours the 346 over the 773ER is SYD-JNB. Keep 747s on it until 330 ETOPS is in place would be my solution.
I would also contend that EK/EY ordered their 346s a way before their 773ERs. In hindsight, I don't think they would have gone with the 346.
There will be none to very few airlines that will operate both 773ER/346.
You are good at rambling out data(which others appear to think dubious), but good ol' commonsense tells you that the 773ER is the more capable plane, competes directly with the 346/346HGW, will dominate this segment of the market, and very few airlines will consider a 773ER/346 fleet.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 103): Zeke, so now you have QF and CX lined up to operate 773ER/346HGW in the same fleet??? Just won't happen. It will be one or the other. At QF it won't be the 346, but CX may be a different case. I know EK/EY have ordered both 346/773ER, and I would think the EK 346 order is in real jeopardy as they look headed down the 359/777 pathway, but it just doesn't make sense for most airlines to operate them side-by-side. The only route in the QF network that favours the 346 over the 773ER is SYD-JNB. Keep 747s on it until 330 ETOPS is in place would be my solution. I would also contend that EK/EY ordered their 346s a way before their 773ERs. In hindsight, I don't think they would have gone with the 346. There will be none to very few airlines that will operate both 773ER/346. You are good at rambling out data(which others appear to think dubious), but good ol' commonsense tells you that the 773ER is the more capable plane, competes directly with the 346/346HGW, will dominate this segment of the market, and very few airlines will consider a 773ER/346 fleet.

Well said Dalecary. That 'rambling' was becoming tiresome. It seemed that whatever anyone said (in particular OldAeroGuy) was discounted in favour of some 'spin' back towrds justifying the A346. Leave it be Zeke and let the 773ER prove itself, which I'm sure it will and with Qantas too.

Dalecarey,

You've gone and done it now. They're sure to order 60 of them just to grind us into the carpet.

Antares

Quoting Antares (Reply 105): Dalecarey, You've gone and done it now. They're sure to order 60 of them just to grind us into the carpet. Antares

I sincerely hope not Antares. There appears to be little doubt that the A340 has been overlooked at QF. However, I give the A350 some chance, but it's hard to see what Airbus can come with as a 763 replacement on domestic and Trans-Tasman routes.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 102): The numbers don’t represent the real considerations operating internationally out of Australia for an Australian carrier.

Zeke, what are some of these "real considerations." I do understand the lack of ETOPS 330 for SYD-JNB.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 102): 777 being a twin will need more contingency fuel than a quad so your extra passenger numbers just get eaten away and weight differences get eaten away.

I assume this is one of the "real considerations." Could you please explain why a twin needs more contingency fuel? Something to do with engine out performance?

-iwok

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 103): so now you have QF and CX lined up to operate 773ER/346HGW in the same fleet???

Read my post again, I said I think QF will go 773/772, just not sure about the 773ER. I never said it was a race between the 346 and 773ER, 744's, 772LR and 345 are also options.

CX do operate 330/343/346/772/773/743/744. Our route network and city pairs are not the same as QF, and we carry a lot more people and cargo than QF with a lower cost base than QF. What is good for us or SQ is not necessarily best for QF.

340/777 mix is not just at CX, Air France, Thai, Air Canada ?, Singapore, Emirates, Etihad, Austrian, Air China and Egyptair come to mind.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 103): Keep 747s on it until 330 ETOPS is in place would be my solution.

Not going to happen, distance is too far for the A333. Saw a QF RMS the other day, from some of the charts I think they already do have some form or ETOPS approval for the A333.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 103): The only route in the QF network that favours the 346 over the 773ER is SYD-JNB.

I would beg to differ, look at the current and past code share routes as well. It is obvious to me that along with new aircraft will be a route expansion, current pilot EBA negotiations seem to indicate some other developments as well.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 103): You are good at rambling out data(which others appear to think dubious), but good ol' commonsense tells you that the 773ER is the more capable plane, competes directly with the 346/346HGW, will dominate this segment of the market, and very few airlines will consider a 773ER/346 fleet.

I don’t disagree that the 773ER is a more capable aircraft. However the decision is not a simple range/payload issue.

What I am saying is ... a 773ER cannot compete on a route that is best for a 380, and a 346 cannot compete on a route that is best for a 773ER. What factors are taking into account to determine "the best" is a complex process, and the full details of which will never be made public as its commercially sensitive.

I would be one of the few with 744/343/346 experience about, with plenty of mates flying the 777, yourself and others are very quick to shoot me down when you don’t have any experience on a 777 or 340 and keep referring to your trusted sources being the internet.

If I don’t know something about the 330/340, I have the manuals here and can look it up, 777 info just ask my mates.

All I have tried to show is the decision is complex and other considerations apart from payload/range exist.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 108): Quoting Dalecary (Reply 103): so now you have QF and CX lined up to operate 773ER/346HGW in the same fleet??? Read my post again, I said I think QF will go 773/772, just not sure about the 773ER. I never said it was a race between the 346 and 773ER, 744's, 772LR and 345 are also options. But you clearly hinted that there were routes better suited in the QF network for both the 773ER/A346, and that they were different enough to order both. That's the way it read to me, anyway. You are suggesting the same with CX and we both know QF/CX aren't going to order both A346/773ER. CX do operate 330/343/346/772/773/743/744. Our route network and city pairs are not the same as QF, and we carry a lot more people and cargo than QF with a lower cost base than QF. What is good for us or SQ is not necessarily best for QF. 340/777 mix is not just at CX, Air France, Thai, Air Canada ?, Singapore, Emirates, Etihad, Austrian, Air China and Egyptair come to mind. Specifically talking about airlines operating 346/773ER side-by-side. Quoting Dalecary (Reply 103): Keep 747s on it until 330 ETOPS is in place would be my solution. Not going to happen, distance is too far for the A333. Saw a QF RMS the other day, from some of the charts I think they already do have some form or ETOPS approval for the A333. I wasn't talking about A333s. I was talking about 772LR/773ER. Keep 747s on the JNB route until ETOPS is 240/300/330 min to JNB and then switch to the 777s. Quoting Dalecary (Reply 103): The only route in the QF network that favours the 346 over the 773ER is SYD-JNB. I would beg to differ, look at the current and past code share routes as well. It is obvious to me that along with new aircraft will be a route expansion, current pilot EBA negotiations seem to indicate some other developments as well. Well be specific, because my info is internal QF. Quoting Dalecary (Reply 103): You are good at rambling out data(which others appear to think dubious), but good ol' commonsense tells you that the 773ER is the more capable plane, competes directly with the 346/346HGW, will dominate this segment of the market, and very few airlines will consider a 773ER/346 fleet. I don’t disagree that the 773ER is a more capable aircraft. However the decision is not a simple range/payload issue. Well that is obvious. How about speed, efficiency, reliability, cabin width for starters. I would be one of the few with 744/343/346 experience about, with plenty of mates flying the 777, yourself and others are very quick to shoot me down when you don’t have any experience on a 777 or 340 and keep referring to your trusted sources being the internet. So, you are now a snob and a sook!!! You know nothing about me or my knowledge base and arrogantly assume you are more knowledgeable. Maybe you are wrong. If I don’t know something about the 330/340, I have the manuals here and can look it up, 777 info just ask my mates. All I have tried to show is the decision is complex and other considerations apart from payload/range exist.

