QF to cancel A380 order?

[twiggs]

Latest rumour heard on talkback radio last week was that QF is considering cancelling the A380 order using the delays as a way out of it's contractual obligations.
Anyone care to comment on whether this is plausible, considering there is no definite date for the delivery?
What would be the impact on Airbus as a company?

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

That is one hell of a rumour...

Word going around when they signed was that the contract was airtight and bomb-proof from QF's point of view. So I guess it is possible.

Airbus would be pretty miffed but I doubt it would throw the A380 program into any sort of jeopardy.

QF has been pretty upbeat about the A380 though... it is a major feature in any company publications. I doubt it would be cancelled unless there were other plans afoot.... lets roll out the 777 rumour again!

[TineeTim]

Two chances of this order being cancelled: None and F*ck-all

[Capt Fathom]

:uhoh: Maybe B747-8 inlieu ?

[Howard Hughes]

:uhoh: Maybe B747-8 inlieu ?
Now your talking!!:ok:

[Bolty McBolt]

Its about time we had a decent rumour on this sight. I am glad that "twiggs" waited till after april fools day to post

:ok:

[king oath]

Whatever you guys are smoking, its got to be illegal.

This may be a rumor network but at least give us some credit for intelligence.

[27/09]

I can't comment on the Qantas rumour BUT you have to wonder that there will be some A380 orders cancelled.

If what I have heard is true about the following issues there must be some order cancellations.

It is at least 7 tonnes above original design empty weight with more to come. The wing failed its static load test and needs to be beefed up, the main under carriage needs to modified allowing it to turn, to stop cracking of the under carriage and to stop runway/taxiway damage.

There is going to a lack of suitable alternates in some parts of the world as not all major runways/airports will be capable of handling the A380.

Delivery is rumoured to be up to 18 months later than originally planned.

[Capn Bloggs]

The wing failed its static load test and needs to be beefed up

Who said it needs to be beefed up?

[Taildragger67]

Pure supposition...

Who knows, Boeing might do a SingAir/A340-type deal with someone and take in some 380s to get some pax 748s out the door...

[gaunty]

I for one suspect that it might = True.:cool:

They = Airbus, are NOT, according to Flight Intntl going to "beef it up" just "rework" the numbers.:uhoh:

I also think Qantas are more important as a "launch" customer than they would care to admit.:8

Qantas has always been the "benchmark" to whom most others look because of their technical expertise.:ok:

Now, whether that has been squandered or "outplaced" in recent times remains to be seen.:sad:

At the end of the day ANY company is only worth the "intelectual property" which resides within it.:*

The question on everybody's lips is can the Euros deliver on the performance, ??:O and whu wouldn't you hedge your bets.

At the end of the day you are betting the company.

For my money the ONLY manufacturer who has delivered the goods as advertised are Boeing. Without any fancy spares and training packages or heavyweight discounts the like of which are being offered by Airbus against fuel performance shortfalls.

There has been many a start up based on such blandishments, which work in the short term, at least long enough to bank some coin, but then inevitable result is tears for someone down the line.

Qantas does not need to nor should play that game.

An old and very succesful Arab trader once told me "your first loss is your best loss."

Cut your losses and get on with it.

[Going Boeing]

Qantas have yet to announce their B744 replacement and Airbus are aware that the B777-ER is currently the front runner. In an effort to secure an A340-600 order they are offering a significantly lower aquisition cost plus for the life of the aircraft they will pay the difference in fuel that the A346 uses over the B773. Sounds very expensive considering how long QF usually keep their aircraft.

Re the A380 order:- Dixon said in Dec 2000 ( a month after the order was announced) that "Qantas had approx 100 escape clauses in the contract so that if there were any shortcomings in performance, delivery, etc then they could get out of the deal, but it was their intention to take delivery of the aircraft". I believe that the A380 will be delivered because of the huge amount of work that has already been done in anticipation of its delivery. Boeing would have to have made an extremely attractive offer on the B747-8 to entice QF to cancel the A380 order. The other issue is that Qantas is short of capacity now and couldn't wait the extra couple of years for the B747-8 to arrive.

[Pete Conrad]

Here's one, A380 turns out to be a flop, 747-800 arrives, Boeing offer to buy back A380's from Qantas, Qantas re equips with fleet of 747-8's.

