Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
leelaw
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Fri May 26, 2006 8:53 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 149):
Can any conclusions be drawn here between PIAs recent comments on the 772LR and this article ?

Why ask a rhetorical question? If there are conclusions to be drawn, come out and draw them.
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Fri May 26, 2006 8:59 pm

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 116):
Wait a minute!. Initially, the Plane was supposed to be EIS in May 2006, yet the plane is still in flight testing.

At least you didn't type 'weight a minute'...
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16716
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Fri May 26, 2006 9:08 pm

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 150):
Why ask a rhetorical question? If there are conclusions to be drawn, come out and draw them.

Its not a rhetorical question, trying to see if someone knows more information that could link the two issues, seems you dont have anything to add in that respect.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Fri May 26, 2006 9:29 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 152):
Its not a rhetorical question, trying to see if someone knows more information that could link the two issues, seems you dont have anything to add in that respect.

At the risk of a slight turn OT, I noted a couple of times on "772LR PIA" thread, all there was was that single article in the Pakistani press. Nothing else. You seem to have good contacts. What do you hear?
 
Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Fri May 26, 2006 9:41 pm

Dutchjet you wrote:-

>> I have a question.......in a few weeks time, Airbus is going to announce its super-duper, new and improved A350/370 family which is a TWIN JET....<<

Indeed, I think there’ll be a radically new twinjet.
That’s all we know at this stage.
But that’s not the same as saying that multi-engine airliners are a thing of the past.

Look at it this way: the A350 needs to counter the 787 (i.e. from around 250 seats upwards). It also needs to see-off the B777-200ER and, perhaps, -300ER. However, doing all the above will require a huge range in engine thrust if a twin is to cover all these ‘bases’. And then we’re not even talking about the 400-seat category yet (i.e. 747-sized aircraft). So I do think it’s totally premature to say that they’ll be no more quads from Airbus.
As a side note, if the world does go totally twin-engine, then the spinmeisters will have clearly got their way. And I feel that would be a "bad thing".

[Edited 2006-05-26 14:43:18]
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Fri May 26, 2006 9:50 pm

Could it not be the case that the new A350 would be twins in the smaller variants, and quads in the 350-400-seat variants?

Airbus made a common wing for the A330/A340 to accomodate both twin and quad planes so this wouldn't be a first.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16716
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Fri May 26, 2006 9:50 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 153):
What do you hear?

Just was of the understanding that the one of the many reasons for the 789HGW purchase was for this route. These new talks come of somewhat of a surprise to me.

I am wondering if CASA has some regulatory constraint on using the 787 over that route for QF to look at the quad. Not exactly the aircraft type one would commence a new route with.

The PIA problems remind me of the 345, test flying it it was great, when customers started fitting it out, the interior alone raised the OEW by 15-20t.

Just wondering if/how QF have access to information to rule out the 777, is it coming from the manufacturer or industry sources (oneworld alliance members etc), or PIA.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Fri May 26, 2006 9:53 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 156):
The PIA problems remind me of the 345, test flying it it was great, when customers started fitting it out, the interior alone raised the OEW by 15-20t.

You are assuming the article is correct; so far it has not been corroborated. We just don't know at this point.
 
leelaw
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Fri May 26, 2006 9:56 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 152):
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 150):
Why ask a rhetorical question? If there are conclusions to be drawn, come out and draw them.

Its not a rhetorical question, trying to see if someone knows more information that could link the two issues, seems you dont have anything to add in that respect.

It will be interesting to see if anyone can make such a link without employing a conspiracy theory.
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 5368
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Fri May 26, 2006 10:13 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 156):
I am wondering if CASA has some regulatory constraint on using the 787 over that route for QF to look at the quad. Not exactly the aircraft type one would commence a new route with.

I don't believe so. Qantas maintains all its aircraft to the ETOPS standard as a general rule, regardless of whether they're going to be used for that purpose. The reason is enhanced safety. I don't believe there are any CASA restrictions in this regard.

Why wouldn't the aircraft be one to commence a new route with? They commenced SYD-SFO with a 744, by your logic they should have done a SYD-NAN-HNL-SFO multi-stop with a B738 first to "test the waters". There is a lot of data that QF call upon to decide whether to start a new route or not, and if they're considering it, there is a business case for them doing so.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 156):
Just wondering if/how QF have access to information to rule out the 777, is it coming from the manufacturer or industry sources (oneworld alliance members etc), or PIA.

Information would come from Boeing definitely. Regarding real world data, I couldn't be sure. Qantas is particularly tight with AA and BA (over the other oneworld airlines) so perhaps there is data sharing but I would doubt it as anything commercially sensitive wouldn't be available. Do you think operating costs would be commercially sensitive or not? An answer to that would answer more of the question.
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Fri May 26, 2006 10:22 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 25):
They have this "sandbagging" down to an art.

I dont think it is sandbagging. The smart thing to do is only consider the worst case scenario. Sandbagging implies that what they promise was never really a possibility and that they knew for sure it would be better. I do not think that is the case.

If you always use worst case scenario numbers, you are never wrong and have a good probability of of exceeding them. You also have a certain probability to simply meet those numbers, and still have risk of not meeting them.