Oh la di da di da. We all have our sources and I reckon mine are better than yours in this instance.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 109): Oh la di da di da. We all have our sources and I reckon mine are better than yours in this instance.

What childish immature reply.

My sources are saying no final decisions have been made yet, and will not be made until the results of the pilot EBA gets put to a vote next week.

Could you kindly grace us with an articulated reply (in english) with the specific "instance", of the instances listed in my post are you referred to as "this instance".

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

Both airplanes are in the long-range 3-class 350-seat market. Even if you don't want to compare them, airlines do. End of story.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 108): Not going to happen, distance is too far for the A333. Saw a QF RMS the other day, from some of the charts I think they already do have some form or ETOPS approval for the A333.

He was talking about 330-min ETOPS, not A330 ETOPS approval. His point was that 330-min ETOPS would allow the B773ER to dominate the A346 on the SYD-JNB route, too. And, he was right.

I wish I had more time to go through your data piece by piece. Noone doubts that fleet planning is complex, but it's also not rocket science.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 109): Oh la di da di da. We all have our sources and I reckon mine are better than yours in this instance.

I reckon you are right. If I could put you on my respected list twice, I would.

  QFA001

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 111): Both airplanes are in the long-range 3-class 350-seat market. Even if you don't want to compare them, airlines do. End of story.

Also is the number QF has the some 744 and 744ER configured to. Is anyone actually operating a 773ER on the same sort of long sector lengths that the 774ER is on ?

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 111): He was talking about 330-min ETOPS, not A330 ETOPS approval. His point was that 330-min ETOPS would allow the B773ER to dominate the A346 on the SYD-JNB route, too. And, he was right.

How do you know CASA will issue 330 minutes ETOPS ? or are you saying now that QF fleet planning can make recommendations for the Qantas board and also make ETOPS approvals on behalf of the regulator ?

I have heard talk of 773ER also partially replacing the 747 trans-Pacific, maybe experience over the Pacific will lead the way to operate over the Indian ocean.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 111): I wish I had more time to go through your data piece by piece. Noone doubts that fleet planning is complex, but it's also not rocket science.

I have never said I am always right, I am willing to learn. I do see some 777s being ordered, I just don’t know if they will be 772,773,773ER,772ER, 772LR, and with respect I don’t think any other poster here know the configuration either.

I think the Qantas group in Australia presently operate, have on order, or options for around 225 aircraft (B717/737/767/747/A320/330/380), with about 40% of them being Airbus. This has proven to be a good strategy, and the mix of manufacturers IMHO will continue to exist.

I am sure the disruption Boeing has had of late with the inability to deliver 737’s or 777’s as scheduled, or Airbus with the A380 has not helped either manufacturer.

Going back to the topic, I think 777s will enter service with QF around 3Q 2007, when do you think ? or are you just going to pick other peoples posts apart and not offer any substance yourself ?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 112): Quoting QFA001 (Reply 111): He was talking about 330-min ETOPS, not A330 ETOPS approval. His point was that 330-min ETOPS would allow the B773ER to dominate the A346 on the SYD-JNB route, too. And, he was right. How do you know CASA will issue 330 minutes ETOPS ? or are you saying now that QF fleet planning can make recommendations for the Qantas board and also make ETOPS approvals on behalf of the regulator ?

Sorry, there WILL NOT be ETOPS 330 operation between Australia and Sth Africa/America, by Australian carriers, in the foreseeale future (say 10-15 years).

Unlike the routes in the northern hemisphere, these routes are totally over water and a long way from land, let alone a suitable airfield and are in the most consistantly foul weather on the planet. I do think either QF or CASA will be game to try it.

So, such a decision will not only be a technical decision, but a political one, quite possiablry at Cabinet level. NO bureacurate in this country would be game to approve it.

Gemuser

Quoting Zeke (Reply 112): Also is the number QF has the some 744 and 744ER configured to. Is anyone actually operating a 773ER on the same sort of long sector lengths that the 774ER is on ?

If I may, I think you are confusing a generic market node with various airline configurations that may not match that node. For example, the A340-300 and B777-200ER are generally regarded to be 300-seat airplanes, but airlines such as AA, BA and countless others are nowhere near 300-seats. However, in the industry they are still regarded as being in the 300-seat class.

The point being that the A340-600 and B777-300ER are in the same class. That is, the 350-seat class.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 112): How do you know CASA will issue 330 minutes ETOPS ?

First, 330-min ETOPS is the ultimate goal. With the price of fuel the way it is, 240 ETOPS would be enough for the B773ER to beat the A346 on SYD-JNB (acquisition cost excluded).

For their part, CASA takes most of their lessons on ETOPS from the FAA. If an airline requests expanded ETOPS from the FAA, then the regulatory infrastructure is largely in place now to obtain approval for that. Furthermore, CASA is one of the most forward-thinking regulatory bodies on the planet. They were, for example, one of the first authorities to grant single-engine turbine single-pilot night ratings. Their reasoning? A single-engine turbine was more reliable than a twin-engine piston for which the original regulations were created.

The reason that I mentioned that example is because it is pertinent to ETOPS and I also wanted to highlight that CASA is indeed open to expanded ETOPS.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 112): or are you saying now that QF fleet planning can make recommendations for the Qantas board and also make ETOPS approvals on behalf of the regulator ?

As I said, the regulatory infrastructure is largely in place for expanded ETOPS to be a real-world scenario in the not-too-distant future. That is, certainly in the lifetime of the A350 (I excluded A330 because it probably won't require it), B777 and B787. Furthermore, QF has lobbied for expanded ETOPS for its A330s and B767s in the past, but had those types rejected. However, the types that I mentioned above won't have the same restrictions...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 112): I have never said I am always right, I am willing to learn. I do see some 777s being ordered, I just don’t know if they will be 772,773,773ER,772ER, 772LR, and with respect I don’t think any other poster here know the configuration either.

