Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
atlflyer
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:13 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:59 pm

Quoting poLot (Reply 7):

I agree. Most Australians have nothing good to say about Qantas. I have had great flights with them and think they are great yet my Australian friends think otherwise.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10732
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:02 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 97):
Zeke is imho pointing out that the number of B787 airplanes delivered later to QF is higher then the number of A380's.

These a/c are in different categories, based on their designed missions and the world's current environment, the 787 will alwaye be ordered in greater numbers than the A380 by major airlines, so unless we are talking about a small airline with a fleet of 2 A380's and 2 787's the actual numbers of frames ordered and delayed by QF between these two a/c is not a great barometer.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:16 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 90):
I still believe Airbus would have cancelled and gone with the A350XWB for a number of reasons: the 787's strong sales momentum (the "drug-like rush"), that "blue-chip" customers like QF, SQ and BA were selecting the 787 over the A350 (and I expect not all of those decisions were based purely on time-to-market) and that they knew that the A340 would secure little to no new orders and that would give Boeing the 300-500 seat market to itself.

Hindsight is always perfect vision, but I believed - and said - at the time that Airbus should have gone ahead with the A350 (1) and that Qantas should have ordered it, and everything that has happened since has only reinforced that view.

The problem was "the drug like rush" - the (airline) world was dazzled, blinded, by the 787. What is missing is that even Stephen Udvar Hazy admitted, in his wretched attack on the aircraft, is that the A350 (1) was a very good plane. But it was always (as he also said) a silver medal aircraft compared with the gold medal of the 787.

But sometimes there is nothing wrong with a silver medal. As US Airways CEO Parker said when he transferred the order to the XWB - we didn't see what was wrong with the original A350.

The A350(1) was the A330 on steroids and it would have been cheaper to produce, easier to bring to EIS and thus, above, all - ready.

Several operators - Qantas included - turned to the A330 in the face of the 787 delays - how many more might have turned to the A350 (1) if only because of availability(1)?

But of course you are correct - it wasn't just a matter of time-to-market. The 787 may be the better, gold medal, aircraft, but it is point blank useless to an airline if it isn't in service.

And it is worse than useless if an airline burdens itself with losses and thus debt (and perhaps even goes under) waiting for it to arrive.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
displane
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 8:50 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:35 pm

If I'm not mistaken, first it was AI and now QF. So who's the next airline/CEO to complain? A bit of a sarcastic question but really, would anyone be surprised if there was another complaint?

BTW, how much did it cost QF for the grounding of the 380's? In another forum, it was 30 million/month USD for Emirates.

[Edited 2012-06-13 13:38:05]
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:37 pm

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 22):
So that the A330s can go back into QF's fleet and replaced 744s

The A330 doesn't have the range for a lot (most) of QFs 744 flying. The 77E/L/W does.

Quoting sweair (Reply 55):
Where would QF have used the 77L? Super niched LHR-PER?

Where to start? SYD-DFW, SYD-SFO, SYD-YVR, SYD-DXB, AKL-LAX. SYD-JFK (although probably not as its better to feed at LAX and theres the DFW flight), etc. Basically the 77L is better than the 77E over 8+ hour sectors. In turn this is better than the 744, and also better than the A330 on these longer sectors. The A330 of course owns less than 9 hours. In reality thought the 77W is THE aircraft for QF as its a 744 replacement effectively yet costs a lot less and allows greater profitability on existing routes whilst allowing more marginal routes to survive.
SYD-DFW, SYD-SFO, 2nd SYD-LAX(+JFK), BNE-LAX, SYD-YVR, MEL-HKG-LHR, SYD-HKG, SYD-SIN-FRA, SYD-SIN-CDG, AKL-LAX, SYD-DXB. Thats a fleet of up to 18 aircraft so easily big enough to justify its inclusion.
QF could have scrapped all 744s and just kept the 6x 744ERs for JNB and SCL, and another couple of routes.
Less maintenance, much lower fuel burn, greater payload, more cargo space, better reliability, leasing advantages. Also Boeing sure as hell would have done whatever it takes to make this order happen pronto. So even if QF had waited until 2008 it would now likely have at least a dozen 77W. Even if tomorrow QF was to decide to order them Boeing would make it happen. 6 per year. Lease for 10 years then replace with the new 777Xs
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:21 pm

I think it's fine for AJ to be p!ssed at Boeing but it's a bit late in the day, isn't it? It has been quite some time since any more delays have happened and he's known about his delivery schedule for a while.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't still be mad about the situation...crying about that particular spilled milk is a bit of a waste of time at this point. Complaining isn't going to speed up the process any.

