777 for Qantas [Archive]

Taildragger67

21st Mar 2005, 11:02

777s would have a nice fit. The original-order 744 airframes are now getting on for 16 or 17 years old, but the 744ERs are less than two years old...

So, the heavy trunk routes (eg. LHR, LAX) - A380; longer-than-ETOPS routes (JNB, EZE), 'medium' long-haul (eg. JFK) and some heavy regionals (eg. NRT) - 744ER; slightly thinner long-haul (eg. non-LHR HKG, BKK, SIN; BOM; maybe DXB - various 777s (plus the odd LHR direct, subject to slots). Thing about the 777 family is that you could have different versions to do anything from heavy regionals to the ORD or DFW or LHR directs.

Normally, airlines like to reduce the airframe/engine combinations so as to reduce costs (as TG and MH found out a few years ago). However, QF could happily keep 744ERs going for a while yet, as the 747 maintenance infrastructure has been going for long enough as to be fully depreciated and ongoing marginal costs wouldn't be that great. Much of the software and systems would be similar to 777 and in any case, 777 maint could be shared with AirNZ and noises have already been made about sharing A380 maint with our northern friends. CF6 maint won't be an incremental cost as will still be done for 763s and A330s.

In short, 777s for QF would appear to make busness sense - a large part of the L/H fleet needs to be replaced in coming years and US majors have been deferring; the latest example being UA cancelling a 777 delivery slot last week but there are the AA rumours as well.

Similar arguments could be made in favour of getting A340s but the region seems to be going for 777s instead (making maint pooling a real possibility) and if quick 777 delivery slots are becoming available, then it's likely that QF could negotiate very favourable terms - especially if Boeing want to sweeten the deal with a couple of cheap launch-priced 787s.

Bring it on.

frangatang

21st Mar 2005, 17:54

The 777 could go further than the 400 on a full tank of gas.
The trent Ba machines burnt around 7 tonnes/hr and had a capacity of 135 T. Take your balaclava helmet with you if you go to ORD in winter,its effing cold.

The_Cutest_of_Borg

22nd Mar 2005, 22:46

Rumour now is that the A340 is back in favour.......

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

longreach

22nd Mar 2005, 23:57

Whilst the 773ER is a technically superior aircraft to the 346, I wouldn't rule out the 346/346HGW at QF. They may still be able to piggy-back on the A330 discount structure and I believe 330 options can be converted to other Airbus WB types.
The 773ER has problems on certain routes, particularly SYD-JNB, due to ETOPS restrictions and hot-n-high conditions at JNB.
That being said, I still believe the 773ER to be the favourite and it's overall operating economics are a huge plus,as it it's cabin width,which is better able to accommodate the Skybed.
I still believe the plane QF may really go for in big numbers is the 787. The -3 version is optimised for domestic duties and the -8 can fly 250+ pax(in QF's 2-class format) over 8,500nm. The slightly larger -9 gets QF an almost A333/772 capacity aircraft with a range of 8300nm.
We wait and wait and wait........................................................

TIMMEEEE

23rd Mar 2005, 00:14

As for QF getting the A340-600, SQ has spoken quietly into QF's ear about their hassles with the longest range A340 which are numerous.

Anyone wanting to challenge this go right ahead - SQ has no long term plans to have this aircraft in their fleet whatsoever and are keen to see it go in favour of the new B777.

Long term plans at SQ call for A380's and B777's only.

QF can have a mix of A380's, B744's, B777's and B787's to replace both the B737's and B767's longer term.

Casper

23rd Mar 2005, 00:14

You QF chaps ready to dig into your pockets to pay for your 777 endorsements?

Eyes only

23rd Mar 2005, 03:20

The_Cutest/longreach no type had ever been ruled out that had the pax/range requirement. QF already has an A340 simulator, and A340 containers, and could in 7 days of conversion have A340 flight crews. Cabin crew aleady trained on doors etc.

TIMMEEEE you are confusing the early A340s SQ had and the current ones. The 777 does not have local Singapore approval for "polar" operations (i.e Singapore-New York direct), the overall direction you stated is correct for passenger operations subject to regulatory constraints. They plan to keep the 744 as a freighter.

Airbus has set up a hub up in Singapore for SQ and QF for maintenance and training, the large A380 hangers are in place.

speeeedy

23rd Mar 2005, 03:38

TIMMEEEE,

Do you know the difference between the 500 and 600?

The 500 is the smaller of the two and has Ultra Long Range, the 600 is the long one and has a similar range to the 744.

QF would be looking (initially) at a replacement/supplement to the 744. Therefore the A340-600 or the B777-300ER would be the aircraft of choice.

The 340-600 is probably a better replacement because it carries very similar pax, a lot more freight and better range then the 744.

Compared to the 346, the 777 carries less pax, less freight, but has a similar range. The bean counters will decide if the economics of the 777 make up for the size differential.

Longer term QF will have to consider an Ultra Long Range A/C and the 777-200LR does seem to be better than the 340-500, so this may be playing on their minds. Having said that, a 500 with an extra 15T MTOW would have it all over the 200LR, stranger things have happened.

longreach

23rd Mar 2005, 03:45

Eyes only,

yes I get all that, but you clearly stated earlier that QF have chosen the 773ER for delivery Q1 2007. So, they have ruled out the 340. Others were saying the 346 is back in the picture. Was only giving my views on why that may be so.
I'll be quite surprised if they don't select the 773ER. It's got way too much going for it in this competition IMO.
You ruled out the 772ER in an earlier post. What about the 772LR??? Dixon and QF have been making some "hub-busting" comments in the media of late. I still see the 787 as a big "hub-buster" at QF.

Compared to the 346, the 777 carries less pax, less freight, but has a similar range. The bean counters will decide if the economics of the 777 make up for the size differential.

You\'re kidding aren\'t you. The 773ER is a lighter plane with a greater range and in the QF 2 or 3 class international configuration would carry significantly more pax(particularly in the premium cabin(s)). Not sure about cargo capacity but there wouldn\'t be much in it and I wouldn\'t be surprised if that favoured the Boeing as well. The 773ER\'s cabin width allows a seat/row extra over the 346 cabin. 30-40 more pax I would estimate.

A333

23rd Mar 2005, 04:11

No more B744 for Qantas? :{

Eyes only

23rd Mar 2005, 04:42

longreach,

773 is on as a 743, old 744 replacement, and as a hub feeder to the A380.