Although your respect is noted, it is also faulty. I am not about to name the usernames, but I know at least three A.net users whom are privvy to that information.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 112): I think the Qantas group in Australia presently operate, have on order, or options for around 225 aircraft (B717/737/767/747/A320/330/380), with about 40% of them being Airbus. This has proven to be a good strategy, and the mix of manufacturers IMHO will continue to exist.

OTOH, just because QF may buy B777/787s doesn't mean that they will suddenly cancel their A320s or A380s. It also doesn't mean that they won't buy A350s. However, A340s are not a realistic option, most specifically because QF has dropped serious consideration of them!  

Quoting Zeke (Reply 112): Going back to the topic, I think 777s will enter service with QF around 3Q 2007, when do you think ? or are you just going to pick other peoples posts apart and not offer any substance yourself ?

A.net is a pick-a-thon. If you don't look-up your data, chances are that someone will come along and attack you.

I don't think that your guess is too far from the mark, pending that QF actually buys B777s.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 113): Sorry, there WILL NOT be ETOPS 330 operation between Australia and Sth Africa/America, by Australian carriers, in the foreseeale future (say 10-15 years). Unlike the routes in the northern hemisphere, these routes are totally over water and a long way from land, let alone a suitable airfield and are in the most consistantly foul weather on the planet. I do think either QF or CASA will be game to try it.

The whole point of expanded ETOPS is to be able to have less alternates. Realistically, whatever is flown by 4-engined B747-400s today will be accessable with 2-engine airplanes within 10 years so long as there is a critical mass of airlines large enough to push for regulation change. As I said above, the infrastructure to do so is largely in place.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 113): So, such a decision will not only be a technical decision, but a political one, quite possiablry at Cabinet level. NO bureacurate in this country would be game to approve it.

I'll bet you a case of Crownies that they do.  

  QFA001

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 114): Quoting Gemuser (Reply 113): So, such a decision will not only be a technical decision, but a political one, quite possiablry at Cabinet level. NO bureacurate in this country would be game to approve it. I'll bet you a case of Crownies that they do.

Your'e on! But we will probabley never be able to settle it! It WILL go to ministerial and most likely cabniet level, but the public is most unlikley to ever know, unless it becomes a media beat up. So we will never know if it was really approved by pollies or bureacurates!

Gemuser

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 114): For their part, CASA takes most of their lessons on ETOPS from the FAA. If an airline requests expanded ETOPS from the FAA, then the regulatory infrastructure is largely in place now to obtain approval for that.

I don't see that happening for some time, with no 773ER/772LR operators in the USA. Any of those power plants on US registered aircraft in airline service ?

350/787 different story will have the GEnx on the FAA registered aircraft.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 114): A340s are not a realistic option, most specifically because QF has dropped serious consideration of them!

that's sad news, was talking to a QF capt the other day that thought a few 346 would be arriving, then almost in the same sentence, would not be surprised if nothing at all was to be ordered.

See SQ paid 200 mil for each of its 773ERs, thats 25% below list for ordering 18/18 options, what discount they offering for 6/6 ? 10% ?

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 114): grant single-engine turbine single-pilot night ratings

No such animal exists, night rating yes, single engine turbine rating no, single pilot rating no.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 114): I am not about to name the usernames, but I know at least three A.net users whom are privvy to that information.

Um, we don't have 3 QF board members here...an employee might be privy as to certain aspects, however it is a board decision.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 115): Your'e on! But we will probabley never be able to settle it! It WILL go to ministerial and most likely cabniet level, but the public is most unlikley to ever know, unless it becomes a media beat up. So we will never know if it was really approved by pollies or bureacurates!

Only if expanded ETOPS is made into law will it go to Cabinet. Even if so, it'll be signed off just like every other thing CASA recommends. There are other things to politicise than expanded ETOPS. The general public could care less; and, by wrote, so will the media.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 116): I don't see that happening for some time, with no 773ER/772LR operators in the USA. Any of those power plants on US registered aircraft in airline service ?

Well, if you don't see it happening, I guess it won't.

Nevertheless, at least two US Majors are interested and involved in developing 240 ETOPS: AA and another airline that I won't name.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 116): that's sad news, was talking to a QF capt the other day that thought a few 346 would be arriving, then almost in the same sentence, would not be surprised if nothing at all was to be ordered.

Well, if a pilot told you...  

Quoting Zeke (Reply 116): See SQ paid 200 mil for each of its 773ERs, thats 25% below list for ordering 18/18 options, what discount they offering for 6/6 ? 10% ?

I don't know what SQ paid for the -300ERs, but I do know that $200m isn't 25% lower than $250m. It's 20% lower. Anyhow, I'm not sure why you brought up the SQ price.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 116): No such animal exists, night rating yes, single engine turbine rating no, single pilot rating no.

Have you heard of Google?

Read CASA ASETPA site. It's self-explanatory: you're wrong. Also, it will show you how ASETPA is related to ETOPS.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 116): Um, we don't have 3 QF board members here...an employee might be privy as to certain aspects, however it is a board decision.

Oh, please. The Board dis/approves what is recommended to them. Do you really believe that if QF management recommends B777s that the Board will turn around and say, no, buy A340s instead? Gimme a break.  

Also, although it's unlikely, you don't actually know whether three QF Board members read A.net or not. So, you shouldn't pass the comment.

  QFA001

within the next 2 months, as this is a direct quote from today's AGM;

"Qantas ".... are considering proposals for further new aircraft purchases, including next generation widebody aircraft for medium haul flights overseas and in Australia and, potentially, ultra long-range aircraft in the next two months" .

Clearly sounds like 787 v A350 and 772LR to me. QFA001 is right when they suggest the A340 is no longer in the running at QF.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 117): Oh, please. The Board dis/approves what is recommended to them. Do you really believe that if QF management recommends B777s that the Board will turn around and say, no, buy A340s instead? Gimme a break.

What I'm hearing, this week, is dont be suprised if the Board decides to order nothing, at the moment. Dont vouch for its correctness, but it was from two diffrent areas of the company.

Gemuser

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 117): Read CASA ASETPA site. It's self-explanatory: you're wrong. Also, it will show you how ASETPA is related to ETOPS.