I think, if anything, this story has more to do with AI compensation than any epiphany about delivery dates.
What the...?
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:23 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 106):
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 22):
So that the A330s can go back into QF's fleet and replaced 744s

The A330 doesn't have the range for a lot (most) of QFs 744 flying. The 77E/L/W does.

It was a joke! I'm aware of that and their shortcomings with fleet selection.
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7474
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:30 pm

Why is Jetstar getting the first 15 787-8 when their flights are shorter then QF and can be flown by A330's ? QF needs the range of teh 787's much more then Jetstar.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:51 pm

Oh and another thing about 777s. They would free up at least 3x A330 to go do things like PEK and ICN
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10732
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:03 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 109):
Why is Jetstar getting the first 15 787-8 when their flights are shorter then QF and can be flown by A330's ? QF needs the range of teh 787's much more then Jetstar.

Off topic but QF international ops are rumoured to be taking a beating so transferring some flights to Jetstar who have lower cost is an economic decision driven by circumstance and the direction that the company has chosen not directly the capabilities of the a/c.
Imagine the fuss if they tried to transfer existing 747 flying to Jetstar, new a/c coming into the fleet make the transition easier.
 
TruemanQLD
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:09 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:13 am

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 102):
Most Australians have nothing good to say about Qantas.

While I believe that to be true on A.net, the general feelings of Australians towards QF is not nearly as bad as it is on here. Newspolls conducted at the time of the QF shutdown, to gauge public opinion, were surprisingly in QF favour. The problem is, Australians aren't spending that little bit extra to fly QF, and instead go with the cheaper competition.

Quoting displane (Reply 105):
BTW, how much did it cost QF for the grounding of the 380's? In another forum, it was 30 million/month USD for Emirates.

I am not sure if a figure has ever been released, but it would have cost a fair bit, but a lot of compensation was received from RR. Whether it is enough to cover it, I am not sure.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 109):
Why is Jetstar getting the first 15 787-8 when their flights are shorter then QF and can be flown by A330's ? QF needs the range of teh 787's much more then Jetstar.

Because QF would likely be using the initial 787's for domestic operations anyway. So by giving JQ the more economical aircraft, they can lower their cost base further and make more money on their longer international routes (NRT/KIX etc). The A330's will undoubtably be given a very nice makeover into the new QF product, and will go head on on with DJ on SYD/MEL-PER and SYD-MEL-BNE route. Not saying I agree with the decision, but I believe that is their reasoning. Could be wrong.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15136
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:56 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 77):
Maybe because the 77W only entered service eight years ago?

It was launched earlier than that. And during design and flight testing, the specs changed dramatically, making it a far better 744 replacement than it was at launch (where it was more of a 742/3 replacement).

And this argument can as easily be made for the A346, which entered service before the 77W, and in times of lower fuel costs, made sense as well. QF simply ignored anything smaller than a 744 for long haul, and when it finally became obvious to them that they needed something smaller, it was too late to order the current crop of aircraft because, as many have pointed out, their long-term viability was limited.

Either way, there are 200+ unfilled orders for the 77W. All those carriers are obviously idiots for taking them at this late hour. QF is wise for sticking with their course of action, which includes waiting on the 789, deferring A380s, and losing money...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:19 am

Quoting na (Reply 70):
Pathological preaching for 777s isnt good either.

Wait a tick. QF is moaning about the lack of delivery of its ordered 250-280 seaters - a legitimate moan given Boeing's muckup with the 787. But it's been apparent for a very long time now that QF has had a gaping hole in the 250-300 seat segment that it has simply walked away from, relying on too large 744s that are prone to loss during economic downturns, and right-sized 330s/too small 767s that can't substitue on longer, thinner routes.

In my opinion, the 777 would have been ideal, but if they'd gone A340, then fine, why not (which could've made South america/South africa routes more viable)? Just something in that space. But they didn't and consequently left themselves exposed to the potential for delay arising from a new aircraft programme (the 787).

So I refute that it's "pathological preaching for 777s" - it's pathological preaching for something in the 300 seat, longhaul space.

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 54):
Whenever a thread starts about QF 'Losing money' et al, it is always because they 'didn't order the 777'

No, it's really not. If you'd been paying attention then lately it's all been about labour costs/

But when there's a thread about the QF CEO saying they're losing money because they haven't got the aircraft they ordered, then yeah, it becomes about the fleet choice.