772/ER/LR is not being considered in any form, it carries less cargo than the A333. A340 is still being looked out where a 4 engine aircraft is more econimical to run on thinner routes or where ETOPS is a problem. 777 will need to gain in service history within QF to get CASA ETOPS approval for it to do the work as a 747 replacement.

A340 has other operational efficiencies over 777 as crew could be on a mixture of long and short haul rosters between the A330/A340. The A330 simulator is also an A340 simulator, crews can cross qualify.

TIMMEEEE

23rd Mar 2005, 05:02

Speeedy,

Why is it then that SQ do not want the A340 in their fleet long term.
They have clearly stated that they will only be operating the B777 and A380.

I'm sure that if the A340 was a good and proven aircraft then SQ would be keeping it.

But then again who knows, the A340 and B744 pax aircraft may be around for alot longer if the A380 doesnt become a success or lacks performance.

speeeedy

23rd Mar 2005, 06:08

TIMMEEEE,

You originally said that SQ were not happy with their 500's, which seemed a bit irrelevant because QF would be looking at 600's initially, they are very different aircraft (especially given that SQ's problems seemed to be one of range/payload meeting expectations.)

SQ would have plans to eventually replace their 500's with 200LR's and as I have said that would make sense, the LR has a better range (at this stage), and because they already have lots of 777's it would help streamline their fleet.

QF on the other hand is looking for a 744 replacement, and despite what others have just said, the 346 does carry more pax and more freight a similar distance to the 777-300ER. The 777 is cheaper to run outright, but not necessarily when taking into account the potential extra income of the 346.

QF already have Airbuses not 777's and all the associated infrastructure (although the Sim is not a quick conversion 340 version as suggested by eyes only).

I'm not saying that they WILL choose 346's, but there is no concrete reason why not, either.

I personally think either would do the job very well indeed, so it will probably boil down to purchase price, nothing more, nothing less. Surely this would not surprise anyone who knows QF.

Also your last comment shows that you have an aversion to Airbuses (and probably a pathetic desire to see the 380 fail), therefore anything you say is probably tainted by your Boeing coloured glasses.

DEFCON4

23rd Mar 2005, 06:36

Pure nonsensical speculation...you will go blind.At QF believe nothing until it happens and even then......

hbomb

23rd Mar 2005, 08:30

I hope someone who has a vote is reading this and takes my word (as a very frequent flyer) that FFs will go for the A340 any time. Apart from any niggling ETOPS worries, it's so much quieter (esp in J) and has a better ride. Like the DC10!

TIMMEEEE

23rd Mar 2005, 08:56

Speeedy.

Not a huge Airbus fan, but when it comes to the A380 I would like to see the beast do well.
It has really put the rocket up Boeing's clacker and made them sit up and take notice - and justifiably so.

As for not being an Airbus fan, when an airline wants to put in sleeper style beds in their first/business class and Airbus turns around and says that the floor isnt strong enough, that really makes me think carefully about the ships structural integrity.

As a metallurgist in a former life, when I heard of this debacle I really stood up and took notice.

Apparently Airbus have "options" when it comes to weight saving measures for flooring.
Boeing do not in this area.

That's why its called the "Boeing Foundry and Iron Works" Speeedy !!!
And speaking to mates in the middle east that have flown both the A330/A340 and B777, guess which one they prefer unanimously?
I think its a number thats between 6 and 8....

Keep flogging that bus old son !

OhForSure

23rd Mar 2005, 10:00

Hmmmm... have to agree with Tim here. From what I have read and heard the 773/ER far outperforms the 346. I'd like to know how the 346 carries more cargo... its narrower, and although EVER so slightly longer... tapers at the rear further fwd than on the 773. I'm no expert in this case, but I don't think the argument for the 346 with regards to "more cargo, more pax and same range" is accurate. Still I stand to be corrected by statistics. However, I do believe that the Scarebus still stands a very good chance with the 330s being online and 380s on the way... no doubt they would be cheaper too!:rolleyes:

Either way... QF will have to place an order soon, and either choice would be great in my opinion and regardless, both types have their advantages.

18-Wheeler

23rd Mar 2005, 10:27

I hope someone who has a vote is reading this and takes my word (as a very frequent flyer) that FFs will go for the A340 any time.

FWIW there's only been two times that I've been sooo uncomfortable in an airliner that I've had to get up during the flight to ask for another seat.
Both times were A-330/340's ...

The_Cutest_of_Borg

23rd Mar 2005, 11:23

OFS... 346's are around 20 Mill more expensive than 773 at current exchange rates.

OhForSure

23rd Mar 2005, 11:42

The_Cutest_of_Borg:

Well I'll be farked. An Airbus pricier than a Boeing? Is that at list prices, or current market prices though? Isn't it well known that Airbus sell way below list??? Dunno, but I'm sure we'd all be interested to know what airlines are paying with regards to "list prices". Thanks for the info anyway.

longreach

23rd Mar 2005, 20:31

773 is on as a 743, old 744 replacement, and as a hub feeder to the A380.

772/ER/LR is not being considered in any form, it carries less cargo than the A333. A340 is still being looked out where a 4 engine aircraft is more econimical to run on thinner routes or where ETOPS is a problem. 777 will need to gain in service history within QF to get CASA ETOPS approval for it to do the work as a 747 replacement.

A340 has other operational efficiencies over 777 as crew could be on a mixture of long and short haul rosters between the A330/A340. The A330 simulator is also an A340 simulator, crews can cross qualify.

Eyes only,

I have trouble believing QF would go for a 773ER/346 combo. That's just adding more fleet types and expense to an airline with already too many types. Sounds like the 773ER will be ordered in greater numbers, if the above is true, as the roles you indicated it will perform would easily require 20+ frames.
Which routes, other than JNB is a 4 engine more suitable than a twin in QF's existing route structure??? The 773ER seems tailor made for SYD/MEL/BNE- US West Coast, with a 500nm range increase over the 744ERs. I would have thought QF's CASA's ETOPS approval for the 773ER would not be an elongated process. The 773ER comes ETOPS 180min compliant and QF have vast ETOPS experience with their 763 fleet. Surely, the rest is a fairly simple and brief process?

