Elektra,
I am not and have never been a QF (or TN) employee but I do not see too much wrong with the QF fleet, fuel is only one consideration.
The B777 may not have suited the QF requirement 10 years ago. The latest B777's are streets ahead of the early build models in payload/range.
I do not see any B777's or other twins operating nonstop between Aust and the U.S. I do not see too many either operating between Aust and UK/Europe.
In any case there are no twins with the payload/range of the B747-400 and B747-400ER.
As QF were the first airline in the world to place a firm order (6 March 2001) for the A380 (12 plus 12 options) and the launch customer for the Trent 900 powerplant I do not think anyone culd accuse QF of not having the 'balls' to make fleet planning decisions.
While QF have been a very succesful airline over a number of years their financial performance is nothing to get too excited about. Last years profit of $763,600,000 after tax (Comm Bank $3,900,000,000) could just about pay for 2 x A380 with spares and start up costs.
Part of the profit increase was due to an increase of 9.5% in passenger revenue and a 46% increase in freight revenue.
The QF debt/equity ratio is 89.3% and as I have said before the business is high risk and below average financial returns expected by most company shareholders.
If any QF pilots think they are hard done by they should talk with some of their US counterparts. DL are about to seek protection under Chapter 11 and will be followed by NW CO and AA.
Some pilots have seen their salarys drop US$50,000 per year with a corresponding drop in retirement pension. Some of the ALPA decisions made a number of years ago have seen the chickens come home to roost.
The latest one to haunt them is the scope provision clauses in some contracts