Quoting na (Reply 70):
I said, QF opted for A380s to replace the 744s. And for 787s to replace the 767s. Both are bigger than their predecessors

And?

Quoting mariner (Reply 73):
It's been a while and most of the articles about it are archived now, but - happily - some quotes from the articles exist in the a.net archives.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 79):
Yes, later both he and Leahy said the tipping point was the QF loss, which happened shortly after the Air Canada loss.

Interesting, I genuinely did not know this (just in case you thought I was trying to be clever). I thought QF was on the sidelines of this one as its 330 experience was relatively new.

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 76):
With the astoundingly easy benefit of hindsight, maybe.

And foresight. Really, analysts, commentators, casual observers have been noting for years that QF has a serious defficiency in the 300 seat. long haul class or aircraft. Christ you only have to pick up an Australian Aviation magazine from the 1990s to see the renderings of A340s in QF colours to see how long people have banged on about this.

Also, I'm not paid tp undertake a risk analysis of fleet decisions. You'd hope that those who are have a pretty firm grasp on things and are, rightly, sceptical in their approach.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 81):
But when it's a question of inducting a Boeing product, particularly the 77W which so many anetters are having a lovefest over, not single negative comment is raised over the introduction of such a sub-fleet. Rather the opposite, as evidence above shows.

Nice attempt at turning this into AvB. Really, clever stuff (without a shred of evidence, of course). And this "lovefest" you speak of - is this the one that is borne out by actual orders?

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 83):
Who are 75% government owned and were losing $1 million a week internationally last August IIRC...

Irrelevant. And can you provide a counterfactual? ie. what if they hadn't bought the 777? My point was that NZ was able to introduce the 777 during the 2000s and benefitted from them, whereas it was stated that it was a 90s-era jet, implying that was the window of opportunity. Given the prospect of the 77X, the time probably has passed for the current generation of 777s as a new fleet. A shame for QF.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 92):
Does the fact that QF deferred some aircraft after they were supposed to be delivered and with no end in sight to the delays relevant? Probably not

I think it does. Allocating the jets to Jetstar fairly recently, only to complain that QF needs them now, is befuddling. If they're so damn critical, yank them off JQ, who, with lower costs and shorter trips, are less in need of the cost savings and premium potential offered by the 787.

Joyce has a right to be peeved. Boeing mucked up. But he should be peeved at the QF executive too for either wrongly assessing the risk of its fleet strategy or just misreading the market altogether (fuel prices, the GFC, competition). In which case, shareholders should be pretty peeved too.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10732
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:01 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 114):
Joyce has a right to be peeved. Boeing mucked up. But he should be peeved at the QF executive

You really expect an employee to go in public talking about his employer the way he talked about Boeing?
Say it ain't so.... 
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 114):
Also, I'm not paid tp undertake a risk analysis of fleet decisions. You'd hope that those who are have a pretty firm grasp on things and are, rightly, sceptical in their approach.

I think these are the guys who are supposed to have foresight, we the masses only have hindsight.

In relation to the 777 decision the issue is more of having a discussion where one can be critical of the fleet decision without saying that ones favorite carrier made a mistake or an error in judgement or could have looked more in-depth, etc. etc. in the long run its about what the supporters are willing to accept. QF has long since made their decision and are working with what they have however their past decisions affect the present.
 
wingman
Posts: 4081
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:02 am

To add to the last post, it seems a bit hypocritical for the Airbus fan club to say that the 777 would've done nothing to help QF back then but that the delays in the 787 are somehow to blame for QF's problems now. Either a particular plane is going to help or it isn't. I don't see how you have it both ways. And do we know for certain that QF is more pissed off at Boeing over the 787 delays than they are at Airbus over the 380 issues? I don't have the inclination to do the math but I'd wager that at this precise point in time the number of seats that should be in regular revenue service for each frame multiplied by the average revenue per year per frame might make it a close contest for the OEM asshole award (knowing of course that the average 380 seat must command at least a 200% premium over the 787...you know, because it's an Airbus).
 
Cerecl
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:12 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 96):
it was meant to highlight a double standard based not on what was said but on who said them. Folks said similar comments by others were non-professional and not in line with working along with an OEM who would be your partner for years to come.