I know this VERY well. Gave some technical advice to a friend that was doing Check and Training on a C208, espically how this relates to the CAO 80 series.

I think your terminology is incorrect, a rating refers to an to an additional ability that a pilot adds to their licence, from CAR 1988 (2) the available rating in Australia are :
(a) a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating; or
(b) an aeroplane grade of night V.F.R. rating; or
(c) a command (multi-engine aeroplane) grade of instrument rating; or
(d) a command (single engine aeroplane) grade of instrument rating; or
(e) a co-pilot (aeroplane) grade of instrument rating; or
(ea) a multi-engine aeroplane grade of private I.F.R. rating; or
(eb) a single-engine aeroplane grade of private I.F.R. rating; or
(f) an aeroplane grade of agricultural rating; or
(g) an aeroplane grade of night V.F.R. agricultural rating.

no such rating called a "single-engine turbine single-pilot night ratings", for a pilot to say fly a C208 single pilot IFR, all they need is C208 endorsement and a Command Instrument Rating.

ASETPA is not a rating.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 117): Well, if a pilot told you...

He has been with QF for about 30 years, his seniority number is less than 100. His role with QF is more management than flying, think he would be lucky to do 200 hours flying a year. He has no say what so ever what gets ordered, but does know whats going on in QCC3.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 117): Nevertheless, at least two US Majors are interested and involved in developing 240 ETOPS: AA and another airline that I won't name.

What engine type .... GE90-115B or the baby GE90 ?

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 117): I don't know what SQ paid for the -300ERs

Everyone else seems to ... 3.6 billion cash (not credit) for 18 773ERs and 18 options.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 117): I do know that $200m isn't 25% lower than $250m. It's 20% lower.

Last time I looked 250/1.25=200 and 200 * 1.25 = 250 ?

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 117): Oh, please. The Board dis/approves what is recommended to them. Do you really believe that if QF management recommends B777s that the Board will turn around and say, no, buy A340s instead? Gimme a break.

No, rest assured with that attitude a shareholder or board member would be asking questions of management as to why people in planning think they are above board or shareholder scrutiny.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 118): within the next 2 months, as this is a direct quote from today's AGM

Ok so is QF deferring a decision till the middle-end of December? Am I reading that correctly?

Can't speak to the rest of your post, but QFA001 is correct about this:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 120): Quoting QFA001 (Reply 117): I do know that $200m isn't 25% lower than $250m. It's 20% lower. Last time I looked 250/1.25=200 and 200 * 1.25 = 250 ?

$250m - $200m = $50m.
$50m/$250m = 0.2 or 20%.

-N60659

Quoting Zeke (Reply 120): Last time I looked 250/1.25=200 and 200 * 1.25 = 250 ?

While your calculation may be correct, your logic is wrong. You're doing the calculation the wrong way round.

250 -> 200 = a 20% reduction (because 50 is 1/5 of 250)

200 -> 250 = a 25% increase (because 50 is 1/4 of 200)

So you can't say 200 is a 25% reduction from 250. Well, you can try, but it's wrong.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 120): Last time I looked 250/1.25=200 and 200 * 1.25 = 250 ?

Not to be a nit but...

250 * .2 = 50. 250 * .25 = 62.5.

QFA001 is correct. the equation 250/1.25 = 200 is actually saying that 250 is 25% greater than 200. % differentials change based on the frame of reference and since the frame of reference is 250, 200 is indeed 20% discount.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 121): Ok so is QF deferring a decision till the middle-end of December? Am I reading that correctly?

That does appear correct. Dixon has been quoted in today's press as saying he hopes to take a proposal to the board in December. I'm still almost certain we will see an announcement before year's end.

here is someof an article from today's "Australian" newspaper:

"However, he said operations for expanding low-cost offshoot Jetstar would be discussed at the airline's december board meeting.

Mr Dixon recently told an investment conference in New York that Qantas and Jetstar were working on a proposal for a two-class international carrier based in Australia and serving point-to-point holiday routes not served by the bigger airline.

The Qantas chief told the New York conference the airline was also evaluating options to create a pan-Asian system of value-based airlines which would be able to take advantage of traffic rights available in different ports.

Asked about the airline's plans to buy up to 100 new wide-body planes, Mr Dixon said a decision was still about two month's away he now hoped to take proposal to board in december"

So, it appears the earliest we will see JQ international and QF orders is December.

Zeke -
Jetconnect cabin crew will operate the ex-NZ Jetstar flights under the Australian AOC with Australian-based Jetstar pilots, similar to the Auckland Long Haul base (and different to the domestic and Trans Tasman 737 operation on an NZ AOC).

777ER -
Jetconnect took over from Adecco in employing the AKL-based cabin crew for Qantas.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 118): QFA001 is right when they suggest the A340 is no longer in the running at QF.

However, the A350 is very much in contention.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 119): What I'm hearing, this week, is dont be suprised if the Board decides to order nothing, at the moment. Dont vouch for its correctness, but it was from two diffrent areas of the company.

The Board has been active on this since May. Even for QF that might be a bit unusual but they are considering the largest purchase in their history.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 120): ASETPA is not a rating.

FWIW, my error extended through poor grammar rather than poor use of terminology. That's what I get for exhausted responses. Anyhow, I apologise.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 120): He has been with QF for about 30 years, his seniority number is less than 100. His role with QF is more management than flying, think he would be lucky to do 200 hours flying a year. He has no say what so ever what gets ordered, but does know whats going on in QCC3.

That's terrific. However, with respect to your pilot friend, QCC3 isn't even in the same building that the decision is being made.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 120): Everyone else seems to ... 3.6 billion cash (not credit) for 18 773ERs and 18 options.

First, SQ didn't buy 18+18 -300ERs, they bought 18+13. Second, if SQ is paying cash for the airplanes then it isn't traceable on the finance market. So, unless you are or heard directly from one of the few finance people at SQ that know the exact cost of the airplanes, then you aren't likely to have heard anything but a guesstimate. Finally, the order was signed in 2004 and deliveries are in 2006-08. So, the final purchase price is inflated in line with an index, anyway. So, what $year are your alleged figures in?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 120): Last time I looked 250/1.25=200 and 200 * 1.25 = 250 ?

More voodoo math.  

Quoting Zeke (Reply 120): No, rest assured with that attitude a shareholder or board member would be asking questions of management as to why people in planning think they are above board or shareholder scrutiny.