Keg

23rd Mar 2005, 21:05

I certainly wouldn't be writing off the 772LR in the mix somewhere- even if just a handful of airframes. I think that QF desperately wants to open up London and other parts of Europe direct to Sydney/Australia and the 772LR can do that for them.

Interesting times. When is Boeing due to have the 772LR fly from LHR-SYD direct? I thought that was scheduled to be done sometime in March? Perhaps they've rolled it a bit to steal some thunder from the A380 if/when it gets up and going! :E

Zapatas Blood

24th Mar 2005, 00:22

Aircraft sales represent some of the biggest ticket items involved in global trade. To think QF will purchase billions of dollars worth of aircraft based on fuel burn and seat pitch is naive. "Free trade agreements" (if ever there was such a beast), currency woes, changing strategic alliances and manufacturers scrambling to pass aircraft on at any cost for political purposes means much of the decision for future fleet purchasing will be made over a liquid lunch in Canberra.

Timmee, pilot preference will have absolutely nothing to do with aircraft acquisition. The A330 has factory weight saving options that ultimately make it one of the most fuel efficient machines around - the accountants love em.

Longreach, dont fall for the "too many fleet type" nonsense. A number of types with similar fleet numbers is not as detrimental to an airline as some would have you think. Some of the most successful long haul airlines in the world operate 3 or more types.

Keg, imagine how much cheaper it would be if QF purchased "airframes" instead of aircraft - no engines, avionics, landing gear.

speeeedy

24th Mar 2005, 00:29

777-300ER vs A340-600:

Range: 773ER = 7880nm vs A346 = 7900nm

Pax (3 Class): 773ER = 365 vs A346 = 380

Freight: 773ER = 200.5m3 vs A346 = 207.6m3

The freight is misleading however, because of the width of containers versus the width of the airframe, the 777 ends up with a lot of wasted space. In terms of pallets able to be carried the difference is dramatic.

Pallets: 773ER = 8 vs A346 = 14

But airbus do have an option for a lighter floor, so I guess the 773 must win!

longreach

24th Mar 2005, 03:59

Longreach, dont fall for the "too many fleet type" nonsense. A number of types with similar fleet numbers is not as detrimental to an airline as some would have you think. Some of the most successful long haul airlines in the world operate 3 or more types.

Similar fleet numbers is the key. The 773ER seems to be the way better fit for QF on the majority of applicable routes,as previously discussed. There is no way known QF will order 773ER/346 in similar numbers, and I think it is highly unlikely they will order both types. Maybe on routes not ideal for the 773ER, existing types will be substituted(744/744ER), or who knows, QF may decide to head down the 747ADV path. It is not nonsense and adds a lot of cost to the airline. Why do most LCCs strictly adhere to the single type model(there are some exceptions)???
I would hope/think QF are in the process of rationalising their future fleet strategy. Ideally,IMO, longhaul would be based around 787/350, 773ER/346 and 380. Simple, neat and efficient. Very costly,granted, but we're talking long term strategy here.

posted 24th March 2005 01:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

777-300ER vs A340-600:

Range: 773ER = 7880nm vs A346 = 7900nm

Pax (3 Class): 773ER = 365 vs A346 = 380

Freight: 773ER = 200.5m3 vs A346 = 207.6m3

The freight is misleading however, because of the width of containers versus the width of the airframe, the 777 ends up with a lot of wasted space. In terms of pallets able to be carried the difference is dramatic.

Pallets: 773ER = 8 vs A346 = 14

But airbus do have an option for a lighter floor, so I guess the 773 must win!

Speeeedy, get real. You source is obviously from the manufacturers web page. Did you check with seating configurations that the pitch is the same for all classes?? I don't think so.
Get some real life data from airlines operating both types in 2 and 3 class layouts. I can guarantee you the 773ER has a greater pax capacity, but that is only logical as it is virtually the same length as the 346 but it is a seat wider/row.
Boeing are now unofficially saying the the 773ER's range is 7940nm, with further improvements expected to bridge the 8,000nm mark.
Have a look at the OEW and MTOW of both types. The 346 is way heavier, and fuel burn on a 10hr+ sector is about 12-15% more than the 773ERs.
I don't know the freight figures specifically as I think Boeing talk more about LD3s and Airbus talk more about pallets. Freight capacity is almost the same and I suspect your pallet figure may not be correct.
IMO, Airbus would have to be offering a massive discount for the 346, for QF to bite. They may still do this, but I think the safe money is definitely on the 773ER here.

swh

24th Mar 2005, 18:17

Air France operates its 777-300ERs with 310 seats in 3 class configuration. Lufthansa has some A340-600's in 54 business 315 economy, they have 10xA340-600's in their fleet, and have ordered 7 more.

A bit of a guide would be the rationalisation of Air France long haul fleet. Their fleet consisted of 55 aircraft, it used to have 744, 744 combi, 742, 741, 772, A340, A343, 767, A310, A313, which is 6 aircraft families, 10 aircraft types, 10 engine types, and 6 pilot type ratings.

It now has 744, 773, 772, A343, A330, fleet size of 88 aircraft, which is 3 aircraft families, 5 aircraft types, 5 engine types, and 3 pilot type ratings.

The future has A388, 773, 772, A343, A330 fleet size of 105 aircraft, which is 3 aircraft families, 5 aircraft types, 5 engine types, and 3 pilot type ratings.

Similar with the short haul, gone from A300, A321, A320, A319, B732, B733, B735, F100 to A321, A320, A319, A318...with a 45% increase in the fleet size they have reduced costs by downsizing the complexity of the operation, Aircraft families : 5 downsized to 1, Aircraft types : 8 downsized to 4, Engine types : 7 downsized to 2, Pilot ratings : 5 downsized to 1

Not suggesting that QF will go this way, just the way the others look at reducing costs whilst increasing capacity, seems the highest seating capacity is not the only factor taken into consideration.

donpizmeov

24th Mar 2005, 20:19

longreach

24th Mar 2005, 23:10

From the Boeing web site, list prices (in millions of course) for the 773ER is $US218 to 245.5, 772LR $US202.5 to 225.5 and the 744ER $US198 to 227.
The Airbus web sites says stuff all re price. But one of their PR types emailed a current list price for a brand spanking new A340-600, as $US150 to 174.
Wonder which one the bean counter would go for?