Sorry I cannot agree. There is no double standard as what AJ said and what a certain CEO of a major ME airline said are completely different. AJ did not say something like "if manufacturer A gave me a revamped version of aircraft X why would I bothered with 787" or "we demand gazillion dollars of compensation otherwise we will not take the aircraft" (admittedly the said CEO didn't say that either) or cancel a ceremony days before an aircraft is about to be handed over.
As to unprofessional, if the definition of it is “daring to criticise an manufacturer whose product is years late", then sure. From where I sit there is nothing unprofessional about what AJ said. The aircraft is late, he emphasized how important it is to QF group. If anything this is a good example of fair comment without over the top theatrics or bashing. Working along with an OEM doesn't mean justified criticism cannot be made.
God, I need to lie down, what I just wrote makes me sound like the biggest cheerleader of AJ   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 98):
JQ and/or QF were in a position to get earlier frames (post-LN20), but chose not to.

As some has pointed out already, the decision was made in the middle of the 787 delay saga. I don't wish to revisit what happened then. However, I think it is not too inaccurate to say that at the time, there was little certainty about the EIS date or the performance of the 787.

[Edited 2012-06-13 19:13:03]
Fokker-100 SAAB 340 Q400 E190 717 737 738 763ER 787-8 772 77E 773 77W 747-400 747-400ER A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A346 A359 A380
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27555
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:16 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 109):
Why is Jetstar getting the first 15 787-8 when their flights are shorter then QF and can be flown by A330's?
Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 112):
Because QF would likely be using the initial 787's for domestic operations anyway.

Wasn't the original plan to send them to JQ first so they could use them to open new services to the EU with JQ's A330s being moved to QF to replace the 767s on CityFlyer services? I thought I recall rumblings that JQ was going to order the 238t A330-200 to serve those EU missions once the 787 ran aground.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:42 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118):
Wasn't the original plan to send them to JQ first so they could use them to open new services to the EU with JQ's A330s being moved to QF to replace the 767s on CityFlyer services?

That's still the plan although just not with the EU part. JQ has most recently said that 787's could be used either through SIN or from Australia to NHL or DPS first. Either way we wil know next year because the first JQ 788's arrive in the second half of 2013 and they should have 4, I think, in service by end of 2013. So hopefully QF domestic will have 3 or 4 re-furbished A332's on the way by end of 2013.

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 112):
So by giving JQ the more economical aircraft, they can lower their cost base further and make more money on their longer international routes (NRT/KIX etc). The A330's will undoubtably be given a very nice makeover into the new QF product, and will go head on on with DJ on SYD/MEL-PER and SYD-MEL-BNE route.

And to HNL. It'll be interesting to see if QF mainline sticks around on HNL after the 787 is delivered because JQ will have an even more decided cost advantage over the 767 currently flying.

Regarding the makeover, it'll be interesting to see if these A332's enter service with seatback IFE or not. If the IPAD trial is successful we may find that installed instead. I presume that would also be cheaper?
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:55 am

Since when is it a good idea to bank on assets you don't have? That's the biggest mistake a business can make in this day and age. QF knew what they were getting into, and decided to stake their financial future on it anyway. But that's the typical decision making process of a former Crown corporation.

Quoting garpd (Reply 52):

IMO, these comments are a direct result of Air India's demands for $1Bn in compensation.
Seems to me, QF want a slice of that to help pad out their own inaction and bad decision making (a lot like AI then!)

  

Alan Joyce is probably feeling the heat too, so it's obvious he's going to be very crafty and vocal when he comes up with good excuses.
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10390
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:59 am

A very wise college classmate once said that most people operate as follows: "When it's the other guy's fault, hang your head because you screwed up by trusting him. When it's really your fault, blame the other guy, and quick."

This is just another example of a CEO who is looking to blame anyone but himself for the sorry state of his airline. Somehow, DL seems to be turning decent profits without needing either the 787 or even the newest fleet. But DL has the respect of its workforce, which this guy and his airline do not.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27555
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:45 am

One negotiating advantage AI has that QF doesn't is AI has some half-dozen completed or in-assembly 787s between PAE and CHS...
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:25 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 114):
But when there's a thread about the QF CEO saying they're losing money because they haven't got the aircraft they ordered, then yeah, it becomes about the fleet choice.

Where does he say that?

I read that not having the aircraft is surely costing them money. I did not read that he blames the airline's losses on not having the aircraft, though.

I thought it was a moderately light hearted interview that is full of praise for the potential of the 787.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 114):
Interesting, I genuinely did not know this (just in case you thought I was trying to be clever).

That certainly crossed my mind, but it doesn't matter if you were. A lot of people here dismissed - or dissed - the A350 (1) without giving it a lot of thought. I'm used to it.

mariner

[Edited 2012-06-13 21:39:34]
aeternum nauta
 
phxa340
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:06 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 123):
I thought it was a moderately light hearted interview that is full of praise for the potential of the 787.