You don't seem to understand the Board approval process. Management makes a recommendation to the Board. In this instance, Management might recommend the B777 in favour of the A340, and show reason for that. The Board will then dis/approve of their B777 recommendation. There is nothing else to it. Management makes recommendations; the Board does the scrutiny on behalf of shareholders.

  QFA001

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 128): First, SQ didn't buy 18+18 -300ERs, they bought 18+13. Second, if SQ is paying cash for the airplanes then it isn't traceable on the finance market. So, unless you are or heard directly from one of the few finance people at SQ that know the exact cost of the airplanes, then you aren't likely to have heard anything but a guesstimate. Finally, the order was signed in 2004 and deliveries are in 2006-08. So, the final purchase price is inflated in line with an index, anyway. So, what $year are your alleged figures in?

You are correct, 18/13, public comments from SQ Chief Executive Chew Choon Seng, in a Sept. 7 interview at Airshow China.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 128): More voodoo math.

Not really, thats how the tax office does it here. Pretty sure that how GST is applied in Oz.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 128): You don't seem to understand the Board approval process. Management makes a recommendation to the Board. In this instance, Management might recommend the B777 in favour of the A340, and show reason for that. The Board will then dis/approve of their B777 recommendation. There is nothing else to it. Management makes recommendations; the Board does the scrutiny on behalf of shareholders.

I didnt mention 777 or 340 in terms of a board approval process, your the one saying they have been the board has "active on this since May".

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 128): FWIW, my error extended through poor grammar rather than poor use of terminology.

B/S...cannot change "single-engine turbine single-pilot night ratings" into ASETPA with grammer.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 128): However, the A350 is very much in contention

At JQ international, QF mainline, or both? My understanding is the 787 is heavily favoured at QF mainline(they are looking at a 763 replacement) and according to FI, Boeing are offering or QF are asking for a "custom" 789HGW, no doubt to increase range/payload. Hard to see how the 350 can replace the 763 at QF, but at JQ international it is another matter altogether IMO.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 117): I don't know what SQ paid for the -300ERs

Quoting Zeke (Reply 120): Everyone else seems to ... 3.6 billion cash (not credit) for 18 773ERs and 18 options.

Does "everyone else" know that SQ secretly took out more options than they made public, or even told Boeing?   

Does "everyone else" also know they converted 1 outstanding 777 order into a -300ER order, so that they now have 19 on firm order, and not 18?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 120): Last time I looked 250/1.25=200 and 200 * 1.25 = 250 ?

Perhaps you should look again. . .   

Quoting Zeke (Reply 120): No, rest assured with that attitude a shareholder or board member would be asking questions of management as to why people in planning think they are above board or shareholder scrutiny.

Do you honestly think that a board member is expected to be an absolute expert on fleet planning? If so, why pay (a very good wage, I might add) to management to do this exact job? As QFA001 rightly stated, the Board may examine the financial deal of management's recommendation, but they are not going to outright reject it.


Now, let me be blunt. For someone who was earlier claiming that the A340-600 and 777-300ER did not compete, because the former was certified for 440 pax. in an all-economy configuration, and the latter for 550 pax. in the same config, you don't carry much credibility here yet.

Then to question QFA001, who has earned a spotless reputation for his knowledge and understanding of the industry for the past 5 years, both on this forum and elsewhere, is ludacrious.


Regards,

Hamlet69

Quoting Zeke (Reply 129): Not really, thats how the tax office does it here.

Then either they, or you, need to go back to school and learn some basic maths. How many more people do you need to tell you that you're wrong?

Referring to Air&Cosmos , QF has chosen the 777-200LR over the A340-500 , and the 787 family over the A350 family.
So Boeing can expect a huge order coming from Australia.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 131): Does "everyone else" know that SQ secretly took out more options than they made public, or even told Boeing? Does "everyone else" also know they converted 1 outstanding 777 order into a -300ER order, so that they now have 19 on firm order, and not 18?

Nope, thats news to me. Thanks. What I knew came from Airshow China which was widely reported in the press in the region.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 131): Perhaps you should look again. .

Plug it into your calculator it works. As Spink said "250/1.25 = 200 is actually saying that 250 is 25% greater than 200". Whilst I was looking at what they paid for it, i.e. for every 4 they buy they "get one free" at list price, everyone else is looking at what "loss" Boeing is making for the discount.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 131): Do you honestly think that a board member is expected to be an absolute expert on fleet planning? If so, why pay (a very good wage, I might add) to management to do this exact job? As QFA001 rightly stated, the Board may examine the financial deal of management's recommendation, but they are not going to outright reject it.

I agree, fleet planning does fleet planning, but their recommendations are not always accepted. The board can reject any proposal, its their right and role. I was hinting that it is dangerous to assume the outcome of anything that goes before a board or the shareholders, corporate governance is not the role of fleet planning.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 131): For someone who was earlier claiming that the A340-600 and 777-300ER did not compete, because the former was certified for 440 pax. in an all-economy configuration, and the latter for 550 pax. in the same config, you don't carry much credibility here yet.

If you want to quote me please be accurate. The FAA type certificate data sheet T00001SE - "Model 777-200 Maximum Passengers: 440" "Model 777-300 Maximum Passengers: 550"
The DGAC & JAA TCDS for the 340-500 and 340-600 "The maximum number of passengers ... is 440 for A340-600 and 375 for A340-500."
The A340-600 has a lower capacity again if FAA registered...as the FAA TCDS
A43NM for the A340-600 states :"The maximum number of passengers approved ... is 379 passengers"

To check for yourself, the A340 ones are available from http://www.airbusworld.com/portal/ca...&ID=217&ShowDocDesc=1&FolderMode=1 and the 777 ones from http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...keModel.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

These are the airframe legal maximums, anything less than that is a commercial consideration, the commercial maximum is the legal maximum.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 131): Then to question QFA001, who has earned a spotless reputation for his knowledge and understanding of the industry for the past 5 years, both on this forum and elsewhere, is ludacrious.

ludacrious or ludicrous ?

I am sure they could run rings around me about some stuff, and I could run rings around them about other stuff. That does not mean they are never wrong, see their explanation for "single-engine turbine single-pilot night ratings" above. I think the error was lost on you as you don’t understand the Australian licensing system.

“single-engine turbine single-pilot night ratings” is like multi engine land under the FAA which applies to a pilot, whilst ASETPA is like flight into known icing conditions for an airframe.

I KNOW I am not perfect, I AM willing to learn, I DO make mistakes. Are you willing to say the same ?