Using anything more than worst case is a gamble, because you have a higher statistical probability of not meeting your numbers. Airbus is simply accepting higher risk than Boeing, its not really a case of one being wrong more than the other.

Nothing wrong with gambling if you think you have reasonable numbers and are willing and able to accept the risk.

The trick is predicting the worst case scenario accurately and deciding how much risk is acceptable to the shareholders. Maybe this is where Beoing is doing a better job.

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 73):
And how exactly a paper plane (748) outperforms the A380? Actually, let me rephrase this, how does a paper plane with NO orders yet, outperforms the A380?

The 744 is real, and can provide a lot of data, as can their software modeling and almost 100 years of experience.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 79):
Both Airbus and Boeing are quite able to present engineering and performance studies that accurately reflect the capabilities of their project aircraft well in advance of flight testing. Boeing, especially, has a recent history of being conservative in those performance estimates. The engineering and performance studies done on the B748 suggest that it will have a lower CASM than the A380.

Very well said.

[quote=Kaneporta1,reply=90]Boeing had one customer (Pan-Am) to think about when they launched the 747. Airbus has over 10 customers and as stated before, the customisation that had to go in the design of this airplane was far bigger than expected.



Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 90):
Funnily enough, Airbus suggests the opposite. Why is it alright to only believe Randy's suggestions?

Who would know more about the 748? Boeing or Airbus?

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 112):
Quoting BaylorAirBear (Reply 110):
Obviously, as this is the same thing that Microsoft does

But when was the last time Microsoft ever over delivered on the products they have released?? Heck, look at Windows Vista and the multiple release delays Microsoft has been forced to take to ensure product quality. Not to mention, Microsoft has stripped many of the truely innovative features from the OS.

My experience with Microsoft is promise low and deliver lower...


Very very bad example. Remember Windows 95? The real name of that product was Windows 92. And the tradition continues to this day.

Yes, having MSDN and all the betas, I cant find one thing to make me disagree.

Microsoft's best products are acquisitions they have not had time enough to screw with. Give them a while and they will totally screw up Great Plains, which is a hard thing to do.

Quoting Joni (Reply 143):
Concerning the 777, Boeing did mis-estimate the time-to-market since the plane was quite late,

It was not late, it was shelved due to market conditions. 9-11 ring a bell?

[Edited 2006-05-26 15:23:24]
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 12:00 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 155):
Could it not be the case that the new A350 would be twins in the smaller variants, and quads in the 350-400-seat variants?

Wouldn't the fate of the quad be the same as 340?

Cheers,
PP
 
Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 12:31 am

The numbers for the A340 aren't as good as the B777 because of several things (rather than the number pf engines per se).

These include:-

In general there's more "stuff" in the Airbus structure. Boeing has done a better job of making a lighter structure bear a greater load. (this applies to both the wings and fuselage);

The other big reason, is the better fuel efficiency of the GE90s compared with the Trents.
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 5368
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 12:59 am

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 162):
The other big reason, is the better fuel efficiency of the GE90s compared with the Trents.

Only because the engines are designed for completely different roles on completely different aircraft...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27741
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 1:21 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 13):
Well it may be in Qantas best interest to see how the A380 delivers. Their is plenty of time before the B748i enter commercial service. By that time it may be possible that Airbus may launch the A388R.

I wonder if Airbus can even launch an A388R, considering how little underfloor cargo volume it has. If they take most of that with extra tankage, the plane might require "carry-on" only or even have to be a pseudo-combi, with luggage loaded in the back of the cabin ala the EMB-120s and such.

And I would imagine a 400-seat 748I would be more efficient then a 400-seat A388R.
 
WINGS
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dall

Sat May 27, 2006 1:44 am

Efficient yes, but if we are to compare a 400 seat B748i vs 400 seat A380, it's like comparing apples with oranges. The A380 would be able to provide a true luxury experience for long haul customers. With all that extra space they could easily equip it with lounges and gyms, beauty parlor, ect.

Thinking about it, it actually sounds really great.

People keep on forgetting that the A388 is the first of many derivatives to come while the B747 day's are numbered. The A380 technology will not stay still. Airbus will always pip it up to make it even more attractive down the road.

Regards,
Wings
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6036
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 1:54 am

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 160):
Very very bad example. Remember Windows 95? The real name of that product was Windows 92. And the tradition continues to this day.

I'm not sure about that one. After all, Windows 3.1 really didn't take off until about 91 or 92. What I do know for certain is that Windows 98 was supposed to be Windows 97. I know this because I received install media for Windows 97, and had a desktop at work running it. The disc and splash screens both read in that manner.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16716
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 2:09 am

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 159):
I don't believe so. Qantas maintains all its aircraft to the ETOPS standard as a general rule, regardless of whether they're going to be used for that purpose. The reason is enhanced safety. I don't believe there are any CASA restrictions in this regard.

That is news to me, or do you mean specific fleets ? All covers a lot of fleets.

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 159):
Why wouldn't the aircraft be one to commence a new route with? They commenced SYD-SFO with a 744, by your logic they should have done a SYD-NAN-HNL-SFO multi-stop with a B738 first to "test the waters". There is a lot of data that QF call upon to decide whether to start a new route or not, and if they're considering it, there is a business case for them doing so.