  

I would only be upset because I don't have an aircraft that is going to be stellar. If a lame duck airplane that was going to be a poor performer was delayed three years - I wouldn't be upset , I would have just cancelled the order.

I see this interview as exhibiting frustration towards the process but praise for the product.
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:17 am

The Sydney Morning Herald has just released an article about this whole issue:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/qanta...n-down-the-roo-20120614-20bvt.html
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:16 am

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 72):
All he said was he was very dissatisfied with Boeing over 787's delay and that had the delay not happened these 787 would have been contributing positive to QF group. I really cannot see anything controversial in that.

Absolutely true. Ontopic there is not a single blame to be put on QF.

These replies about weak QF figures and the 777 are just a deceiving maneouvre to detract from the topic at hand.

Does such a hurtful but obvious remark today still warrant 100 777 advertising posts to relieve the pain of some Boeing fans? Get over it, that various highly succesful airlines don't have 777. That fact alone is no damage to the excellent reputation of the 777.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:14 am

Quoting sydscott (Reply 117):
JQ has most recently said that 787's could be used either through SIN or from Australia to NHL or DPS first.

Further, apparently the ANA Boeing 787's have proved to be more than 20% more efficient than 767's on long haul routes and these are the overweight, earlier build ones. So it makes more sense for JQ to take delivery of them and use them to Japan and HNL. It'd also make sense for QF mainline International to also get a handful for PVG, HNL and HKG but I guess that's where the calculation of where the better return is comes into play. If you can get 20% less fuel burn, 30% less maintenance cost and significantly less operating costs in terms of labour etc all the while earning the same revenue then unfortunately JQ is where the most benefit is. QF mainline International needs to pare its labour costs etc back so that it can then earn the decent return that will come with having the 787 in the fleet.
 
TruemanQLD
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:09 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:40 am

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 119):
This is just another example of a CEO who is looking to blame anyone but himself for the sorry state of his airline. Somehow, DL seems to be turning decent profits without needing either the 787 or even the newest fleet. But DL has the respect of its workforce, which this guy and his airline do not.

DL also gets this convenient advantage of being able to run itself into the ground through bad management (and a range of other things) and then turn around and enter itself into Chapter 11. Qantas, as with most other airlines worldwide, don't have that nice option and have to be careful, because the government won't bail them out. I mean really, to compare it to DL is crazy, because I am sure QF would love to run themselves bankrupt so they could slash wages, fire staff and other things they are currently contractually obliged to do that is unprofitable for them now. It would easily solve most of QF problems that they have at the moment. Also, QF is turning profits, and has for a lot longer than DL has been. QF also has a very proud history and, in a survey conducted in 2011, was the 4th on a list of companies Australians would most like to work for. So to say they don't have the respect of the workforce is quite untrue.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:42 pm

Quoting TheCol (Reply 118):
Since when is it a good idea to bank on assets you don't have? That's the biggest mistake a business can make in this day and age. QF knew what they were getting into, and decided to stake their financial future on it anyway. But that's the typical decision making process of a former Crown corporation.

Since when is it possible to run a company and not bank on assets you do not have?

You develop products hoping you can sell them. Or you sell products hoping you can produce them. Never do you have products and customers at exactly the same step.

The 787 is a good example of Boeing selling what they don't have. And for each sale there is a customer buying something they hope Boeing will be able to produce. How would a project of this magnitude happen if there wasn't this trust in the future?
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10732
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:11 pm

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 115):
AJ did not say something like "if manufacturer A gave me a revamped version of aircraft X why would I bothered with 787"

Oh, ok you are talking about the A350, my bad, I was being general, harsh comments have been thrown about the 747-8, 777 additional development, 787-10, 737Max etc. etc. which was regarded as unprofessional.

Quoting cmf (Reply 127):
The 787 is a good example of Boeing selling what they don't have.

All new a/c models are sold by OEM's before they are built, indeed some are sold even before the design is complete.
The a/c industry is one of the few where even new a/c of a model in production is not sitting at the OEM awaiting purchase, they are almost always built after you place your order.
Unlike the automobile industry for example who usually design and produce their vehicles then offer them for sale.
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:58 pm

Quoting sydscott (Reply 125):
QF mainline International needs to pare its labour costs etc back so that it can then earn the decent return that will come with having the 787 in the fleet.