[lowerlobe]

Anyone remember the adverts and pictures back in the 70’s with the Concorde in Qantas colours ?????

We all know how that one panned out.

Plus from what I have heard the A-330's have never met any of the specs promised either and airbus is paying for the fuel used above what was promised as well...not a good sign when you want to sell other aircraft from your stable especially when they have not entered service yet..hence the orders for the 787's even though they are not in service either but at least Boeings track record is very good

[ur2]

About the Concord order in the 70's, have a look at hangar 131 (the most westerly hangar, opposite QF domestic terminal) and you will still see the lugs that were fitted along the overhead beam, which were to convert the hangar from a 2x 707 to a 3x Concord hangar.
Anything is possible.

[Al E. Vator]

Yes it's a rumour network but are you lot for real?

Qantas have made some foolish decisions recently (eg. too many aircraft types - the exact thing that bought Ansett unstuck) but they aren't dumb enough to ditch the A380 now, especially in favour of the knackered old warmed-over 1968 Boeing. That would be like opting for the Lockheed Starliner in 1958 when everybody else was going for 707's.

As the ILFC boss Udvar-Hazy has said, the A380 will be a game-changing aircraft and those who don't have them, like those who didn't get 707's, will be the losers.

[lowerlobe]

the bottom line is that if any aircraft does not meet it's design parameters then it is a dead duck....especially these days with airline CEO's being as mercenary as they are...bonus wise I mean...

Wasn't the comet supposed to be the best thing as well......not that the A-380 has had any safety issues raised but if it is too heavy for one thing it is not going to be a success.

Darth Dixon has more escape clauses in his contract than Houdini..so if it does not live up to it's promises or is delayed further and the company is expecting capacity then it may look elsewhere and I'm sure Boeing has already been on the phone

But as ur2 said anything is possible

[Naughty S]

The A380 is slower also vs B747 from what I have heard only about M0.2. No big deal in europe as it will only add an extra 15min for example to a sector. Factor that for qf routes and it can add up to an extra 45mins. Makes scheduling more fun to meet certain slot times for dep & arrival.

For a boeing it my carry a smaller payload but is faster therefore on ground earlier turnaround and go again. Factor 30mins a day boeing vs airbus and you can slot in another revenue flight whereas airbus is just arriving at the gate.

Bigger is not necessarily better when you can still make money on smaller but higher load factors. Thank god someone saw the light and put another boeing order in.

[podbreak]

haha what bollocks. QF has already spent so much on the A380 program! The program is in full swing, no one has blinked an eye, on what talk-back-trash was this load of crap heard? ha the pro-boeing die-hards will love this! Rumours should at least be believable! :D

[lowerlobe]

podbreak....you would not be pro airbus by any chance would you?

There is nothing more certain in this world that Darth would cut the A-380 if it does not live up to it's performance specs.

Any money spent by Qantas so far would be re-imbursed by Airbus if it turns out to be a dud and that would be iron clad in the contract

[Lagrange]

Don't be surprised if QF does cancel. Due to weight problems, the pax load is already down from 555 to 460 and may fall further. The original business case was shot once the weight overrun exceed 4 tonnes. QF is attempting to cover the revenue by jacking up Business Class. One proposal being to have all the upper deck devoted to J.

Of course they could take the aircraft, transfer them to JQ, operate the 320 / 380 on a common rating under the excellent (for AJ) agreement just voted in. The 787 could go to the mainline. EK is planning to operate the 380 as an LCC buster. As sillier a thought as some of the others floating around. :bored:

[Avid Aviator]

I think the final nail in the coffin may be proposed landing fees from Heathrow and perhaps others. Due to increased wake turb separation requirements and the huge capital work program to accomodate it, the landing fee for an A380 will be around double that of a B747 (helped by the severe lack of airports capable of taking the aircraft). I understand a 5 tonne blow out in empty weight makes USA - Melbourne payload limited.
Of course Boeings don't always deliver either - Rolls Royce paid significant fuel penalties to Qantas for 10 years after they ordered RR powered B744s.
Common sense would suggest QF would be covering their options. Would have to be brave to cancel the A380 with its potential, but would be wise to have a fallback option if it proves a dud. Peter Gregg was recently quoted as saying there'd be another fleet announcement in 3 to 4 months

[planemad2]

Now Qantas have managed to keep Singapore Airlines off the Australia/USA Route, they don't need the A380. :rolleyes:

[Poto]

Actually all the A380 frames are going to Jet Star:cool:

[Baxter Dewall]

Poto,

Funny you say that as I heard exactly the same thing today.