Quoting FCKC (Reply 133): Referring to Air&Cosmos , QF has chosen the 777-200LR over the A340-500 , and the 787 family over the A350 family. So Boeing can expect a huge order coming from Australia.

If true it's not a terribly huge surprise. But as Dixon himself has already said that the Board will be making a final decision in December. Perhaps management has already decided and they just need to present it to the Board in Dec. to get the final approval.

QFA001 am I reading that correctly?

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

Your quote, sir. How was I not being accurate?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 134): I think the error was lost on you as you don’t understand the Australian licensing system.

And I will be the first to admit that. I know nothing about Australian licensing. Nor did I say that QFA001 is perfect. When it comes to large commercial aviation, I have known him to be extremely knowledgable. For someone who has previously claimed to be a CX A340-600 pilot, you seem to have a greater knowledge of Australian licensing than commercial aviation. . .

Regards,

Hamlet69

Zeke,

5 is 25% more than 4. (5-4)/4 = 25%. However, 4 is 20% less than 5. (5-4)/5 = 20%. See the difference?
With percentage differences, the denominator is always the object (never the subject) of the English phrasing.

It is hard to type if you are flat on your back etc, but now that I'm sitting up I'm struck by several things.

First. The decision pushback to December means Qantas now hopes there will be finality over whether or not the foreign equity cap will be lifted to emerge from the aviation policy review due out on November.

Second. Without the cap being lifted the current economic outlook for Qantas and the airlines in general is far less conducive to proceeding with a massive order for take away food never mind jets than it was only months ago.

Three. Feral cabinet isn't famous for on time decision making.

Four. Therefore there may be no large fleet decision (other than A380 option conversions about the time the jet is in Australia and perhaps a few other Airbuses as well) until well after the New Year.

Five. The shareholders are shitting themselves at the moment. They would welcome restraint.

Antares

Quoting Antares (Reply 138): First. The decision pushback to December means Qantas now hopes there will be finality over whether or not the foreign equity cap will be lifted to emerge from the aviation policy review due out on November.

Antares, sorry to hear that you have been laid up again. I hope you are on a permanent mend.
If the foreign equity cap is lifted what are the likely scenarios? Are there some big players ready to hop aboard? How would existing shareholders feel about the dilution? I assume QF would much prefer to finance a fleet upgrade from new equity rather than take on additional debt or the equivalent in lease obligations.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 129): You are correct, 18/13, public comments from SQ Chief Executive Chew Choon Seng, in a Sept. 7 interview at Airshow China.

I sincerely hope that you are not referring to this article from the Airshow China website. In that article, $3.6bn is mentioned but only as an editorial -- that is, Seng wasn't quoted. (Also, the interview wasn't at Airshow China, which is run on even-numbered years. It was just at the news section of their website.)

If this is your source, then you and everyone else is back to square one: you don't know the SQ -300ER pricetag.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 129): I didnt mention 777 or 340 in terms of a board approval process, your the one saying they have been the board has "active on this since May".

What is your point? That the Board is doing their job?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 129): B/S...cannot change "single-engine turbine single-pilot night ratings" into ASETPA with grammer.

My policy is to rarely disclose what I do or have done in the aviation world. However, I will give you this background: during 1999-00, I was part of three separate studies that covered ASETPA and expanded ETOPS. Also, I hold ATPL (theory). So, I don't need a lesson from you on licensing. Now, I apologised for my reply, and that's that. If you want your pound of flesh, seek it elsewhere.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 130): At JQ international, QF mainline, or both? My understanding is the 787 is heavily favoured at QF mainline (they are looking at a 763 replacement) and according to FI, Boeing are offering or QF are asking for a "custom" 789HGW, no doubt to increase range/payload. Hard to see how the 350 can replace the 763 at QF, but at JQ international it is another matter altogether IMO.

QF has a broad-brush approach to their requirement. The QF decision is also affecting the FJ decision. That's about all I can say.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 134): Plug it into your calculator it works. As Spink said "250/1.25 = 200 is actually saying that 250 is 25% greater than 200". Whilst I was looking at what they paid for it, i.e. for every 4 they buy they "get one free" at list price, everyone else is looking at what "loss" Boeing is making for the discount.

You said that $200m is 25% below list [price]. So, you even earmarked that it was a discount! So, you shouldn't be surprised that you came under attack. Yet, for some reason, you haven't yet shown that you're capable of recognising a simple, but embarrassing, mistake.

Oh, and no: that's not how GST is applied in Australia. Value-added taxes are called value-added because they are a mark-up, not a discount.  

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 135): If true it's not a terribly huge surprise. But as Dixon himself has already said that the Board will be making a final decision in December. Perhaps management has already decided and they just need to present it to the Board in Dec. to get the final approval. QFA001 am I reading that correctly?

The Board is regularly briefed on where the process is up to, but final decision isn't made until a final business plan is submitted. Basically, the final business plan will need the endorsement of the CEO/CFO before being submitted to the Board. AFAIK, that has not yet occured.

Anyhow, final submission probably won't happen until Dixon calls Zeke to make sure that QF has got the right fleet plan.  

Quoting Antares (Reply 138): Without the cap being lifted the current economic outlook for Qantas and the airlines in general is far less conducive to proceeding with a massive order for take away food never mind jets than it was only months ago.

I think you have something, there. However, another hold-up is that QF wants to fund the new fleet through cashflow. That is an inordinately difficult fleet plan to achieve. Also, the two OEMs are going hammer and tongs at each other right now. So, why not squeeze them for all they're worth?

  QFA001

SunriseValley,

Thanks I'm fine, just unable to gain altitude for a while.

Yes equity is the key but No I don't think any airlines if that is what you meant by big players are waiting for this to happen. Rather the big players in most significant stocks are institutional investors, some of them with transport sector funds that require investment in airlines specifically, or port facilities, or airports, tollways and other transport related infrastucture enterprises.

The most vigorous of these funds by far are outside of Australia and hobbled by the 49 % cap. They tend to be both powerful and obscure, in that you may find for example that a particular managed fund has in its articles a transport sector requirement, or an office block, or power utility or general retail requirement. Freed of the 49% restriction enshrined in the Qantas Sale Act they would more aggressively consider investing in the likes of QF, just as they would in SQ if its stock wasn't so tightly held with the top 10 owners controlling the vast bulk of shares. Indeed the same even applies to Virgin Blue stock, of which only about 8% is now in free play. I'm sure if Virgin Blue does restructure under current or future owners to create more stock it would be pursued with some vigor by offshore investors who value the prospects of well managed low cost carriers earning double digit returns.