SFO from memory is not a new route, old route restarted ? And via HNL would not have been a silly idea, I think thats how they started YVR. They could use a 744ER via AKL or with reduced payload now to DFW, still cheaper than buying a new airframe and them working out you dont have a market.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10203
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 2:36 am

The more I read the more I think that the 748i has a lot to offer for QF. While the 380 should be a good plane for them it can't replace all of the 747s in QF's fleet, nor will it be more financially viable during low and some shoulder seasons.

If you look at the basic SYD-LAX route, I don't believe that all of the flights will use the 380. There will be one or two, but I believe that there will continue to be at least one 744 (or 748i) - even if it is only the noon flight.

If the 748i provides for a significantly better fuel burn per pax (not per available seat) in low and shoulder seasons then I can see QF shifting to the 748i in place of the 380 when the pax count is low - especially when fuel costs peak.

I also believe that the potential for DFW is greater than presented. QF needs to come in with a lower cost for the entire trip for, say, a SYD-ORED pax. They would code share with AA on the DFW-ORD flight (pulling in a bit of revenue) and shift reductions in the AA costs to their 748i flights.

From a competitive point of view I thing the real sleeper of the 748i may be the sleepers in the "attic". That may have a lot of appeal for the premium pax over the 380 and will be more attractive than a 744 offering.

I don't know how it will turn out, but I can see QF moving all its long term 747 fleet to the 748i.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 2:51 am

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 159):
Qantas maintains all its aircraft to the ETOPS standard as a general rule

I assume you are referring to their 767-300ER fleet.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27741
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 3:49 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 165):
Efficient yes, but if we are to compare a 400 seat B748i vs 400 seat A380, it's like comparing apples with oranges. The A380 would be able to provide a true luxury experience for long haul customers. With all that extra space they could easily equip it with lounges and gyms, beauty parlor, etc.

Yet QF, when offered essentially the same capability with the 772LR vs. the A345 for LHR-SYD-LHR, didn't care about any of that. They wanted raw Business Class seats because they knew that while pax would pay $7000 for a Business Class seat, they wouldn't pay $10,000 for a Business Class seat, a piano bar, a massage, and all that jazz.

And all the wonderful non-seat things Airbus touted could be yours with the A380 seem to be disappearing under the need to maximize seating revenues due to higher operating costs. At best, we're seeing basic lounge and relaxation features already fitted on A346/777/747 equipment. Just as higher operating costs drove the lounges off the 747s a few years into revenue service, those costs are preventing them from being fitted to the A380 in the first place.

If you want a really luxurious trip across The Pond, book the Queen Mary 2. The A380, like every other commercial airliner in service, is all about getting you to your destination faster.
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 4:09 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 166):
I'm not sure about that one

Off topic, but 3.0 released in 1990 was such a disaster it required 3.1 to become stable. That is why the next release which was vital in their battle with Novelle after the total flop that was 2.0 was scheduled two years later, every windows upgrade was planned for 2-3 year intervals. 1.0 in 85, 2.0 in 87 and the 3.0 in 90 which took too long. 4.0 didn't happen until much later than planned and turned into Win95, but it was originally intended to be released in 92, which means early 93 in MS speak.

3.1 was in effect the unplanned version 4 of Windows. Windows for Workgroups was just stuff intended for the original 4.0 they threw in to appease networking demands until they had something real. NT fragmented thier product line, and there you go.

I may be wrong, but I dont think so.

Windows is not nor has it ever been a high quality on time reliable product. And product support by Microsoft, even to Microsoft Partners, is lame. This is why the comparison was so far off base.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 168):
From a competitive point of view I thing the real sleeper of the 748i may be the sleepers in the "attic". That may have a lot of appeal for the premium pax over the 380 and will be more attractive than a 744 offering.

A lot of people here write off the attic sleeper concept saying it would add more weight and return nothing.

My view is that when you add the sleepers to otherwise unusable space, the seat on the main deck does not have to be one of those huge deals and a smaller more business class sort of seat would fly considering you get the sleeper too.

This would mean less weight on the main deck and less of a weight hit than assumed. Also the smaller main deck seats would make room for more first class seats than otherwise and possible more seats in other classes would be possible when adjusting the configuration accordingly.

Just a theory.  scratchchin 
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dall

Sat May 27, 2006 4:23 am

A few things about the 747-8 passenger airplane and some analysis:

The passenger model 747-400 is dead with the advent of 77-300ER. The 77W can do any route the 744 can do with more payload, by volume and weight, at up to a -35% fuel burn delta. The 744 just does not make economic sense anymore...

Enter the 747-8, it actually will have 7-10% less total fuel burn for its design mission with 450 passengers than 747-400 with 416 and 900nm less range...amazing. That moves it out of the 777-300ER's cross hairs with higher capacity and lower per seat/payload/mile fuel burn. Relative to A380-800 the total fuel burn delta for an 8,000nm mission at design payload vs A380-800 is a whopping 33%, maybe a couple points more... Compute this over the design passenger numbers and you get a 9-10% lower fuel burn per seat than A380-800...interesting. More interesting is if you adjusted the generic seating layout with the same proportion of business and first seats as the A380 747-8 seating would be 18F/78C/371Y for 467 seats or 3,600lbs of payload requiring roughly 1,500lbs more fuel for 8,000nm range. Using those figures burn per seat becomes 11-13% to the good for 747-8...

