Qantas on prowl for a 'hub-buster'

[Wirraway]

Fri "The Australian"

Qantas on prowl for a 'hub-buster'
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
February 18, 2005

QANTAS confirmed yesterday it was on the look-out for "hub-busting" aircraft that could include the newly rolled-out 777-200LR.

Go here for the full story (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12284593%255E23349,00.html)

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Recently met an Air France B777 Captain and had dinner with him recently.

This guy was in raptures about the new B777 which Air France was the launch customer for at the time.
We couldnt shut him up about how good this new B777 was and how it performed about 2% better than the advertised specs.

According to this guy if it wasnt for politics Air France would have more Boeings and less Airbuses!

Not my opinion, but that of an Air France Captain with some 30 years in the airline.

[PureRisk]

However AirBUS is government sponsored and always will be.
No matter what Boeing comes up with AIRBUS will match it with their next equivalant types and then make it 20% less to buy. How can poor old Boeing compete with this? Boeing have been losing more and more market share every year for the last 5 now.

We all prefer Boeing products (well most seem too) but I always think how will they go in the next 10 to 15 years as the current a/c starting heading towards the end of their life..
IF you were an accountant WHY would you choose boeing when you could choose a type where quite often SIMs will be chucked in for free, and cost so much less to buy. Add to that the common rating issue (something I think Boeing should have done years ago) and if you are an airline with more than one type than you just wouldnt pick them?.....would you?
Purely from an ecconomics point of view. Qantas are getting the A380, have the A330, plus the 320 with scarestar, you have to wonder could the day ever arise when its an all Airbus fleet once the boeings finish their time. Another way for the bookkeepers to save a few more bucks?.....

[Sunrise]

From what I can gather, QF's initial experiance with the A330 has not been the best.
Perhaps the bean counters will look into why the French national airline has B777s on long haul routes, or why a successful airline like SIA replaced it's A340s and now B747s with B777s.
Perhaps they should take all of this into consideration or perhaps I'm just an optimist! :D

[Kanga767]

Government involvement financially usually means Government involvement in other areas such as design.

Just like the VC10 and a few other european aircraft that were buggered by government intervention, the same could well be the downfall for Airbus.

My money is on the A380 sealing the fate.

K

[Captain Can't]

*my guess today anyway!*
A380, 777, 737.

[Keg]

Need something between the 737 and the 777. A 7E7/787 fits the gap nicely in terms of punters and route possibilities!! :ok:

[Ultralights]

if my gut feelings are reliable, the A380 will have a lot of trouble in the wider market, but it will find a small nieche (or however you spell that damn word)


me thinks accountants buying planes dont tend to look at longer term operating cost, if its cheaper to buy, = bigger bonus "This Year"

composite aircraft are a lot more expensive to repair!.

[wirgin blew]

its niche I believe.

I dont think the US Govt would let Boeing fall over just as the French Govt wont let Airbus fail. Could you imagine the uproar in the US if Airforce One was a French built aircraft???

[Redstone]

777-300ER, put your house on it, and soon. Airbus is having trouble with FAA cert in more than one area...... could turn out to be a white elephant.

[rescue 1]

Another type! History repeats itself all too often in aviation.

[QFinsider]

There are so many infrastructure issues with the A380. From catering trucks to taxiways.....

Yet alone the fact it hasn't flown...:E

[TIMMEEEE]

The A380 will become a reality but in my opinion it may be a few years ahead of its time in terms of size and capacity.

Put the 7E7 type engines on her and you will have a real goer.

Singapore Airlines wants to be operating the A380 and B777 only within 5 years or so.
Cathay want to get rid of their B747's and operate B777's in their place.
They reackon they'll save billions and they're correct.

Still will be a nice freighter market for the good ol B744's.

Makes sense when you think about it.

[MIss Behaviour]

Sunrise

From what I can gather, QF's initial experiance with the A330 has not been the best.

That is no exaggeration my friend! The French must spend thousands of hours inventing all sorts of little things that can go wrong.

A colleague recently spotted (ousted) a guy he had seen on more than one occasion travelling on the A330 and said "you work for Rockwell, don't you?" The reaction was what you would expect from CIA agent who'd just had their identity revealed!

Apparently so many of the individual TV screens have been going u/s onboard they send a Rockwell dude on some flights to try and rectify any problems in-flight.

Another ppruner in some other post mentioned that sickies sky-rocket for f/a's when they find out they're rostered on an A330. Must be a mal a la tete for crewing. :{ :{

MB

[bonvol]

I love it when the IFE goes on the blink three quarters though the movie.

Eventually (sometimes) someone is able to get it going again and the punters have to start watching the thing from scratch. Invariably they get to the crunch bit again and its time to turn the thing off. Ballistic according to the CC.

U/S reading lights are commonplace too. Add that to the fact QF stuffed up by having to allocate the big petrol tank 330 to domestic and you would have to say its a stuff up all round. Can you imagine the incompetence of management in this? Yet they still pay themselves as if they are doing a good job.