List prices are irrelevant. Nobody pays anywhere near that price. 50%+ discount for many types today. Some 345/346 have gone for way under $US100m.
I would expect the 777 to cost more, but Boeing are very price aggressive this year and the fuel savings over 15-20 years of a 773ER over a 346 are enormous. Additionally, the 773ER has more revenue potential,so purchase price is only one piece of the equation.

Point0Five

25th Mar 2005, 13:28

Zaptas Blood

You had me right up until:
dont fall for the "too many fleet type" nonsense.

What utter crap:mad:

donpizmeov

7th Apr 2005, 05:52

Well April 1st has come and gone, and still no announcement.

The Librarian

7th Apr 2005, 12:02

Don't hold your breath anyone, this is begining to sound like the long awaited Ansett fleet order of the mid 90's which never eventuated. Don't believe anything in Aviation until your sitting in the seat.

What ever decision is made lets hope TJ has nothing to do with it.

Any chance of getting Boeing to fit a side stick controller on the 777?????? Sure miss that tray table.:(

GalleyHag

7th Apr 2005, 12:56

Dont know if and when an announcement will be made but the FAAA (International Division) is already preparing members for long range sectors with new equipment.

This forms part of a notice to long haul crew from www.faaa.net

New York and Beyond (Dated 4 April, 2005)

It is probable that Qantas will purchase a newer generation of aircraft in the ensuing months and years that will have the potential to fly in excess of 20 hours, potentially even longer. Qantas' competitors will purchase those too, and their crew will reach agreement to fly them against the Qantas Group.

If the view of our membership is that 14 hours, 17 hours planned will be our benchmark forever, then Qantas will honour its EBA commitments to us while we still have jobs, but will use alternate workers with more flexible conditions and lower labour costs to do what we view as our work.

TIMMEEEE

11th Apr 2005, 00:28

I was told that the announcement would follow the May board meeting and not before.

Cya !!

The Messiah

11th Apr 2005, 02:08

Funnily enough the tripler was originally designed with a sidestick as it is fly-by-wire. The control column is only there to make it look like a Boeing as are the source select buttons for the LCD's.

Habster

11th Apr 2005, 12:17

..wake me up when something gets decided

Going Boeing

11th Apr 2005, 21:51

The May board meeting is a big one (3 days) with a lot of important items on the agenda. Boeing's latest offer is extremely competitive and it would be hard for the QF board to reject it. It's rumoured that Boeing is planning to operate the 777-200LR flight test aircraft from LHR to SYD (non stop with payload) and is timed to arrive in SYD at an appropriate time for an announcement by the board. Also rumoured that deposits have been paid on two simulators - possibly to be located in the Boeing/DJ facility in BNE.
Entry into service - June 06.

6fingeredman

11th Apr 2005, 22:27

777 and 787 announcement in May (Boeing are being very competitive getting Qantas to fly both types.)
330 going to Jetstar to help with their regional expansion (for when they start up NZ and Singapore flying.)

Going Boeing

11th Apr 2005, 23:00

6Fingers

I agree with the 787 being part of the package but the A330 is going to traded in on 777's. GB

IORRA

11th Apr 2005, 23:28

My money's on NO new fleet types to Jetstar in the forseeable future (3-4 yrs +) - that's one GREAT way to jack up your cost/ASK. A330's are performing quite nicely with mainline now that they've been deployed on the routes for which they were designed.

I wish people would move on from the idea of all QF flying 'eventually' going to Jetstar - it's neither a sensible, cost-effective nor realistic strategy.

6fingeredman

14th Apr 2005, 23:01

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that Jetstar was going to take all of QF mainline flying......but perhaps Jetconnect and Australian Airlines might find a few less routes.

longreach

20th Apr 2005, 00:09

I see Randy Baseler from Boeing is in SYD extolling the virtues of fragmenting the Kangaroo route with the 772LR. Seems a pretty opportune time for a heavy from Boeing to be in town. I think we can now gather that Boeing is in super aggressive mode at the moment,and appear to be discounting the 777s like never before. Will be interesting to see if the 777 wins campaigns at AC(I think it will),QF(I think it will) and AI( It almost certainly will).
Could be the year when the supposed technical dominance of the 777 shines through,albeit with heavy a heavy discounting strategy. There's no doubt in my mind the 787/777 combination will prove to be very popular.

DutchRoll

20th Apr 2005, 00:52

I've been holding my breath ever since the first mention of an imminent announcement of the QF 777 order. I turned a deep shade of blueish/purple quite some time ago and now my body is consuming its own internal organs and has collapsed in upon itself. A lesson for you all. Oh, and don't get technical with all that physiology stuff on me!

swh

20th Apr 2005, 02:00

longreach,

Don’t see the 772LR being the right machine for that job, slots into LHR are a premium. Maybe out of Perth or Darwin direct LHR, however I would imagine a tech stop may still be required many times of a year due to destination Wx. I could see the 773 being used as an A380 feeder from MEL, SYD, and BNE to SIN and HKG.

772ER might open up the possibility of Rome and Paris again.

AI already has two leased 2x772ER, leased from UA. I do see the 777 as the way to go for AI, especially to replace the 4 742/743 aircraft it has. As to what will replace the A310, I guess that is up for debate, they are mainly a regional airline and do not need the range of a 772LR/ER. They have a proposal out for 68 aircraft, they are a cost driven culture.

With 4x772 and 3x772ER available for sale and lease at the moment I see AI going that way to replace the 743/742.

SQ is getting rid of its 46x772's, and replacing them with 773's, this will put upward pressure on the purchase price of the 773, and reduce 772 lease costs world wide. That’s a year of 773 production alone just to meet SQ demands.

AC has a fleet of about 170 aircraft, of which only 50 are Boeings, which is the 762/763 fleet, 8 of the 762's are in storage. They have replaced their 744's with A340's. They already operate 132 airbus aircraft, 19 of which are A330/A340.

Boeing needing to sell really hard to get back into AC considering it would be a 762/763 replacement, and most of the flights are to Europe, the deal would need to include two 777 simulators, which would be additional US$40 mil, no additional simulators would be required if they were to expand the A330/A340 fleet. Under Canadian rules ETOPS would not be granted immediately either for the 777.

TG has announced 4xA345, 6xA346, 6xA380, taken delivery of its first A345.

Interesting times.