Bottom line is that the smaller 747-8 beats A380 on seat specific fuel burn simple and plain. At that kind of disparity it really does not pay to "abuse" the A380 at lower load factors than it does to run a 747-8 at higher seat occupancy. For the analysis to come out better for any payload utilization The A380 would have to realize 35-40% greater passenger numbers in airline service configuration, which is just not feasible for comparative in-cabin products...



-widebodyphotog
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dall

Sat May 27, 2006 5:34 am

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 171):
A lot of people here write off the attic sleeper concept saying it would add more weight and return nothing.

Not many airlines have show an interest in it for passengers, but it could contain crew rest areas, galleys, and lavatories, freeing up space in the cabin for more revenue generating passenger seats.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27741
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 6:27 am

I think one of the issues with the sleeping berths and such is that they would have to be an added cost and in this penny-pinching age, that's as tough for $5000 Business Class customers as it is for $500 Economy Class.

Many businesses I know will pay for a Business Class seat because the extra room allows them to spread-out and work instead of sleeping or watching movies, as they would if they were in Economy. So instead of being idle for 7-14 hours, they're productive. By offering them a berth, they go back to sleeping and watching movies.  Smile Plus you might add another $1000-2000 over the cost of the seat.

However, I could see it working in First Class where it's just part of the base fare. While most carriers offer private suite-style beds, it ends up making the nose of the plane pretty cramped. You could instead add comfortable "Business Jet" seating with tables for food and work. Then when it's time to sleep, you head to your berth and are isolated from your fellow passenger's noise as well as cabin lights and such. And you'd open up the F cabin a bit, making it less crowded.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dall

Sat May 27, 2006 6:46 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 172):
Enter the 747-8, it actually will have 7-10% less total fuel burn for its design mission with 450 passengers than 747-400 with 416 and 900nm less range...amazing. That moves it out of the 777-300ER's cross hairs with higher capacity and lower per seat/payload/mile fuel burn. Relative to A380-800 the total fuel burn delta for an 8,000nm mission at design payload vs A380-800 is a whopping 33%, maybe a couple points more... Compute this over the design passenger numbers and you get a 9-10% lower fuel burn per seat than A380-800...interesting. More interesting is if you adjusted the generic seating layout with the same proportion of business and first seats as the A380 747-8 seating would be 18F/78C/371Y for 467 seats or 3,600lbs of payload requiring roughly 1,500lbs more fuel for 8,000nm range. Using those figures burn per seat becomes 11-13% to the good for 747-8...

Prof. WBF..I have a question (if you don't mind)...

Since we know a lot (but no all) of the effinciency for the 747-8 is coming from the Gen-X engines, if the various engine manufacturers such as GE and the Engine Alliance develop an engine with a capable thrust to power the A380, would that potentially shift the ball back to the A380 in terms of better economic performance over the B747-8?

And if possible, in yourMHO....when do you think something like that is possible?

Thanks in advance...
 
trex8
Posts: 5748
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 175):
Since we know a lot (but no all) of the effinciency for the 747-8 is coming from the Gen-X engines, if the various engine manufacturers such as GE and the Engine Alliance develop an engine with a capable thrust to power the A380, would that potentially shift the ball back to the A380 in terms of better economic performance over the B747-8?

wouldn't tehse essentially be like the engines they would need for the larger A350s or the 787-10?
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 7:44 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 176):
wouldn't tehse essentially be like the engines they would need for the larger A350s or the 787-10?

that's what I would assume so, but I was quite curious as to how that would affect the A380 in particular...
 
art
Posts: 4403
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 7:46 am

Boeing marketing vice-president Randy Baseler... ...claims the 747-8 "will burn 13 per cent less fuel per seat than a 416-seat 747-400 and 12 per cent less than a 542-seat A380"

Yes, Randy, Airbus spent billions of dollars designing an aircraft that burns 1% less fuel per seat than the 747-400. And airlines were fool enough to order 159 of them!
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 7:55 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 165):
Efficient yes, but if we are to compare a 400 seat B748i vs 400 seat A380, it's like comparing apples with oranges. The A380 would be able to provide a true luxury experience for long haul customers. With all that extra space they could easily equip it with lounges and gyms, beauty parlor, ect.

Thinking about it, it actually sounds really great.

People keep on forgetting that the A388 is the first of many derivatives to come while the B747 day's are numbered. The A380 technology will not stay still. Airbus will always pip it up to make it even more attractive down the road.

Regards,
Wings

Wings - you are the eternal optimist when it comes to Airbus, but you are too clever to be missing the real issue here: Qantas and other airlines are comparing the 748i against the A388, and based upon the projected numbers for each of these aircraft, the 748i is looking quite good. Airlines are making a financial decison...and a huge investment, and this is a numbers game. As for a luxury experience for passengers, you know better, both the 748i and A388 will be packed with seats.....nicer accomodations for premium pax....but forget about lounges, bars, shopping malls and health clubs, it simply isnt happening. I am one of the older guys around here, we heard the same stuff when the first generation widebodies were introduced (and the old birds did have lounges for a period of time).....airlines offer seats and nothing more; the A380 is not going to change anything in the longrun on that front.