[Howard Hughes]

Poto, I said that about 12 months ago, although only speculation I expect if the QF group do not cancel their order, the airframes will go to Jetstar.:ok:

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

If QF cannot make a profit with the A380, why should J* be any different?

No-one will look at an A380, see a big orange star on it and think they should charge any less for services for it than one with a white rat.

There is no such thing as:

*Low cost fuel,
*Low cost Airways and Nav charges,
*Low cost maintenance,
*Low cost landing charges,
*Low cost handling charges
*Low cost spares...

If they sent it to LHR it would have to be fully catered for the length of the flight, even if the punters have to buy the food.

The only difference would be the pittance they would pay the pilots and the FA's. Whilst it still is a pittance, we are talking a fraction of a fraction of the total operating cost of the aeroplane.

Filling it with 700-800 backpackers crammed in for a 22 hour fun-fest to LHR would last about 2 weeks till word of mouth got around. Can you imagine it?

[lowerlobe]

I don't know which would be worse...

work as a fa with J* international on an all y/c A-380 with 700 or so backpackers (Ahll have a lager thanks..ok that will be 3 quid thanks pal x 700) or...

work as an E.P instructor or

work in the mail room or anywhere in QCC1 and put up with all that politically correct political BS !!!!!!!

[Bolty McBolt]

The_Cutest_of_Borg said .....

There is no such thing as:

*Low cost maintenance

AMEN to that !!!!!

And I thought this farcical thread would never last...:ok:

[OhForSure]

The 12 whales that QF have ordered aren't even enough to cover the SYD-LHR & LAX routes... as was previously mentioned another fleet announcement is due soon, and there are a LOT of 747s to replace yet. Who knows whether or not the 380 will be canned, but the 747-8 would have to be on the cards... wouldn't it? Surely they wouldn't go with just the 773ER???

[Buster Hyman]

An easy way to get the A380 underweight would be to install all those space hungry lounges & duty free shops on board.

TCOB I imagine the only savings that QF would get by operating it under the J* banner would be the costs that are under their control, such as workforce etc.

[Going Boeing]

Naughty S

The A380 has been designed to cruise at M.86 at optimum altitude so it is not slower than the B747. You may be thinking of the smaller Airbus types.

[Keg]

Poto,

Funny you say that as I heard exactly the same thing today.

No surprise really. I started the rumour in December when J* International was first mooted! :E

[UnderneathTheRadar]

There is no such thing as:
..
..
..
*Low cost landing charges,
*Low cost handling charges
..
If they sent it to LHR it would have to be fully catered for the length of the flight, even if the punters have to buy the food.


So why send it to LHR? Why not Avalon/Eastern Bumf*ck/Stansted? It's where the backpackers want to go anyway to change to their cryingair flights..... Cheaper landing & handling charges....

For other cheaper handling charges, busses at Syd to the s/w corner of the 16R/07 intersection or some other out-of-the-way corner.

Fully catered at PAYG prices is a complete turn-around on full-serivce cost levels.


Not saying it's right but it IS possible.

For mine though, it can't happen as the 380 MUST be the flagship of any airline that owns for public image reasons and therefore must fly under the red rat tail.

UTR

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

There are only a few airports that can handle an A380. Is Stanstead one of them?

[Mysalami]

C O B,

For info the 380 needs a 60m wide runway, and any airport that can handle a A346 or B773 is of the right size for the 380 to taxi around. If the wings don't fit at the gate, stairs can be used on lower doors to board etc at a remote stand.
The quote of .86 in the cruise is on the money.
I have spent a bit of time (on behalf of my employer) looking at the VVIP config of this one. No restrictions to any of the airfields we fly to now in a B744. In fact they reckon because of the extra wheels it is kinder to the runways taxiways etc.
Our discussions with Boeing about the 748 are also ongoing. There is a problem at the moment that to carry the weight of the required fit we need, and the range we require, the CofG becomes very restrictive. This I think, will also be of some interest to PAX fleet operators, but I am sure in time it will be fixed.