:ok:

longreach

20th Apr 2005, 05:07

Don’t see the 772LR being the right machine for that job, slots into LHR are a premium. Maybe out of Perth or Darwin direct LHR, however I would imagine a tech stop may still be required many times of a year due to destination Wx. I could see the 773 being used as an A380 feeder from MEL, SYD, and BNE to SIN and HKG.

True the 773ER will likely be ordered but I believe there is some renewed interest in the 772LR.

772ER might open up the possibility of Rome and Paris again.

Don't think so. I think 773ER will be that vehicle. Can't see QF going for the 772ER. They probably will go for the 787 though.

AI already has two leased 2x772ER, leased from UA. I do see the 777 as the way to go for AI, especially to replace the 4 742/743 aircraft it has. As to what will replace the A310, I guess that is up for debate, they are mainly a regional airline and do not need the range of a 772LR/ER. They have a proposal out for 68 aircraft, they are a cost driven culture.

AI almost certainly will order 787/772LR/773ER. It's been in the press and will be confirmed soon.

With 4x772 and 3x772ER available for sale and lease at the moment I see AI going that way to replace the 743/742.

They want new planes ASAP. They may require some used types as an interim measure.

SQ is getting rid of its 46x772's, and replacing them with 773's, this will put upward pressure on the purchase price of the 773, and reduce 772 lease costs world wide. That’s a year of 773 production alone just to meet SQ demands.

Since when is SQ getting rid of 46x 772??? They are slowly replacing their 744 fleet with a 773ER/380 combo, but I haven't heard they are dumping their huge 772 fleet....yet. Eventually they will and the 787 should slot in quite nicely.

AC has a fleet of about 170 aircraft, of which only 50 are Boeings, which is the 762/763 fleet, 8 of the 762's are in storage. They have replaced their 744's with A340's. They already operate 132 airbus aircraft, 19 of which are A330/A340.

Boeing needing to sell really hard to get back into AC considering it would be a 762/763 replacement, and most of the flights are to Europe, the deal would need to include two 777 simulators, which would be additional US$40 mil, no additional simulators would be required if they were to expand the A330/A340 fleet. Under Canadian rules ETOPS would not be granted immediately either for the 777.

The 787 is by far the best fit for AC. Milton has said it is winner take all, so I assume the 777 stands a great chance at AC(I'd even say it was likely). Milton has also stated he wants AC to be dual supplied. A 340/350 order would contradict that. Boeing is pushing hard and they arguably have the technical edge with the 777/787 and are now being extremely price competitive. Buyback AC's 333/343/345 fleet,and it's not too hard seeing a deal being done in Boeing's favour.

swh

20th Apr 2005, 08:18

Longreach,

The 772-773 deal is common knowedge in Asia, along with moving the 744 from the pax to freighter fleets, 2008 is the target year that I have heard.

As an aside, the following is worth thinking about :

772LR max PSI 218
773ER max PSI 221

772LR AUW 348,721 kg
773ER AUW 352,441 kg

772LR ACN FOR RIGID PAVEMENT MTOW
64 HIGH
82 MEDIUM
105 LOW
127 ULTRA LOW

772LR ACN FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT MTOW
61 HIGH
69 MEDIUM
87 LOW
117 ULTRA LOW

773ER ACN FOR RIGID PAVEMENT MTOW
66 HIGH
85 MEDIUM
109 LOW
131 ULTRA LOW

773ER ACN FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT MTOW
63 HIGH
71 MEDIUM
89 LOW
120 ULTRA LOW

I had a glance through ERSA, could only see SY could handle a 772LR or 773ER without concession at MTOW. Had a look at BN, AS, TL, PH, DN, LM, CS, ML fail due to max PCN for the subgrade, and DN and PH also fail for max PSI also.

The A380 would also run into problems, however its ACN seems to be lower than the 773ER.

Did I do the numbers right ?

:rolleyes:

MarkD

20th Apr 2005, 14:07

See the AF 773ER @ ORY thread to see why it is indeed worth thinking about.

If Airbus win the WB order at AC they will be sole supplier of all non-regionals and Milton has specifically said he doesn't want it. So with winner takes all either Boeing wins or it's a hell of a flip flop.

A 772ER or better (range wise) might eliminate the current 1-way stop between SYD/YVR at HNL when operating 340s. However I hear that service may not be returning next winter in any case.

esreverlluf

21st Apr 2005, 02:34

So does anyone know exactly when in May this board meeting is????

6fingeredman

21st Apr 2005, 04:23

There is a "Management Review Meeting" on the 20th.....Not 100% sure what that is, but it could be it.

Keg

21st Apr 2005, 09:31

I spoke to someone today that suggested that it was 8,9,10 May or thereabouts. Our bids for promotional slots close on 12 May which is a bit later than usual. The rumour suggested that the reason for this was to see if new aircraft were due to arrive. If so, they'd slide the closure of bids by a couple of weeks. If no new aircraft announced then we go ahead with the bidding as is.

Is it true? I dunno. The source wasn't one of my usual sources. :}

Taildragger67

21st Apr 2005, 14:02

Longreach,

It's pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that the reason why Boeing are being (or, can be) aggressive right now is for the same reason that Airbus were able to a couple of years ago (or, more properly, are unable to now).

That is, currency.

Just a few years ago, the EUR was quite weak - so as the EUR weakened, Airbus (who report in EUR) were able to drop their USD prices and by locking in forward exchange rates, be pretty certain of generating certain EUR revenues.

However with the EUR/USD now stronger, they don't have that advantage anymore.

Meanwhile Boeing, having had to lean out their costs during that period to stay competitive, can now be more competitive on a USD basis.

Recall that the rumours were that Airbus were giving some incredible discounts and add-ons at that time... not sure if they are quite so aggro these days.

I'm sure there are other factors, but I think currency rates certainly feature.

TD67

swh

26th Apr 2005, 16:58

longreach,

Your predictons of AI and AC have come true, a day before the first A380 flight.

:ok:

longreach

9th May 2005, 01:07

From the cabin crew forum. Thought it was appropriate to copy it over here as it directly discusses the topic in question.
35 sounds too many to me, but I'm assuming that includes options, and they'll need to order a few if the 744 fleet is being drastically reduced.