As for future variants of the A380, lets see what happens....and lets see the A388 get into revenue service. Airlines are not rushing out to place orders for the A380 (or 748i for that matter).....who knows if it will make economic sense for Airbus to invest more into the A380 project. Airbus has an awful lot on its plate at the moment, and I dont think higher capacity or longer range variants of the A380 are high priority projects at the moment.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 170):
ou want a really luxurious trip across The Pond, book the Queen Mary 2. The A380, like every other commercial airliner in service, is all about getting you to your destination faster.

Absolutely correct and well put.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 172):
A few things about the 747-8 passenger airplane and some analysis:

bottom line is that the smaller 747-8 beats A380 on seat specific fuel burn simple and plain. At that kind of disparity it really does not pay to "abuse" the A380 at lower load factors than it does to run a 747-8 at higher seat occupancy. For the analysis to come out better for any payload utilization The A380 would have to realize 35-40% greater passenger numbers in airline service configuration, which is just not feasible for comparative in-cabin products...



-widebodyphotog

I found the last part of your analysis most interesting - is this the arguement that Boeing is going to use with Lufthansa, Singapore and Qantas? Boeing must convince these airlines that it makes sense flying the 748i and A380 side-by-side....these numbers will certainly help Boeing's position.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 8:04 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 172):
Enter the 747-8, it actually will have 7-10% less total fuel burn for its design mission with 450 passengers than 747-400 with 416 and 900nm less range...amazing.



Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 172):
interesting is if you adjusted the generic seating layout with the same proportion of business and first seats as the A380 747-8 seating would be 18F/78C/371Y for 467 seats or 3,600lbs of payload requiring roughly 1,500lbs more fuel for 8,000nm range. Using those figures burn per seat becomes 11-13% to the good for 747-8...



Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 172):
Bottom line is that the smaller 747-8 beats A380 on seat specific fuel burn simple and plain.

If an airline puts 430 seats in a A380 vs 450 seats in a B747-8. Does that make the A380 an inefficient design? Bad CASM? Low structural efficiency? Who are we fooling here?

Many times is is confirmed the A380-800 has 35% more useable floor space then the 747-8i.

Are you now comparing a 467 seat B748i vs a 550 seat A380? Why?

 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 8:19 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 180):
Many times is is confirmed the A380-800 has 35% more useable floor space then the 747-8i.

And many times confirmed that not all of this "useable floor space" contributes to additional capacity.

The wider cabin of the A380 still seats the same 10-abreast as the 747. The seats are wider and occupy more floor space than 747 seats, but ultimately do not translate into any additional capacity. No carrier is going to fit a 747 with 9-abreast to match the A388's comfort level.

That means any capacity delta between the A388 and B748I will not necessarily be the +35% figure you seem to hope for  eyebrow 
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 8:37 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 175):
Since we know a lot (but no all) of the effinciency for the 747-8 is coming from the Gen-X engines, if the various engine manufacturers such as GE and the Engine Alliance develop an engine with a capable thrust to power the A380, would that potentially shift the ball back to the A380 in terms of better economic performance over the B747-8?

And if possible, in yourMHO....when do you think something like that is possible?

Yes, the majority share of it does. The disparity is so great relative to 747-400 simply because the current engines on 747 are a full two generations behind GEnX. The 747-8's new proportions have a little something to do with it too. Lifting surface refinements and simplification compliment the new engines nicely, and Boeing has ostensibly managed to keep the weight in check...

Sure they can develop a new engine using GEnX technology and it may be up to 10% more efficient than the current offerings. That would be a boon for A380, but what is the cost and time frame for the development of such engines? A billion $ and 6 years? What is the size of the potential market? 250 more airplanes over 15 years? Are the OEM’s going to cut off their current A380 engine programs? I gotta say no on that one. In total it looks like there will be diminishing returns from developing all new engines in this thrust class specifically for A380. Regardless of that however, contractual obligations limit the development paths of the GEnX and GP7000 engines as well as future development of engines in that thrust range by those OEM's...

The GEnX specifically, simply is not designed for a scale "up". It's basically at the limit of what two shafts can do at that BPR, fan/core mismatch, and power level. Just between you and me, IMO Boeing may have to leave GE behind if they need to seek significantly higher thrust levels for higher gross weight 787's...

R-R's hand seems to be a bit more free, and actually I'm beginning to lament the fact that exclusivity agreements meant that they could not get the Trent 8115 on 777-200LR/-300ER. For future airplanes with 350 or more seats I think Rolls may have the last laugh though as they seemed uniquely positioned to take advantage of current trends...



-widebodyphotog
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dall

Sat May 27, 2006 8:50 am

A look at the Qantas configs shows around 343 seats trans Pacific, of which they have been known to sacrifice 100 just to make it non-stop from Los Angeles to Melbourne even though the route is around 1500 nm shorter than the claimed maximum range on boeing.com

No wonder Qantas gets aggro about manufacturer claims and booted the 777-200LR. Couldn't do the long haul it wanted but too heavy to deal with stage lengths like Sydney-Los Angeles on a competitive basis with larger jets, including the very interesting 747-8i.

