QF 777 order "being negotiated"?

[Taildragger67]

Afternoon all,

Now I might have missed something, but this SMH article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/tough-issues-wag-the-tail-of-the-flying-kangaroo/2007/03/02/1172338878550.html) seems to imply that the Rat order for 777s is "currently being negotiated":

Some analysts speculate that the new owners could be tempted into selling off Qantas delivery "slots" early in the production line of new aircraft like the Boeing 787 (45 firm orders, 20 more options and a further 50 "purchase rights"), or a number of large Boeing 777s currently being negotiated.

Anyone got any light to shed? Last mention I recall of QF and 777s was a rejection as the "commercial people" (GD's words) couldn't get the numbers to work for a reliable, year-round, premium-only non-stop east-coast Aus to EGLL service. Have things changed?

[lowerlobe]

"the new owners could be tempted into selling off Qantas delivery "slots" early in the production line of new aircraft like the Boeing 787 "

Another way of looking at it is that the "new owners" are already looking at ways to recoup the money they borrowed to buy the company by selling delivery slots....

If this happens where are we going to get the aircraft replacements we need now and for expansion...

What happened to their enthusiasm for the Dixon plan and wanting to invest millions if not billions on new aircraft and other infrastructure....

Now people are saying they are going to have a sell off...

[radiation junkie]

R.I.P QANTAS.
We will all miss you.

[Wiley]

As someone observing from a very long way away, my spin at predicting the future (admittedly, always a very dodgy proposition), would be something along these lines:

- Many if not most of the promises made to staff in the first few months of new ownership will in most cases fail to materialise; (but will have the desired result of keeping a large enough proportion of said staff from agreeing to take on industrial action in time for said industrial action to have any real effect).

- Reduction in manning levels ‘but only by attrition’ (yeah, right) in many areas.

- Outsourcing of many areas traditionally done from within the airline, (already been done in quite a few areas, I know), much of it to cheaper labour areas north of the equator or to private contractors within Australia whose staff will not enjoy the traditional benefits of airline industry staff (e.g., perks like sub-load travel).

- Reliance on a far larger scale on new (leased) equipment so that (further) swingeing cuts in engineering support will not be quite so obvious in the short term.

- Initially in the domestic area, but eventually in long haul as well, many promotions to be not in the main line, but into offshoot operations line Jet*, where main line staff will be forced to make the decision to (a) stay unpromoted but retain current benefits, or (b) take promotion, but at the cost of losing many current benefits.

- Many more overseas-recruited (read cheaper) staff.

- Eventually, who knows how many years down the track, possibly even an (on paper at least) closing down of the existing company and a re-branding of one of the offshoots with the Qantas name, with all the staff on individual contracts and working to the new ‘lean, mean’ working practices.

Of course, I could be totally wrong, and I expect to be told so in no uncertain manner by people far closer to the QF coal face than I am, some of whom will assure me that the Australian Public will insist on paying a premium to be transported around the world by only the highest trained and best pilots in the world.

[rammel]

We were discussing the B777-200 the other day, and why didn't we have them. GD is always going on that ports like CDG, ATH and other European ports were not economical with 3 flights a week.

Well they might not be economical with B747-400, but what about with a B777-200? Airlines like MH, SQ and TG all have flights which are not daily flights to many varied ports in Europe. They haven't cut these back, so there must be money in it.

Either Boeing has made a plane which is a dud, and all these other airlines have been lumbered with a dud. Or QF missed the boat ages ago. It did have a large amount of input into the initial design of the 777, and is the only one not to have ordered it.

Would the non order of the B777 ages ago be counted as a management mistake? After all isn't the B787 going to do similar things to the B777.

[chemical alli]

i think the qf 777 idea has been dug up reburied so many times its just a bag of skeletor remains

last i heard even if qf placed a 777 order today it would be 2011 before delivery

this is due to so many airlines cancelling A380 and buying 777 so lets not live in dreamland anymore

[Explicitus]

Fedex, UPS, ILFC and Emirates all cancelled their orders of the A380-800F. Have there been cancellations of A380-800 orders?

[Going Boeing]

My own interpretation of crystal ball gazing is that if QF orders the B777 it effectively will be a New Generation version incorporating as many of the B787 technologies as possible without designing an entirely new aircraft. Time will tell.

The economics of the B787-10 look very impressive and that size is getting into B777 territory. Boeing don't want to kill off the B777 orders by firming up on that aircraft yet.

[Taildragger67]

Going Boeing,

That's been my thinking - but that line in the article made me wonder.

Seattle has been under pressure for a while to stretch the 787 into the -10 but this would clearly cut into what is now a major cash producer for Boeing (the costs of the 'core' models having been amortised years ago). A 787-10 would rip the guts out of the newer LR 777 derivs (which are yet to break even).