My spies in Engineering tell me that all 767s will be newly configured for domestic flying and will in turn be replaced by the 787s when in service in 2008/9. Internationally the 767s will be replaced by 777s.
Boeing's 777LR will be able to fly non-stop from London to Melbourne or Sydney in about 19 hours, cutting two hours off the current trip time via Singapore, Bangkok or Hong Kong. In the other direction, against prevailing westerly headwinds, it would need to stop somewhere for fuel; it is speculated that if these ultra-long-haul services get off the ground, Perth may take over from Singapore or the other stops in Asia as the first stopover from the Australian east coast to Europe. (FACT)
No further orders will be actioned for the A330s because the company now consider this aircraft 'dead'.
Geoff Dixon has just signed new deal for purchase of 35 777s and also 787s (quantity unknown) which, as mentioned above, will replace the 767s domestically.
Qantas is going to get rid of all 747-400's except for 10. These jumbos will be replaced by 777s and A380s.

En-Rooter

9th May 2005, 01:18

Sounds good, must be alot of excited 'drivers' out there?

Ron & Edna Johns

9th May 2005, 02:53

Well, hate to put a dampener on all this, but I've got a damn good source (at EGM level) and he knows nothing any of this. They want 777's but are in too much of a flap about the price of oil at the moment to be forking out the folding stuff.

I could be totally wrong. He could be wrong, or spinning a story or being spun misinfo himself. But frankly I fear their focus is predominantly on cost reductions: things like replacing mainline with Pornstar where ever they can get away with it, outsourcing and offshoring. At the same time KEEPING the Classic since, despite its fuel inefficiency, the refurbs have blown the asset value on the books sky-high. Selling them now (for a lot less than what they are valued at) will do serious damage to the year's profit (read: serious damage to BONUSES!)

:{

Crusty Demon

9th May 2005, 03:04

Also have heard from reliabe sources that the decision will be deferred pending oil price stability and the future direction of the Australian market (ie. government decision on open skies).

**** happens.

Keg

9th May 2005, 08:53

The current high price of oil is the exact reason that makes the 777 look so good?!!?!?! :ok:

Mr.Buzzy

9th May 2005, 08:58

Oh goody gumdrops!
Cannot believe the worst accident in over 40 years has just taken place and you kids are still tossing off over new toys! Get a grip f#@kwits!

bbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

*Lancer*

9th May 2005, 09:24

Buzzy, if you were genuinely concerned about people not paying the prang enough attention, you would post on ALL other threads, rather than just this one.

At least 'new toys' will significantly affect a lot of our futures. Funny waypoint names won't :rolleyes: Get your perspective sorted.

longreach

10th May 2005, 06:08

From today's ATWonline:

Qantas has widened its fleet restructuring plans to include the 787 and A350. CFO Peter Gregg told ATWOnline that the airline is "evaluating 777-300/-200 and 787-3/-9 and A340-600/A350 combinations" to replace its 747-400s/-300s, 767s and A330s. Qantas is expected to place an order for 60 aircraft in the second half of 2005, but Gregg watered down speculation that an order may come out of a May board meeting. "We will only be updating the board," he told this website. The competition originally focused just on the 777/A340 as a replacement for 747s that are not being replaced by A380s, of which the airline has 10 on order. Gregg recently was given fleet responsibility and immediately widened the evaluation to include replacing the carrier's 767s in order to have a more comprehensive fleet strategy. He also pointed out that Qantas may exercise options for more A380s as part of its fleet plan. He confirmed that the airline is looking at the 777-200LR for London-Sydney nonstop flights but said concerns still exist relating to operating the type nonstop only in one direction. Boeing is due to set world payload/range records with the 777-200LR in July and a number of airlines are waiting for the manufacturer to confirm fuel burn gains. While Gregg was coy on the subject, ATWOnline understands that Qantas has delivery positions protected for both Boeing and Airbus models.

by Geoffrey Thomas

Mr Buzzy,

get a grip mate. What's wrong with you. Yes this disaster is a national tragedy but this thread has been going for a while now and people are entitled to post in relation to this topic.

PS. My deepest condolences go out to the families and friends of all who were lost in the metroliner disaster.

Condensation

10th May 2005, 07:03

If the A330s are going to be replaced, which aircraft will most likely be doing the routes they are on now to Hong Kong, Shanghai, etc.?

Cheers.

The_Cutest_of_Borg

10th May 2005, 07:15

777 or 787 depending on the loads I guess.

Buzzy... you lost it.

Condensation

10th May 2005, 07:37

Thanks for that. I thought Qantas were going to keep their A333s since they just upgraded some into intl config (VH-QPB).

The_Cutest_of_Borg

10th May 2005, 08:13

They still may. All of the preceeding is mainly conjecture.

sys 4

10th May 2005, 10:13

rumor has it a A330 had an emergency landing a few nights ago in Darwin on route to Syd from Singapore due to both engines falling back to idle at crusie then spooling up again,looks like there turning out to be rubbish and i would say there days are number with qantas

RaTa

10th May 2005, 12:27

sys 4 I'm not an Airbus fan but to be fair I have to ask is this an "Airbus" fault or a "GE" fault?

sport

10th May 2005, 12:47

It would hardly be a GE fault if they both failed, it has to be an aircraft fault and as Airbus make them, then the buck stops with them.

donpizmeov

10th May 2005, 13:04

Seems the rest of the world can get these Laura Ashley Twins to work. Would be very interested to hear what happened, thats if something really did happen...it is a rumour network after all. Would have thought that Headlines about "Croc downing Aircraft" would be out by now if it was really exciting.

Don

blueloo

10th May 2005, 13:07

Irrespective of aircraft type, if a crash, incident or accident can be attributed to cost cutting, what accountability does Geoff Dixon have?

We have seen JAL management resign due safety not being a priority, yet, we never see CEOs or other seniors get sacked due mismanagement. We never see them take pay drops due wasting companies money either.

sys 4

10th May 2005, 19:49

rumor on the street is the clamps that hold the wire looms have no cushions on them,so the clamps have chafed there way through the insulation and shorted out the wiring

Going Boeing

10th May 2005, 23:46

8 out of 11 A330's were unserviceable last weekend causing a large number of aircraft substitutions. Huge amount of disruption for B767 crews.

I believe the rumour that the A330 is a dead fleet in QF service and that they are not really looking at the A340/A350 combination. The figures (& reliability) of the B777 leaves the Airbus product dead in the water.