There are conflicting indications as to how many seats will be in the early Qantas A380s. Some say close to the 474 or so announced by SQ, some say just over 500. I doubt that Qantas would configure the ultimate jumbo jet with much mnore than 360 seats, especially as it expects to strip even more customers off United, and rub salt into the wound with more spacious premium cabin options in line with those on the A380 (assuming it buys the 747-8i).

The seat numbers used in most of the threads on this forum are useless in the real world. Cathay Pacific has less than 300 seats in some of its 747-400s and continues to make good money.

I have changed my view on the 747-8i. I think it does have a chance with Qantas, although the CFO Gregg was reported over a year ago as saying Qantas was ultimately interested in family developments with the A380, something that I haven't seen suggested as yet by Boeing for the 747-8i platform.

Turning just briefly to fleet consolidation. If you look carefully at what Qantas is actually doing, it looks like the Jetstar 'arrangements' for pay and conditions will spread through the entire operation, meaning no need for fleet differentiation for industrial reasons.

My prediction is Q 400s, A320 family, 787 family and A380 family by around 2016, at which time there will still be the odd A330 and 738 rattling around waiting for new owners, and a real contest will be underway for the single-aisle family replacement, a few years after Qantas has observed how well these all new 100-200 seaters have fared with the early buyers.

Antares
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dall

Sat May 27, 2006 9:11 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 182):
Yes, the majority share of it does. The disparity is so great relative to 747-400 simply because the current engines on 747 are a full two generations behind GEnX. The 747-8's new proportions have a little something to do with it too. Lifting surface refinements and simplification compliment the new engines nicely, and Boeing has ostensibly managed to keep the weight in check...

Sure they can develop a new engine using GEnX technology and it may be up to 10% more efficient than the current offerings. That would be a boon for A380, but what is the cost and time frame for the development of such engines? A billion $ and 6 years? What is the size of the potential market? 250 more airplanes over 15 years? Are the OEM's going to cut off their current A380 engine programs? I gotta say no on that one. In total it looks like there will be diminishing returns from developing all new engines in this thrust class specifically for A380. Regardless of that however, contractual obligations limit the development paths of the GEnX and GP7000 engines as well as future development of engines in that thrust range by those OEM's...

The GEnX specifically, simply is not designed for a scale "up". It's basically at the limit of what two shafts can do at that BPR, fan/core mismatch, and power level. Just between you and me, IMO Boeing may have to leave GE behind if they need to seek significantly higher thrust levels for higher gross weight 787's...

R-R's hand seems to be a bit more free, and actually I'm beginning to lament the fact that exclusivity agreements meant that they could not get the Trent 8115 on 777-200LR/-300ER. For future airplanes with 350 or more seats I think Rolls may have the last laugh though as they seemed uniquely positioned to take advantage of current trends...

WBP..thanks for taking the time to explain..

excellent... checkmark ...it makes a lot of sense....

from what you are saying, the GE engines might potentially be in trouble due to its double spool system....where as the RR-based triple-spooled engines might have the ability to develop higher thrust engines.....(but I won't count GE-out..)

your explanation (along with Lightsaber's)certainly making more sense to me now.. yes 

and the situation with the A380 seems interesting, as unlike from the 747-100 to the 747-8, the A380 might (key word) not have the potential to enjoy the benefits from a series of updated newer generation engines.....

Once again, thank you so kindly for taking the time to exlain a lot of the facts which certainly helps in understanding the thread a bit more... Smile


p.s.-I used "Professor" as a sign of respect (I'm sure you understood that already).... Wink
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 9:11 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 180):
If an airline puts 430 seats in a A380 vs 450 seats in a B747-8. Does that make the A380 an inefficient design? Bad CASM? Low structural efficiency? Who are we fooling here?

If we were to examine 747-8 using a similar OEW/passenger figure the Boeing seat configuration would drop to 407. Conversely if you apply the 747-8 figure to A380 OEW the Airbus seating would climb to 614. Structural efficiency plays a big part in the 747-8 seat specific advantage as the aerodynamics when analyzed on a specific basis work out better for A380 without factoring in weight. When total weight is entered in the A380 becomes a losing proposition relative to 747-8.

This is not to say the A380 is bad, it's just that Boeing is able to do better without spending eleventy-billion-dollars...

Quoting Keesje (Reply 180):
Many times is is confirmed the A380-800 has 35% more useable floor space then the 747-8i.

Armrest to armrest cabin seating area end to end, the A380 comes out at just over 27% better on cabin area vs 747-8. Giving total space per passenger advantage of 4%. Most of this additional passenger specific space comes from wider standard economy seats, 18 inches vs 17.2 inches. However the A380 standard business class seats are actually smaller than 747's...

Quoting Keesje (Reply 180):
Are you now comparing a 467 seat B748i vs a 550 seat A380? Why?

You can by applying the A380-800 generic seating pitch and proportion to the actual 747-8 cabin. I know the tools are not available to everyone but we don't use abstract calculations to model seating...