Qantas would need to create a different structure to accommodate the dual personality if you wish of being an Australian flag carrier that is controlled and managed in Australia, but priced at the much higher values foreign markets give to the rather small supply of attractive airline stocks that are available.

This isn't the place probably to digress into how businesses try to strike a balance between debt and equity, but there is no doubt in the world that Qantas needs less of the former and more of the latter.

If the lifting of the cap means even easier access to the Australian market for carriers like SQ or EK my own view is that the trade off would be fairly neutral, creating even more pressure on Qantas but giving it the freedom to better fund its competitive responses and expansion and modernisation agendas.

I hope I'm not being too optimistic about this. It is a reform badly needed in the US let alone Australia if the Americans are to be able to repair their air transport sector. It is a good thing in principle to remove national barriers to investment in any industry. In the case of Qantas it should drive the share price much higher.

But I can't second guess the future. All sorts of things could happen to totally screw up my sense of optimism, including resistance within the government.


Antares

Quoting Miami1 (Reply 127): 777ER - Jetconnect took over from Adecco in employing the AKL-based cabin crew for Qantas.

Thanks for that Miami1

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 128): However, the A350 is very much in contention.

From what I read a few hours in the October issue of Australian Aviation, I wouldn't be surprised if QF orders more A350s then B787s because of QFs 35+ options on A330s

Quoting 777ER (Reply 142): From what I read a few hours in the October issue of Australian Aviation, I wouldn't be surprised if QF orders more A350s then B787s because of QFs 35+ options on A330s

I would be....very surprised if this was the case. The main type being replaced here is the 763,for domestic, trans-Tasman and medium haul international sectors. That seems far more in the 787's domain than the 350's to me. QF only exercised 1 A330 option in 5 years. Many have now lapsed, so it's just not a matter of QF converting 330 oiptions to 350 orders. I feel the 787 will be the major part of the QF order, with some 777 orders and quite possibly some A350 orders for JQ.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 140): I sincerely hope that you are not referring to this article from the Airshow China website.

Think I saw it in the "Straights Times" or whatever the Singapore paper is called, Interavia, and flight international, basically the same info as on that web site.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 140): You said that $200m is 25% below list [price]. So, you even earmarked that it was a discount!

Yes I did day “25% below list”, not “25% discount”. If I went into a shop and saw a price tag of $250, and then a "Sale 20% off" label on it, I would expect to pay $200. If I saw an article in one shop for $250 and the same thing in another shop for $200, I would get it for $200 thinking I saved 25%, as the other place is 25% more expensive. Your looking at it from the sellers point of view, I am looking at it from the buyers.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 140): Oh, and no: that's not how GST is applied in Australia. Value-added taxes are called value-added because they are a mark-up, not a discount.

Not when it comes time for a consumer to buy something duty free, they don’t pay 90% of they price, they pay 1/1.1 of the price. Again looking at the consumers point of view, its 10% off below the list price, not 90% of the list price.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 140): What is your point? That the Board is doing their job?

Not at all, comments "I know at least three A.net users whom are privvy to that information" gives me the impression that you think the board does not make decisions, they just rubber stamp the opinion of three A.net users.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 140): Basically, the final business plan will need the endorsement of the CEO/CFO before being submitted to the Board. AFAIK, that has not yet occured.

You said "I know at least three A.net users whom are privvy to that information", now your saying it hasn’t occurred ?

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 140): I was part of three separate studies that covered ASETPA and expanded ETOPS.

Interesting, I played a role with the a RFDS section getting SEIFR approval sometime before that, didn’t recall any QF input into the process, not saying that CASA didn’t have use some data from QF for its safety case. Memory serves correct it was 96/97 circa.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 140): Also, I hold ATPL (theory). So, I don't need a lesson from you on licensing.

You should know better then.

Quoting Antares (Reply 138): Four. Therefore there may be no large fleet decision (other than A380 option conversions about the time the jet is in Australia and perhaps a few other Airbuses as well) until well after the New Year. Five. The shareholders are shitting themselves at the moment. They would welcome restraint

Wise words, talk that the market would not respond favorably to any large purchase, hear some analysts predicting a further slump in the share price if QF took on more debt considering the volatility of the fuel price.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 136): Your quote, sir. How was I not being accurate?

You previously said

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 131): Now, let me be blunt. For someone who was earlier claiming that the A340-600 and 777-300ER did not compete, because the former was certified for 440 pax. in an all-economy configuration, and the latter for 550 pax. in the same config, you don't carry much credibility here yet.

What I said was 100% correct, I didn’t mention “all-economy configuration” and have backed it up with TCDS references, you then said I "don't carry much credibility" because I was factual ?

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 136): you seem to have a greater knowledge of Australian licensing than commercial aviation. . .

FYI BAe in ADL do the CX HK license conversions, as for the rest of your comment, its not worth a reply, have proven myself to be at professional standard over and over again to those who matter.

Quoting Antares (Reply 141): All sorts of things could happen to totally screw up my sense of optimism, including resistance within the government.

Did I read this correctly!? Antares, you have a sense of optimism?  

Quoting 777ER (Reply 142): From what I read a few hours in the October issue of Australian Aviation, I wouldn't be surprised if QF orders more A350s then B787s because of QFs 35+ options on A330s

FWIW, QF doesn't have 35+ options on the A330. QF only ever had 3 options + 23 purchase rights for a total of 26 'soft' commitments. Ofcourse, one of the options was converted to firm.

But the point isn't moot: QF has 25 A330 options hovering over this deal.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 144): Think I saw it in the "Straights Times" or whatever the Singapore paper is called, Interavia, and flight international, basically the same info as on that web site.

Zeke, you are an infuriating fool. The fact remains that you were wrong to put words in Seng's mouth. Perhaps worse, you yet-again proclaimed something to be true that was categorically untrue. As I said to you above, if you don't look-up your data then someone will come along and pick you apart.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 144): Yes I did day “25% below list”, not “25% discount”. If I went into a shop and saw a price tag of $250, and then a "Sale 20% off" label on it, I would expect to pay $200. If I saw an article in one shop for $250 and the same thing in another shop for $200, I would get it for $200 thinking I saved 25%, as the other place is 25% more expensive. Your looking at it from the sellers point of view, I am looking at it from the buyers.

No, no, no. I am just dumbfounded that you are keeping on with this. It would make my late 2nd grade math teacher roll in her grave and my 3rd grade english teacher choke on his soup.  