Trigger Happy

11th May 2005, 00:51

Apologies for the slight digression but does anyone know whether the QF board meeting scheduled for 9-11th??? is underway and if the close of bid periods remains the 12th May. Cheers

TIMMEEEE

11th May 2005, 02:45

With airlines such as Air Canada favouring Boeing for its long haul fleet with a substantial order, as well as SQ favouring the B777 over the A340 I think QF should sit up and take notice.

Sure, QF got the A330's for a substantial discount but have been let down by its own bean-counters and whoever the clowns were that selected the A330 entertainment system.

Yes, EK and CX as well as SQ are highly complimentary on the B777.
I believe also that CX did a study to ditch all of their B747-400's (turn them into freighters) in favour of B777's.
The cost saving was staggering apparently.

I reackon the A330 will go to either JetStar or Australian eventually.

Looks like the QF fleet mix will be A380/B744/B777 long haul and the B777 medium-short haul along with the B737-800 (short haul only).

OhForSure

11th May 2005, 03:40

"8 out of 11 A330's were unserviceable last weekend causing a large number of aircraft substitutions."

Going Boeing: Is this REALLY true??? Seems almost impossible. Not that I don't believe you... but you have to understand my bewilderment!

What were the reasons for the U/S's??? I've heard the planes are ****, but this (if accurate) must really piss QF off.

Al E. Vator

11th May 2005, 04:08

Jeez, what a bunch of little girls, all this nonsense being written about how good the 777 is and how bad the Airbus is.

If you ask any pilots who have flown both 777's and A330's (and there aren't all that many of them) you will find the standard answer is they are both good and bad in various areas.

In the end they are usually ambivalent about which is better. Both aircraft get from A-B safely and the employers pay their wages, that's all most guys are really concerned about.

Why as a professional adult would you even give yourself the title Going Boeing? Is that not a little embarrassing for you?
Do you really believe this comment "8 out of 11 A330's were unserviceable last weekend .

Also Longreach"Geoff Dixon has just signed new deal for purchase of 35 777s and also 787s (quantity unknown) which will replace the 767s domestically". based on what"My spies in Engineering tell me ". So let me get this straight, Dixon is telling engineers (who he has been battling industrially) info he somehow hasn't mentioned to other board members..oops, and then these experts pass their intimate knowledge on to you.:rolleyes:

Anyhow, back to the vital issue at hand:

Fords are better than Holdens because..........................

404 Titan

11th May 2005, 04:42

"8 out of 11 A330's were unserviceable last weekend causing a large number of aircraft substitutions."
You have got to be kidding? If this is true all I can say is that "Q" hasn’t got it right. We operate 40 something Scairbus's and don't have anywhere near the amount of trouble with them that you guys appear to be having with them. The A330 is a mature product that has had most of the serious bugs taken out of them. The A340-600 is another kettle of fish and as for being one of the launch customers for the A380, good luck because you are going to need it.

rammel

11th May 2005, 07:04

From what I have seen the A333 is better on the asian routes than the 763 that it replaces. It can carry a larger payload and seems to have less restrictions. It also seems to burn not much more fuel than the 763 while carrying more. Whether it is better than a B777 I don't know, as these are just my observations from the area I work in.

Another rumour I have heard is that QF is trying to push the A332's on to the RAAF for their tankers, as it is too expensive to upgrade them to the international config.

Overall I think that the A333 is good at what it does (maybe not too reliable) but the A332 well that's a different story.

Cheers Rammel

Condensation

11th May 2005, 07:19

Isn't there 2, 3 or 4 A333s that are still on order? Hopefully they don't get replaced :(

Keg

11th May 2005, 12:37

Rammel, incorrect about the RAAF statement. The RAAF is getting new build A330s.

*Lancer*

11th May 2005, 12:37

Ah Rammel, if only they could fit into Narita!! :rolleyes:

404 Titan

11th May 2005, 14:26

*Lancer*

What are you talking about? We operate 330’s into Narita every day, even the short runway. I will concede though you guys may have a problem departing off the shorter runway with the fuel you would be carrying for Aus. Having never flown the 76, I would guess though it would have the same problem off the short runway with a fuel load for Aus as well?

swh

11th May 2005, 15:02

Keg,

My understanding is that the RAAF is not getting A330's, it is true to say they are getting new aircraft that are based on the A330 airframe, but they will not be certified as A330s, they will have military type certificate data sheets due to the role they play (i.e. tankering large volumes of fuel and delivering them to aircraft in-flight).

Since they are not certified as A330s, the crew flying these "state" aircraft will not need to be A330 type rated, this means no automatic A330 type rating on the CASA licence, however with the number of ex-RAAF in CASA, anything is possible.

The 737's on the other hand are civilian airframes, and the crew have the ability to transfer the mil 737 rating automatically to the CASA licence.

Going Boeing,

Your statement is correct, but only partially. The A330 airframe and engines, crews were all serviceable.

The 8 out of 11 A330's were unserviceable last weekend referres to the IFE.

The cheap low quality Rockwell Collins IFE it a total nightmare, why QF has gone with cheap for IFE is beyond me. Passengers only remember the service they get from the crew, and the IFE.

Is it little surprise that the wonderful Rockwell Collins IFE is based on MS Windows, now that has never frozon on anyone before.

Why did QF cut costs in this area and not go with the same systems SQ and EK are using is beyond me, and everyone who flying with them loves their IFE, because it works.

Heard of A330s with the Rockwell Collins IFE having over 50% of the seats IFE not working, cabin crew having to reset the whole IFE system in-flight. The Rockwell Collins IFE is a QF customisation, nothing to do with Airbus (SQ and EK don’t have problems on their Airbus aircraft with IFE).

Run of the mill business or cattle class SLF don’t care if they fly Boeing or Airbus, as long as they are fed, watered, kept entertained, and get there, they are happy.

404 Titan,

When the 747-400 was first introduced it had snags galore, many times the only way to fix it was to totally unpower the whole aircraft and start from scratch, problems get identified and then addressed, airframe gets better.

The A340-600 will settle down, it will get better.