You make the 787 sound like a liability. I would also say we need companies to pay staff more not less, that is why our industries in the west are grinding to a halt. No one has the money to do anything.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
phxa340
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:47 pm

Quoting babybus (Reply 129):
I would also say we need companies to pay staff more not less, that is why our industries in the west are grinding to a halt.

Huh ? Our companies in the West are grinding to a halt because labor costs are too high ... to be competitive with lower cost airlines, some legacy carriers like QF need to reduce their costs.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:54 pm

Quoting PHXA340 (Reply 130):
Huh ? Our companies in the West are grinding to a halt because labor costs are too high ... to be competitive with lower cost airlines, some legacy carriers like QF need to reduce their costs.

That is not only air lines sadly, most of us costs too much on a global scale. I see high tech well paid jobs leave Sweden every week now. Troubling times to be a westerner, but good times to be Asian  
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26151
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:47 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 112):
My point was that NZ was able to introduce the 777 during the 2000s and benefitted from them, whereas it was stated that it was a 90s-era jet, implying that was the window of opportunity. Given the prospect of the 77X, the time probably has passed for the current generation of 777s as a new fleet. A shame for QF.

And as earlier mentioned, Air Canada put in their first 777 order in the mid 2000s in the same time frame as they wound down their 747 and A340 fleets, and ordered 787s in the late 2000s. Again, not the only way to build a fleet, but also shows one did not have to start with the 777 in 1995 as some seem to be suggesting.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:29 pm

Quoting babybus (Reply 129):
You make the 787 sound like a liability. I would also say we need companies to pay staff more not less, that is why our industries in the west are grinding to a halt. No one has the money to do anything.

I would say Company's need to pay staff more only if they've earned it. For an airline, the 787 is an investment that needs to generate a commercial rate of return. That means having an appropriate cost structure in order to do that. If the 787 saves 20% in fuel costs, that's not a reason to pay staff 20% more because that cost saving should flow to shareholders who are putting their capital at risk. If you want more pay then you need to be more productive and smarter in how you do things.
 
fiscal
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:47 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:29 pm

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 119):
This is just another example of a CEO who is looking to blame anyone but himself for the sorry state of his airline. Somehow, DL seems to be turning decent profits without needing either the 787 or even the newest fleet. But DL has the respect of its workforce, which this guy and his airline do not.

It seems you are not aware of the facts. QF is turning a profit, but it could have been better had the 787 been available, and also, if some elements of the QF staff had been more respectful to the company and to the flying public, the profits would have been even higher.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15953
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:01 am

Quoting sydscott (Reply 125):
Further, apparently the ANA Boeing 787's have proved to be more than 20% more efficient than 767's on long haul routes and these are the overweight, earlier build ones

I do not believe the report in the Australian. Have a look at this analysis http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/boeing787-2011.html they have the 767 actually using less fuel on regional flights, and the 787 only doing marginally better on 4000 nm trips. Keep in mind the 788 OEW is around 27t heaver than a 767-300 at spec weights, more likely around 30t with these ANA aircraft.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 132):
Air Canada put in their first 777 order in the mid 2000s in the same time frame as they wound down their 747 and A340 fleets, and ordered 787s in the late 2000s.

Having 777s has not helped AC dramatically, like I said earlier on this thread, operating the 777 is not a license to print money. If anything having the 777 in AC has made them think they can operate routes the probably would be better off leaving alone, you do not go around using aircraft near the maximum of the performance range unless you have a very good business case for doing so. That business case has to include the actual airline costs, which AC does not have under control.

For QF the A380s would be giving them around 15-20% lower per seat costs than what they could do with the 77W, let alone a 77E. QFs route network is a number of consolidated routes where they can take advantage of the lower seat mile costs of a VLA, they do not have a large point to point network. The strategic direction they appear to have taken for the next 10 years of so from the annual reports tends to show more consolidation on routes, not expansion.

Likewise the fleet choice made at QF would not suite AC or NZ, they are different airlines, with different route networks, and different strategic objectives.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
thegeek
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:10 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 104):

Where to start? SYD-DFW, SYD-SFO, SYD-YVR, SYD-DXB, AKL-LAX. SYD-JFK (although probably not as its better to feed at LAX and theres the DFW flight), etc. Basically the 77L is better than the 77E over 8+ hour sectors.