On cost specific basis any aircraft are "comparable". Not only that, but for larger, heavier aircraft as seating density decreases CASM increases on a steeper line than for smaller lighter aircraft at the same seating density. For the two airplanes being discussed here, with a large fuel burn delta for a given payload/range, a reduction in the amount of fuel needed for a given payload for 747-8 is a much more significant percentage of the total fuel requirement than it would be for A380. So as your density or payload thins out for both aircraft the disparity in fuel specific cost increases...What this means in practical terms is that the 747-8 can be operated with lower density while maintaining its seat specific cost disparity...the advantage of being lighter.

A payload reduction of 215lbs/pax means much more to a 747-8 than it does to the massively heavier A380-800...



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

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 9:19 am

Quoting Antares (Reply 183):
A look at the Qantas configs shows around 343 seats trans Pacific, of which they have been known to sacrifice 100 just to make it non-stop from Los Angeles to Melbourne even though the route is around 1500 nm shorter than the claimed maximum range on boeing.com

No wonder Qantas gets aggro about manufacturer claims and booted the 777-200LR. Couldn't do the long haul it wanted but too heavy to deal with stage lengths like Sydney-Los Angeles on a competitive basis with larger jets, including the very interesting 747-8i.

Antares you are CLEARLY wrong assuming QF has dumped the 772LR, as much as you are CLEARLY wrong about QF's desire for DFW non-stoppers. The 772LR has not been booted and I would be surprised if you had any real evidence for this. My info is that a decision could be made around August this year.
If you can't see the need and desire for QF to get into DFW, then heaven help you and your analysts.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 9:22 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 185):
Armrest to armrest cabin seating area end to end, the A380 comes out at just over 27% better on cabin area vs 747-8.

Then I´m curious how you got to this figure..

The A380´s 552 m2 figure is based on an upper deck floor width of 5.28 m, useable floor space.

Make sure to take the right floor area the B747-8i upperdeck & A-zone..
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 10:09 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 187):
The A380´s 552 m2 figure is based on an upper deck floor width of 5.28 m, useable floor space.

So you say...Can you prove that? And what defines "useable" floor space. For a cabin analysis so called "useable" floor space I would define as the area available where seats can actually be fixed minus the required area to be occupied by cabin service facilities. Even this is very abstract and can not properly define how to use a given cabin space. The actual geometry defines that. The best way to define seating configurations is to actually put seats or their representations in a defined space and see how things work out. Differences between cabin configurations can be quantified but without some defined representation of how things are laid out talking about space and area is basically useless.

There are some rather complicated formulae for determining comparative seating for different sized aircraft but they don't have to do with floor area directly when comparing airplane to airplane...



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

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 am

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 186):
The 772LR has not been booted. My info is that a decision could be made around August this year.

I Know with a considerable degree of certainty that late last year QF had plans for SYD-NYC service using the -200LR. This may or may not still be so.
If it was, it would seem to me that they would not establish a "sub-fleet" of less than 8 to 10 aircraft. If so what other routes might they deploy them on?
Perhaps PER-LHR ? Westbound, assuming -35k winds full passenger load plus 30000lb of freight appears to be possible. Of course, eastbound , assuming the same winds, they could haul pretty close to max. payload.
 
leelaw
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 11:37 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 179):
Wings - you are the eternal optimist when it comes to Airbus, but you are too clever to be missing the real issue here: Qantas and other airlines are comparing the 748i against the A388, and based upon the projected numbers for each of these aircraft, the 748i is looking quite good. Airlines are making a financial decison...and a huge investment, and this is a numbers game. As for a luxury experience for passengers, you know better, both the 748i and A388 will be packed with seats.....nicer accomodations for premium pax....but forget about lounges, bars, shopping malls and health clubs, it simply isnt happening. I am one of the older guys around here, we heard the same stuff when the first generation widebodies were introduced (and the old birds did have lounges for a period of time).....airlines offer seats and nothing more; the A380 is not going to change anything in the longrun on that front.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 170):
ou want a really luxurious trip across The Pond, book the Queen Mary 2. The A380, like every other commercial airliner in service, is all about getting you to your destination faster.

Absolutely correct and well put.

 checkmark 

Hope springs eternal.

Actually, the coach and first class "lounges" (in the case of AA "piano bars") were added during the "energy crisis" of the early seventies (circa 1973), when the airlines were having great difficulty selling seats, and their newly acquired widebodies were flying half-empty. It was purely a gimmick to sell seats, and these areas were promptly removed once traffic picked-up later in the decade. Certainly, the relatively spacious lounges that were added to UA, AA, and CO 747s and DC-10s of the seventies make everything in service today look like a joke in comparison, and IMO, set a very high bar for the nascent interiors of the A380 to surpass.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 11:51 am

SunriseValley,

Qantas declared in its december fleet announcement that neither Airbus nor Boeing had succeeded in making an operational case for viable non-stop service to either London or New York City.

Qantas subsequently asked Boeing to provide it with a revised proposal as to what it could achieve with the 777-200LR in a more normal or commercially salable three class configuration.

Boeing came back to Qantas with a set of proposals details of which I am unaware and haven't appeared in the public record which did not satisfy the carrier's needs.

We know that Qantas has expressed considerable interest in services to Chicago and to Dallas Fort Worth, but Chicago went cold when the numbers got realistically crunched. My personal view is the pro-rata deal they have with American is too good the replace with the risk of flying their own metal, and that the actual examination of the numbers of business travellers especially their city of origin breakdown in Australia, sank it, since it would have limited opportunities for connections at LA when they have six or more non-stop a day.