[Naughty S]

Going B
Thanks for that but with a reasonable paylod on QF long haul it would have to fly slower to get the range (up to 1 hour longer on a certain route). That figure is what Airbus is quoting no different to Cessna/Piper advertising "It has this range and can carry this much" but do the sums and it cant do both at the same time.

From current planning figures the whale will have to fly slower to make the distance with a reasonable payload = longer time on ur but.

Defeats the purpose of having a bigger toy when the sandpit takes longer to traverse.

[Lodown]

Mysalami, I'd heard that a couple of the big issues with the aircraft were:

1. Horizontal splay with the higher tail requiring some airports to position the parallel taxiway further from the runway and holding points back as well.

2. Loading fuel, pax, food and offloading sewage and garbage in the same time frame, and

3. Positioning the aircraft at gates where the extra wingspan intrudes on space on either side.

Are these still issues?

Unrelated to initial posting, but interested nevertheless.

[satmstr]

C O B,
No restrictions to any of the airfields we fly to now in a B744. In fact they reckon because of the extra wheels it is kinder to the runways taxiways etc.
.
Hey Mysalami , sorry i have to disagree with the comment of it is kinder to runways, taxiways etc becuase of it extra wheels ...dont know if you looked at any photo's circulating of the landing gear that was being dragged when it was taxied due to no main body steering like the 747's have...sorry i think this might tend to rip up the taxiways due to the amount of weight that is going to be alot more on these a380 compared to current common high capacity aeros :confused:

[Capn Bloggs]

dont know if you looked at any photo's circulating of the landing gear that was being dragged when it was taxied due to no main body steering like the 747's have

The pics were roundly discredited at the time. Totally unrepresentative of real world operations. The were actually of an Airbus test.

[Mysalami]

satmstr,

I think I know the ones you are talking about. I have watched the video of that test. It was a Landing gear stress test combined with some other test that I do not remember. The aircraft was connected to a tug, and dragged in the smallest turning circle they could manage. No Hydraulics on at the time of the test to see if the landing gear pegs would crack/fail etc. The forces on the gear was so severe that several tyres were torn from rims, and no stress cracks/fractures were found, so the test was considered successful. It is impossible to duplicate this turning radius while taxing as the nosewheel streering will not turn the aircraft tight enough.

Lodown.

No problem with ground servicing and PAX loading at same time. As long as the airport can support the A346/B773 size aircraft, holding points and taxiways (size and positions ) are fine.
Gates will be limiting in some airports as the wing span is greater than that which protected at a lot gates. In these circumstances a remote stand will be required.

Naughty s,

Long range cruise speed was planned for .85. But flight testing has found that .855 to .86 is better for the wing. High speed cruise will be at .89, so all pretty close to the B744 really....but alas it is not a boeing.

[27/09]

any airport that can handle a A346 or B773 is of the right size for the 380 to taxi around.

So why are airports that currently handle the A340 or B777 and B747 undertaking runway and taxiway work to be able to handle the A380 and other similar airports are refusing to spend any money upgrading to handle the A380.

[4Greens]

The problem is not the runway or the taxiway, it is getting from one to the other. Many airfields need a wider more extensive fillet between the two.

[MarkD]

heh, so much FUD appearing and knocked down due to posting without searching I'm waiting for someone to ask how they'll get 850+ out for the evac test. :hmm:

Dammit though, Airbus seem to always make it hard for themselves. I saw the programme on how they get A380 bits to Toulouse, winding in through tiny villages and that - with the money they would save by moving assembly to a coastal location they could hire a few more engineers to design stronger wings and save a few tonnes of weight :rolleyes:

[27/09]

Evacuation test completed last week sometime. Done in required time frame with only half? of the exits in use. A few broken limbs but quite successful by Airbus reports.

[B772]

The first QF A380 is on its wheels and left the 'assembly line' approx. 6 weeks ago. The engines and interior fitout is underway.

SQ are also concerned by the 'empty weight' of the A380 but are used to being conned by Airbus and will proceed with the A380 acquisition to save face.

A SQ Board Meeting on 9 May will consider a recommendation to replace the A340-500 with the B777-200LR. A possible order for the B747-8 is also on the cards.