Likewise at the other end - Boeing will have to replace the 737 at some stage - but who would want to p!55 off the likes of Herb and O'Leary by suddenly killing the residual value of the hundreds of new airframes they've invested in? That said, the pressure will build - AA said very recently that they'd like to replace their MD80s with 738s, but will wait to see what any single-aisle son-of-Dreamliner looks like.

[Going Boeing]

Unfortunately the GEnX doesn't put out enough grunt for the tripler but there are other technologies that can be used.

[lowerlobe]

I know you pilots like to dream and drool over the thought of a new toy to play with HOWEVER.....The article was about APA cancelling delivery slots to make money on their investment.

The potential new owners are basically accountants and what do they want to do most of the time?

They will want to save money/cutback on anything they can.

As far as the article is concerned .....in all seriousness what journalists would know the difference between a 747-400 and a 787/777/767/anything with wings and some engines ...or any other aircraft really...

They could just as easily have said they were going to cancel orders for the space shuttle.

The journalist probably read an article at morning tea about someone looking at ordering 777's and by the time he wrote his article it became Qantas.

The main point of his article though was the cost cutting likely to eventuate if the takeover goes ahead .

[DutchRoll]

Actually, the conservative attitude from management (as much as I personally hold them in contempt for many other things) over the years has allowed QF to come through events like 9/11 and SARS with only a few minor flesh wounds, as QF is not heavily in debt and was making just enough profit to absorb those problems.

That will change drastically if APA buy the company, and another event of similar magnitude in this fickle industry has a reasonable probability of sending QF flying into bankruptcy. That's not pessimistic - it's just realistic with the debt/equity levels the new owners will be carrying.

Accountants like to make money, and they like to do it quickly then move on. Exposing themselves to prolonged risk in one particular area is very un-accountant like.

[lowerlobe]

Ozstriker..

I'm not negative I'm a realist....

Actually accountants like make money by saving money or investing with as little risk as possible.That means the purchase of an airline with a huge amount of debt and high risk factors is very unlike most accountants.

The article that was quoted at the started of the thread backs that up.The debt level of Qantas will go from the sublime to the ridiculous and that is what is worrying most pundits.

You mentioned that "There is huge potential for growth in Qantas"....IF YOU had spent the time to read the article then you would have understood the meaning.It is about selling production slots..not expanding...as I pointed out.

It looks as though you are a supporter of the proposed takeover and thats fine but read between the lines.Qantas under Darth has had the opportunity to expand but has not.We have made record profits and what expansion has Darth made except for his bonus.

My post was in response to a number of jet jockeys salivating over what new toys they might get rather than what the article was proposing.

In all probability the new owners will be looking at any way to reduce that level of debt and most of us know what that means.

[Redstone]

G B may be on the right track...
IF Boeing were to offer QF the 777 with GenX (787) engines????

Impossible. The GenX is a bleedless engine, your pax are going to get very cold and very sleepy. In any case if Boeing were to upgrade the design of the 777 to incorperate much of the 787 technology, they would then have a 787.

[Taildragger67]

OK, but aren't GEnX's going to power the 748? So won't Boeing therefore need to include a bleed system on that?

Maybe little 707-like ram-air intakes on the pylons?

[Redstone]

Or incorperate the 787's air conditioning/pressurisation technology. The 748 is going to be quite a major re-think, not just a -300 with tv screens and a central maintenance computer.

[Keg]

Didn't they get the PW4090 to put out in excess of 100,000lb on the static run? I thought the the 90K figure was a derated figure?!?! Happy to be shown that I'm incorrect. :ok:

[noip]

GE-90 .. 110k and 115k lb thrust for the -200LR and -300ER. Bit more development needed to replace them with new generation engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

N

[B772]

The B777-200LR is currently capable of LHR-SYD nonstop with 300 pax. Boeing are still working on a lighter weight Worldliner variant for QF to enable SYD-LHR and JFK-SYD.

The B772LR with a MTOW of 347.45 tonnes requires the GE90-110B1 engines with 489 kN.

[Going Boeing]

BSB

I don't know where you got your pax figures for the B777-200ER but they seem very high - more appropriate for the B777-300. It might be physically possible to squeeze that many seats into the aircraft but the seat pitch would be unacceptable for the long haul flights that these aircraft excel at. With sleeper seats in first and business class the numbers would be much lower.

[Back Seat Driver]

Data from Boeing Website here (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_200product.html)

[BuzzBox]

Data from Boeing Website here

Boeing might market the aircraft that way, but as Going Boeing said a premium carrier wouldn't cram that many seats in, especially on ultra long haul routes.

CX is taking delivery of the first of its 777-300ERs later this year. I understand they'll be fitted out with around 300 seats in a 3-class config. I imagine a 3-class 777-200LR in a similar config (ie flat beds in F and J class) would only have around 250-270 seats.