Clearly, Qantas will one day, who knows, maybe soon, revise the projections.

Dallas Forth Worth is getting the same cold hard look. If BA is having trouble sustaining its flights to DFW from London, the question is whether or not this has implications for Qantas.

I think DFW may well start off as a Jetstar International flight with 787-9s. Perhaps from Auckland, since I understand a lot of US leisure travellers come up in Tourism Australia research as combining both countries, or wishing to combine both countries.

Fragmentation of traffic and connections because of Love and DFW could enter the equations. I don't know. It is important to ask questions, rather than think as some do that they have all the answers.

The writer of the article that NAV 20 posted is noted for his close and informed connections with Boeing. I had no reason to doubt that if he was told QF had booted the 777-200LR that his information was soundly based.

Antares
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 12:26 pm

Quoting Antares (Reply 191):
Dallas Forth Worth is getting the same cold hard look. If BA is having trouble sustaining its flights to DFW from London, the question is whether or not this has implications for Qantas.

BA is crossing over a lot of the US to get to DFW from LGW, so it isn't the best place for connections for many passengers travelling to LON, especially since AA has many better located hubs in the eastern half of the US closer to LON. Since they don't have ATI with AA, they also compete with AA on LON-DFW rather than code share, and more importantly AA flies LHR-DFW in addition to LGW-DFW, so they probably take more high yield passengers.

QF doesn't have those problems if its flies to DFW as they have ATI with AA and AA will codeshare on QF flights rather than fly their own metal. BA flying to DFW is probably more similar to QF flying to ORD in terms of passengers having to fly some backwards US domestic connections.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 12:46 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 181):
No carrier is going to fit a 747 with 9-abreast to match the A388's comfort level.

Actually, it would greatly exceed the A388 comfort level and also exceed 787 8Y comfort level. It's just that CASM would be sky high. I believe the 787 8Y comfort level is a viable CASM-wise because of the lighter frame and improved reduced wall thickness compared to other jets from Boeing and Airbus, past, present and and as currently proposed for the future.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 12:57 pm

Gee after purusing the 787 and airports brochure linked elsewhere on this forum beating the 787 in the comfort stakes won't be hard.

If I'm going to sit nine abreast in an economy cabin give me the 777 any day.

Uh oh, wait a minute. If you look up the generic seats charts for the 777s Boeing is showing them ten abreast. That is a few millimetres worse than eight across in an A340/330 and that is really bad.

Mind you, I don't do economy all that much. Virgin Blue and Qantaslink are about it. Flew the Q 400 back from Brisbane the other week. Agony. And what gives with the noise supression system. It cuts in and out, mostly out. What a shame.

Antares
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 1:14 pm

Quoting Antares (Reply 183):
I have changed my view on the 747-8i. I think it does have a chance with Qantas

Good for you for that, Antares.

We're pretty well in full agreement now. It obviously makes sense for Qantas to take a good hard look at it. But I don't expect any early announcements because, as you say, they will make Boeing prove the performance figures beyond doubt; and a lot depends on AA's response in terms of the financial deal.

Another factor is that oil prices etc. are bashing Qantas' shares just as much as those of any other airline. Investors would not be pleased to hear of yet another prospective multi-billion-dollar purchase deal at the moment.

In that connection, has anyone else noticed that we are close to a 'first' on A.net? On the basis of Boeing and EADS/Airbus press releases, May 2006 could be the first month in recorded history (as far as I recall) in which NEITHER manufacturer secured ANY firm orders.

[Edited 2006-05-27 06:18:44]
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 1:15 pm

Quoting Antares (Reply 194):
Uh oh, wait a minute. If you look up the generic seats charts for the 777s Boeing is showing them ten abreast.

Nope, the generic arrangements are 9-abreast:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_seating_charts.html

Boeing does provide reference arrangements with high-density economy:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777rsec2.pdf (pages 9-14)
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 1:38 pm

Good. I'm all for a bit of space. We need a 'shame' list for all those who dare to crossover to 10 across in the 777 and a 'fame' list for those that keep 8 across in the 787s.

Antares
 
douwd20
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:45 am

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dall

Sat May 27, 2006 2:49 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 179):
airlines offer seats and nothing more; the A380 is not going to change anything in the longrun on that front

 checkmark 

Sad but so true. They really have nothing else to 'sell'. Airline reservation systems sell seats and seats only.
 
texdravid
Posts: 1835
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: Qantas Drops 772LR, But Considers 748i To Dallas

Sat May 27, 2006 2:56 pm

Qantas has been talking about DFW for ages. This prolonged dating without proposing is too much for me and a lot of other DFW folks. Wake me up when Qantas decides to shelve this idea for the umpteenth time.

Further, the 747-8 is way too much capacity for a proposed DFW flight, especially at the beginning. A daily flight with 400+ seats leaving DFW to SYD? Come on!! DFW would best be served with a 200-250 seat plane visiting 2-3X week at the beginning and going from there.

DFW is a place where foreign metal comes rarely, rarely returns after leaving, and a place every traveler gets ramrodded in the AAss by our lovely hometown airline.

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