:ok:

Captain Can't

12th May 2005, 05:16

So, if the A330 was "replaced" by another aircraft - say the 777 - arguably to do 'long-haul' flying, where would the good guys on the bus go? surly not to the 777??
sorry, just stewing over recent decisions :yuk: :suspect: :mad:

Going Boeing

12th May 2005, 21:48

SWH

The Rockwell Collins IFE is an Airbus approved option which is why Airbus is involved with trying to resolve the problem. The RC IFE system works quite well on the B744 but on the A330 it has to interface through an onboard computer for which Airbus won't provide the programming source codes to RC. The ongoing IFE problems centre on the inability of the IFE computer to talk to the Airbus cabin management computer and I believe that the fix probably won't happen in the near future.

My sources say that the unservicabilities last weekend were more than IFE system problems.

A333

14th May 2005, 11:16

It's the 14th of May and still no announcement made yet! :confused: :zzz:

Keg

14th May 2005, 14:47

A post on Qrewroom suggested that the meeting wasn't until next week. I've no idea how accurate that is. All I know is that the board meeting is in 'May'.

We'll probably hold off and miss out of 787 slots for when we need them in a few years time!! We'll evaluate the 777 for a bit longer and miss out on slots for them too. Time will tell I guess. :E

Taildragger67

16th May 2005, 09:39

swh,

I seem to recall the Defence press release specifically mentioned that the new tankers would be A330s (but actually sourced through an EADS military supply unit in Spain).

Likewise, the RAF's new tankers are touted as "A330s" - not "an aircraft based on the A330 airframe". Same with what Scarebus are pushing to the USAF.

If I fly a KC135 (even with CFM56s), don't I get a 707 rating?

Trash Hauler

16th May 2005, 12:01

SWH I think you are playing with words. The RAAF are getting A330 MRTT (Multi Role Tanker Transporter) which is the designation given to the aircraft by the manufacturer. Sure they are modified and if the military certify them differently to suit the role so be it. But it doesn't stop them being an A330. Type rating for pilots I guess is an issue for the military to hold pilots in the organisation, but I thought it was CASA that decided whether a rating was acceptable in the industry.

Taildragger67 I used to think that the KC135 and B707 were the same aircraft until I had the opportunity to meet a crew and see inside one. The wing is significantly different than the B707. It doesn't have an FE or a flight deck bulkhead and the fuselage cross section is smaller. The aircraft systems are very different, elec hyd etc. So while they look the same they would not have a common type rating (if on civil register).

BTW speculating on new types for QF is a fun hobby....keep it up.

halas

16th May 2005, 13:07

Outside of Oz l think most carriers and authorities would recognise an A330 rating be it military or civil.

halas

swh

16th May 2005, 15:25

Taildragger67, Trash Hauler, halas,

The A330 MRTT is based on the A330 airframe like the KC135 is based on the 707.

If you were to look at the type certificate data sheets for the 707-100&200 (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/8B6EBAA7513BA29A852567240060420C?OpenDocument) and the 770-300&400 (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/D2809424CF4294CC85256724006080B8?OpenDocument) you will see that the CFM engine is not certified on civilian 707 airframes by Boeing. The KC135 is certified as a military airframe. KC135 time is not B707 time, nor is the rating the same.

The 707-320B is the basis of the E-3 AWACS, E-6A TACAMO, E-8 JSTARS and KE-3A tanker. Boeing built 820 KC-135A and derivative special purpose airframes. The KC-135 uses a single lobe fuselage which is several inches narrower and less tall than the 707, and wing very similar to the 720 series. 31,200 USG of fuel is carried in 12 wing tanks and nine fuselage tanks in the KC135, that compares with 21,262 USG for the 4 cell B707-300.

Similar a B737-100 rating will not let you fly a B737-900, and these are both civil airframes.

If the A330 MRTT were to be the same type rating as the A330, the A330 MRTT would need to be placed on the JAR A330 type certificate data sheet. This has implications from a certification stand point in terms of fatigue life, and loads for the A330 MRTT. Its would also mean that the A330 MRTT would need to meet all JAR certification requirements for passenger A330 aircraft which would include fire supression in the cargo hold.

Presently the A330 is certified for a minimum crew of two, I will think the A330 MRTT will be certified with a minimum crew of 6, with the additional 4 involved with the specialist military roles.

The aircraft will be state aircraft, not VH registered, certified by the RAAF directorate for aircraft certification, CASA will have nothing to do with them, apart from issue an exemption to the CARs similar to CAO 95.19 for the F/A 18. As you would know under CAO 95.19 para 3A, you are not required to hold a flight crew licence to fly a F/A18.

This will not stop civilian pilots, with a commercial pilots licence or higher from flying the A330 MRTT under CAO 95.20, i.e. it would be possible for QF to crew the A330 MRTT.

:ok:

halas

17th May 2005, 02:00

I'm sure your observasions of the 707 are quite correct.

However comparing 60's aeroplanes to a 90's aeroplane doesn't cut it.

An A330 is fly by wire. It's a computer. Whether you are running Linux or Windows it still gets the job done, no matter who the operator is.

Weights, supplimentry crew, fire suppression, fatigue life....so what?

And lets face it, this aeroplane is doing what any other 330 is doing. Take off, cruise around for 8 hours and land.
Nothing special in that lot!

Up the front it's an A330. Thats all that counts no matter what numbers or abbreviations can be tacked on after the type name.

I'll guarantee the CCQ would be a sim session on a civil check ride and all those hours would be credited on a civilian licence.

halas

Trash Hauler

17th May 2005, 02:40

swh wrote [Presently the A330 is certified for a minimum crew of two, I will think the A330 MRTT will be certified with a minimum crew of 6, with the additional 4 involved with the specialist military roles.]

Are you serious about crewing the RAAF A330 with a minimum of 6 people. What are they doing........filling the tanks up from 44s in the cabin????????

Condensation

18th May 2005, 10:20

How about the 747ADV instead of 777, any chance Qantas? :D

Taildragger67

19th May 2005, 14:11

swh,

That's me blown out of the water!!

Thanks for the full & frank comparison. I stand corrected.

I would say that I agree the 737 example - completely different systems, etc. so I guess that also follows with the 707/KC135. I wasn't aware that civvy A330 would be that different to the MRTT.

Back to topic - any progress to date on the QF decision (if there is one)?

Re the 747ADV - given that QF are so far the only customer for the 744ER, I'd suggest they'd probably want to see some other interest in the order book before committing, lest they get stuck with something without an operator base... unless some sort of residual-value guarantees were forthcoming.