8 hours? I'd expect that the 77L would be taking off at MZFW for sectors that short. AKL-LAX I'd be surprised if it needed a 77L - 77E would be fine.
SYD-DXB on QF? Pointless without code shares onto EK
SYD-YVR - needed to move before AC had the 77W service, let alone the 77L service, and also needed to arrange feed at the YVR end.
SYD-SFO - 77E can do it fine. 77L would only increase the cargo carried. I think you'd only use the 77L if you had better uses for any 77Es that you have.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:12 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 135):
I do not believe the report in the Australian. Have a look at this analysis http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/boeing787-2011.html they have the 767 actually using less fuel on regional flights, and the 787 only doing marginally better on 4000 nm trips. Keep in mind the 788 OEW is around 27t heaver than a 767-300 at spec weights, more likely around 30t with these ANA aircraft.

I didn't read the report in the Australian. (I don't read Murdoch press  ) I got that from the Boeing 787 blog where apparently ANA has stated it. But I'd believe you in relation to regional flights vs the 767.
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:22 am

Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):
AKL-LAX I'd be surprised if it needed a 77L - 77E would be fine.

It's not about needing a 77L.. It's about efficiency and possible load of the 77L over the 77E which makes the 77L more appealing for sectors over 8 hours.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):
SYD-SFO - 77E can do it fine.

I'm sure such a flight would have some sort of weight restrictions..
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
ZKOJH
Topic Author
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:58 am

so interesting how this is such a ''HOT'' topic with now up to 32,144 views but comments are stalling around 140 ish lol, just goes to show what people really think of the 787 program and QF, with good and bad news from people, well done everyone.!

[Edited 2012-06-14 18:01:31]
Air New Zealand ~ dreams of flying
 
thegeek
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:33 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 138):
It's not about needing a 77L.. It's about efficiency and possible load of the 77L over the 77E which makes the 77L more appealing for sectors over 8 hours.

What's the difference in ZFW over the LAX-AKL sector between the 77E and 77L?

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 138):
I'm sure such a flight would have some sort of weight restrictions..

Affecting belly cargo SYD-SFO, yes.
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:38 am

Quoting thegeek (Reply 140):
Affecting belly cargo SYD-SFO, yes.

To put it into perspective, I think there are days when the 77E goes AKL-YVR with rows blocked off due to weight so they're carrying no extra cargo and less passengers. With SYD-SFO being longer than AKL-YVR, I have a feeling that there'd be restrictions during certain parts of the year on this sector too, when using a 77E.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 140):
What's the difference in ZFW over the LAX-AKL sector between the 77E and 77L?

Sorry, I'm not a figures person. Maybe someone else could help out.
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
qf002
Posts: 3692
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:51 am

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 139):

It always seems like there is an overwhelming majority slamming QF, when in actual fact it's just a few very vocal few. I think this thread is a perfect example of that (and the fact that this is just the same topic that is raised over and over and many people have given up on it...)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27555
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:10 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 135):
I do not believe the report in the Australian.
NH flies both planes, so I am inclined to believe their claims, and said claims (from ANA President and Chief Executive Shinichiro Ito) are their 787-8s are saving 21% more fuel per trip (flight) than the 767-300ERs.

Piano-X's figure of 1.4% sounds more like it's comparing a 787-8 and 767-300ER with the same payload, which while it does provide an even baseline, artificially hobbles the 787's greater payload capability (even when overweight and with sub-spec engine SFC) When fuel burn is expressed as a percentage of payload, the 787-8's advantage increases a fair bit and could therefore be what Ito-san is referring to when he says the 787 is saving 21% fuel per trip (flight).

[Edited 2012-06-14 21:24:02]
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:28 pm

Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):

8 hours? I'd expect that the 77L would be taking off at MZFW for sectors that short. AKL-LAX I'd be surprised if it needed a 77L - 77E would be fine.

77E is fine, but a 77L does it better.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 138):
Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):
AKL-LAX I'd be surprised if it needed a 77L - 77E would be fine.

It's not about needing a 77L.. It's about efficiency and possible load of the 77L over the 77E which makes the 77L more appealing for sectors over 8 hours.

  

Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):
SYD-DXB on QF? Pointless without code shares onto EK

There are something like 130 airlines flying into DXB. Many of which are in OW or could be code-share partners with QF. BA of course flies there too.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):
SYD-YVR - needed to move before AC had the 77W service, let alone the 77L service, and also needed to arrange feed at the YVR end.

Yes before AC would have been better but there is still likely a market for it. As for feed, QF has agreements with AS (who has a major presence in YVR) and could arrange with others such as Westjet. YVR/BC itself is quite a reasonable O&D market. Definitely a 77L sector.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 136):

SYD-SFO - 77E can do it fine. 77L would only increase the cargo carried. I think you'd only use the 77L if you had better uses for any 77Es that you have.