Saved and more expensive are antonyms; directional opposites. If you bought an item for $200 but it was $250 elsewhere, then you as the buyer saved 20%. The seller gave you a 20% saving compared to the other seller. At no point did you generate a 25% saving.

However, if you really do believe that you earned a 25% saving, then I hope that if I ever own and run a shop of some description that you are a frequent customer. There's nothing better than a sucker who thinks he's getting a better deal than he is...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 144): Not when it comes time for a consumer to buy something duty free, they don’t pay 90% of they price, they pay 1/1.1 of the price. Again looking at the consumers point of view, its 10% off below the list price, not 90% of the list price.

Direction, Zeke, direction. Yes, the buyer gets 10% below list price, but the seller gives 10% below list price. Therefore, 10% is saved. Now, please, please, please, would you quit the How Not To Do Math lesson? Others and I have wasted too much time trying to teach you this. If you still don't get it then just leave it alone.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 144): Not at all, comments "I know at least three A.net users whom are privvy to that information" gives me the impression that you think the board does not make decisions, they just rubber stamp the opinion of three A.net users.

Then you got the wrong impression. Somehow, I'm not surprised.  

Quoting Zeke (Reply 144): You said "I know at least three A.net users whom are privvy to that information", now your saying it hasn’t occurred ?

No, I didn't say that. Just like you did with Seng, you're trying to put words into my mouth. I said that, AFAIK, the CEO/CFO hadn't signed off on final business case. If you're going to misinterpret that again, don't bother talking to me.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 144): Interesting, I played a role with the a RFDS section getting SEIFR approval sometime before that, didn’t recall any QF input into the process, not saying that CASA didn’t have use some data from QF for its safety case. Memory serves correct it was 96/97 circa.

When did I say I was involved on behalf of QF? Once again, you made an ignorant presumption. You are no Sherlock Holmes.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 144): You should know better then.

That's why I apologised, dickhead.  

  QFA001

Zeke:

Give it up, already. You have ruined what was hitherto an absolutely delightful thread and turned it into a pedantic and self-righteous little bitchfest. You are either a Republican or a glutton for punishment, since you are failing miserably to convince any of the gentlemen you've taken issue with of the validity of your point(s).

Either agree to disagree or move on...

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 145): That's why I apologised, dickhead.

      

regards,

F4N

If QF don't exercise the options they have for additionnal A330s , can they transforme them in a new A380 purchase , thus to save the deposit they probably gave to Airbus ?Perhaps not this year , but probably latter they will order more A380s.
Maybe we will know more during the birthday celebration next month ?
Also they could wait for another month to announce a Boeing order , simply as the A380 will be in Australia for this birthday , and could be not appropriate to announce a non Airbus order during that time.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 145): Zeke, you are an infuriating fool. The fact remains that you were wrong to put words in Seng's mouth

You haven’t been able to show that he didn’t say that, that web site reference you provided says the same. I have not seen anything elsewhere online to suggest that SQ did not pay 3.6 billion, just references what the list price would have been, and I have seen the same 3.6 billion number for the deal elsewhere on a.net.

I had a look at the SQ web site, no announement of the order, so SQ released a press statement elsewhere. I will have a look in a few days to see if Temesek made any comments.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 145): Yes, the buyer gets 10% below list price, but the seller gives 10% below list price.

Now you even agree what I said before, the tax office does do it in the same way.

Yes the buyer gets it for 10% below list the seller discounts it by 9.9099%. I said "thats 25% below list", not 25% discount, I asked what sort of discount QF would be receiving for 6/6.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 145): Then you got the wrong impression. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Well when I said with respect no one here would know the final configuration you said three a.net users would. I said an employee might be privy as to certain aspects, however it is a board decision. I said I was hinting that it is dangerous to assume the outcome of anything that goes before a board or the shareholders, corporate governance is not the role of fleet planning.

You response to my comments is that I don’t know the board approval process.

I do see that once its been signed off at upper management, some people here might know what’s being recommended to the board, its not the same as what you said before. Again I do agree that it would be necessary for some people to know the shopping list that a board approves prior to making it public to try and negotiate further discounts or delivery schedules, but I don’t agree that would have been available at the time you indicated that people here knew.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 145): When did I say I was involved on behalf of QF? Once again, you made an ignorant presumption. You are no Sherlock Holmes.

The only people I talked to over that were CASA, RFDS (and maintenance), Pilatus, P&W, and the ECTM people. If you were not involved as part of QF, it is beyond my what the studies involved, the work had already been done, RFDS had PC12 aircraft flying SEIFR around 97. Was is by chance an in service review of the SEIFR since the start of operations in 97, or was it a university assignment for a aviation degree, that would gel with the ATPL theory ?

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 145): That's why I apologised, dickhead.

I getting the sense you don’t like being reminded your occasionally wrong. Can I take it that you may have been also wrong that three a.net uses may not actually know the final configuration of the order also when you said they did ?

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 145): QFA001

Did you know its an industry joke, whenever a QF makes a mistake we say there is QF1 again. Sure you remember the golf course at BKK. Glad to see you keep the joke alive.

Quoting F4N (Reply 146): Either agree to disagree or move on...

I have taken comments onboard and will continue my involvement, I am not forcing you to read this, its your choice.

I am amused that people cannot maintain their cool with a simple online discussion.

Zeke, go to hell. You're a blubbering fool and not worth the time.

Quoting FCKC (Reply 147): If QF don't exercise the options they have for additionnal A330s , can they transforme them in a new A380 purchase , thus to save the deposit they probably gave to Airbus ?

Technically speaking, QF's A330 options aren't convertible to A380s. However, that doesn't mean that Airbus won't agree to do that if QF decides to buy more A380s. OTOH, QF also holds A380 options that they could convert, too.

Quoting FCKC (Reply 147): Maybe we will know more during the birthday celebration next month ?

Anything is possible. However, I do wish to remind everyone that five years ago QF turned 80; and the airline didn't wait until its birthday celebrations to announce their order for A330s, A380s and B747-400ERs. This time around, the greatest likelihood is that QF will announce when they have something to announce.

Quoting FCKC (Reply 147): Also they could wait for another month to announce a Boeing order , simply as the A380 will be in Australia for this birthday , and could be not appropriate to announce a non Airbus order during that time.

OTOH, Dixon is known to love to play the two OEMs against each other. So, why not fuel the fire?   Anyhow, QF's 85th birthday party is about QF, not the A380. If Airbus was worried, then they shouldn't send out the A380.  

  QFA001