[Al E. Vator]

Do you girls honestly believe all this PPL-type drivvel you write?
I recall similar ill-informed nonsense about newfangled crap Boeings not being as good as the fine British Comet.
Firstly an Airbus is not 'French'.
Secondly most Airlines make handsome operating profits with the 330's as they did previously with 767's. An A330 will actually carry equivalent or more freight (by volume) than a 747, hence the accountants love the damn thing.
Thirdly the last thing QF need is as somebody pointed out, yet ANOTHER type. Ansett made that stupid mistake.
QF Int'l need 380's for LAX & LHR, 747s for Japan, 330's/340's for regional/ULH respectively and that's it. Dom need a few old 767's and lots of 737's and that it...no more.
Finally the 777 is a fine aircraft BUT across the Pacific, no thanks. 1 engine fails and the last (potentially also suspect) remaining engine is at MCT for up to 3 hours. Not a good idea unless you are Ian Thorpe.

[6100]

An A330 will actually carry equivalent or more freight (by volume) than a 747

You gotta be kidding, right. Airbuses may be go for something, but it sure isn't cargo carrying. As far as an 330 carrying more than the 747, you would have to explain that a little more.

[404 Titan]

6100

Actually no he isn’t. The A330-300 does carry more freight than a B744. The B777 though carries slightly more than an A330. And yes where I work we operate all these types plus the A340.

[Kanga767]

Yea, well maybe, but only if it's

A - Serviceable

and

B- Not having it's brakes cooled.


K

[404 Titan]

Kanga767

We actually don’t have a serviceability or reliability problem with the A330. Some of them are over ten years old and performing like champions. Currently it is more reliable than our B744. Now if you ask me about the A340-600 that is a different story. Biggest heap of ****e that Airboos have ever produced. Thank god we haven’t been stupid enough to buy the A380. If it has the same track record as the A340-600 it will send those airlines that have purchased it broke.

As for the brake cooling. It isn’t really a problem. If your turn around is one hour you can have brake temperatures of 450 deg C on arrival and still dispatch with temps well below 300 deg C. You can even achieve this without the aid of cooling fans. Personally it is rare for me to see brakes above 450 deg C.

[swh]

QF carry people on most of the internetional fleets for IFE rectification, not just the 330.

QF would not be looking at a hub buster per say..they would be looking at reducing costs.

The 330-300 does carry more cargo than a 777-200 or 747-400.

[jettlager]

SWH,

you are correct.

The onboard manager/CSM is carried onboard a 744 to rectify IFE failures.

We also serve meals and drinks make PA's and on occasion, save peoples lives.

A shame that my training limits my IFE efforts to a "reboot".

Jettlager

[aveng]

Everyone seems to be slanging the airbus at QF. The problems are not related to the aircraft but how QF fitted out the interior. With cheap rubbish seats and galley modules, and an IFE system that was totally new and not tested in an actual aircraft (and still doesnt work). The bean counters are also responsible with the lack of parts that QF is willing to stock for these types.
I have been licenced on boeing aircraft for many years and whilst they have robust airframes the wiring in them is terrible. I for one like the airbus (excluding everything aft of the cockpit door).
As to which type Qf will buy - on the one hand you have fleet/crew commonality and existing airbus simulators, short training time between airbus types. Its obvious when you think the way Qf management do - the answer is 777's.

[zac21]

Don't forget fellas, Mack trucks aint Mack trucks any more,,,,, They are owned by Renault and 99% of parts are ex France.....
That's great when you are trying to run a business in Aus.

Know of several trucks parked because of no parts are available, and Mack trucks Australia dont give a $hit ,,, they are even arrogant when confronted.

:yuk:

[Ultralights]

thats why my trucks come from Korea!! first service, 200,000 Km, in the first year, Nothing done except regular oil/filter changes, all was needed was a new clutch. surprisingly, spare parts for KIA trucks can only be bought from KIA genuine! and guess what, They are CHEAP!

most relaible piece of korean crap i have ever seen!


I thought QF got rid of the Airbus after they "inherted their legacy" australian airlines, to save money by having comonality of parts with a common fleet!, all boeing, who decided to change this policy?

[Going Boeing]

Ultralights

QF got rid of the ex TN A300's because ther was only 4 of them and thus the cost of operating them was much higher than the B767 of which QF had more than 20 in the mid nineties (went up to 36 prior to AO taking 5 and the 7 B762's being retired). James Strong said in 1994 that with 4 A300's the money tied up in spare parts was $10 million per aeroplane whereas at the time we had 18 B744's and the spares cost was only $3 million per aeroplane. He said that the minimum fleet size that would be economic was 13 - 15. Another example of minimum practical fleet size was when QF bought Impulse which had 8 B717's (+ Beech 1900's). Within a short time QF leased another 6 B717's because they had worked out that the additional aircraft could be operated with no additional engineering costs.

The 13 A330's were purchased as part of the A380 order at a near give away price.

Strong wanted to retire the A300's immediately but because the TN management had inflated asset values on their books to achieve the highest possible airline sale price for the Federal Government, the QF bottom line would take too big a hit, so he said that they were on an accelerated write-down with the aim of disposing of them mid 1998 - they retired from the QF fleet in August 1998.