It would not being carrying a full payload. Why bother ordering a fleet of 77E when you also have the A333? Better to have 77L and 77W for commonality and range coupled with the A333 for Asia.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:55 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 143):
Piano-X's figure of 1.4% sounds more like it's comparing a 787-8 and 767-300ER with the same payload, which while it does provide an even baseline, artificially hobbles the 787's greater payload capability (even when overweight and with sub-spec engine SFC) When fuel burn is expressed as a percentage of payload, the 787-8's advantage increases a fair bit and could therefore be what Ito-san is referring to when he says the 787 is saving 21% fuel per trip (flight


I agree. My figuring with PIANO X comes to this conclusion.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15953
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:37 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 143):
NH flies both planes, so I am inclined to believe their claims, and said claims (from ANA President and Chief Executive Shinichiro Ito) are their 787-8s are saving 21% more fuel per trip (flight) than the 767-300ERs.

The QF group will be operating their 787s differently to the way they operate their 767s, so a like comparison by them would be difficult to do, esp if Jetstar end up operating the 787 as they have different cost structures. I would expect Jetstar to have their aircraft configured close to the maximum seating capability with 9 across in Y.

NH operate their aircraft with low seating densities, I would expect around 100 more seats on a Jetstar 788 compared to the NH aircraft. NH made the similar claims before they even started flying them. The same CE also said they have 220-250 seat 787s when they are configured to 156 seats, and they were referring to the Tokyo-Frankfurt route which they do not operate 767s on, that is a 777 route which have 220-250 seats.

The ANAs 767s have winglets installed, these are by everyone’s count, including Boeings better than the baseline 767 that Boeing compared the 787 to originally.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 143):

Piano-X's figure of 1.4% sounds more like it's comparing a 787-8 and 767-300ER with the same payload, which while it does provide an even baseline, artificially hobbles the 787's greater payload capability (even when overweight and with sub-spec engine SFC) When fuel burn is expressed as a percentage of payload, the 787-8's advantage increases a fair bit and could therefore be what Ito-san is referring to when he says the 787 is saving 21% fuel per trip (flight).


Have a look at the sort of cargo density they need to carry to reach MZFW with only 156 passengers, assuming they can actually get 100% LF for passengers and freight. When I did the numbers, it came out to over double the industry average for air cargo.

So my question is, is this "greater payload capability" something that would be seen in industry given the average load factors for passengers, freight, and cargo density.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
tayser
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:49 pm

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:51 pm

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 10):
Most Australians do feel a sense of patriotism towards the national airline, there is nothing better than sitting half way around the world and seeing the flying Kangaroo.

speak for yourself - there's nothing that makes me cringe more than QF's jingoistic marketing.

Quoting sweair (Reply 55):
Where would QF have used the 77L? Super niched LHR-PER?

The only route QF -could- have used a 77L on is MEL-North America year-round - the 333/332 and 77W could do everything else in the current network (or "realistic" potential network with a new aircraft type).

VA fly 77Ws MEL-LAX but as I've personally experienced they dont always make the full journey from Los Angeles to Melbourne.

Otherwise, 77Ls are useless to QF - South America and Africa require 4 turbines due to CASA rules, Asia is not a 777 destination (despite TG and MH using them - MH have even started transferring AU routes to their new 330s and SQ is replacing 77Es with 330s).
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27555
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:02 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 146):
Have a look at the sort of cargo density they need to carry to reach MZFW with only 156 passengers, assuming they can actually get 100% LF for passengers and freight. When I did the numbers, it came out to over double the industry average for air cargo.

But are the planes actually going out at MZFW when flying across the Sea of Japan or the Eurasian continent?

If they are not, then I would think the cargo density should be lower even if every LD3 position is filled.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7474
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787

Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:39 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 135):
Having 777s has not helped AC dramatically, like I said earlier on this thread, operating the 777 is not a license to print money. If anything having the 777 in AC has made them think they can operate routes the probably would be better off leaving alone, you do not go around using aircraft near the maximum of the performance range unless you have a very good business case for doing so. That business case has to include the actual airline costs, which AC does not have under control.

Air Canada has many 10 hour flights from eastern Canada to Europe, deep South America and Vancouver to Japan. Some flights need a little more range but most AC flights use the 777 for its size capability not its range. YVR to Sydney and YYZ to HKG are about as far as AC goes, those do need the 777LR.

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