QF A380 LAX-MEL Operations

[Lusty Blows]

There is trouble brewing over the operation of the QF A380 from LAX to MEL. The CASA instrument granted for the operation refers only to 744 ops. CASA has been instructed to not issue any more concessions and the current AIPA president is in no mood to grant any further contractual concessions either till certain sticking points in the current relationship with Flight Ops are sorted out. Allowances and the Regal Hotel would be high on the list! The aircraft is due to operate LAX-MEL in 10 days or so and there is no AIPA approval to do so.
The interesting thing is, the first reaction of the CP was to call the alternative president in for a meeting. Is it back to the bad old days already? COM members voting on the Exec elections take note. Son of Robin is back.

[dragon man]

All correct. However the president present or future cant grant a variation to the present certified agreement without a vote of all those who work under it taking place. As Paul Keating once said " remember if you build a nest of s--t one day you might have to lie in it". Couldnt happen to a nicer company. All the chickens are coming home to roost.

[Lookleft]

So what you are suggesting is that CASA will actually have the gumption to tell Qantas they can't operate the A380 to LA? I can't see that happening.

[noip]

Well,

They can operate it TO LAX, but perhaps not the other way .......


N

[What The]

I will bet London to a brick it goes and returns.

[oicur12]

"Allowances and the Regal Hotel would be high on the list!"

Trillions of dollars worth of capital gets stuck by "I want more lunch money and a hotel closer to wanchai".

Is it only me becoming more cynical?

[noip]

oicur,

No you are simply ignorant of the issues .....


N

[Going Boeing]

oicur, noip has hit the nail on the head in that you are ignorant of the current problems ie for the last two years, cabin crew have been paid significantly more allowances in each slip port than tech crew. this has happened because of GD finding a loophole in the Pilots' Certified Agreement and choosing to apply the letter of the law. Management started the spat and I don't have a problem with them squirming over the A3latey operation MEL to LAX.

[blow.n.gasket]

Don't worry Boeing,
Not long now ,all our problems will be solved when the new President and his company approved running mates take over.
Didn't you know every woe beholden to the pilot body is all due to the ARG!
My god ,if WoodI had only the same negotiating skills as the new President all would be fine.
My god, how dare a union actually stand up to management!
How dare they,we've only got ourselves to blame you know.

Once AIPA has won back to it's rightful Flight Ops Management branch office status all will be right again.:}

[oicur12]

GB,

Wow, that cleared things up. Your right, it really is a big issue worth delaying the new A380 over.

Good grief.

[Transition Layer]

So oicur, is your office on QCC/2 or 3?

[Just Relaxin]

I agree totally with what Lusty Blows and a few other intelligent people on this thread have said. The Committee at AIPA needs to think carefully when voting for the executive. It appears as if Qantas have already lined up a new President + cohorts that are very “user friendly”. Every member of AIPA needs to take great interest in how their elected representatives are “representing” them and voting in the current election.

If AIPA returns to the “good old days” pre Ian Woods then god help the pilots. With the current financial crisis, now more than ever, Qantas pilots need somebody who is not scared to defend their rights against the company. Another reincarnation of the previous president would spell the end for many.

[noip]

Guys, I think the talk of the "Alternative President" being effectively a Company lapdog is somewhat ... er ... silly. :ugh:

Certainly the present AIPA administration is far from ideal.:eek:

But then I'd be in danger of showing my political viewpoint, wouldn't I? ...... :)

[max autobrakes]

Really NOIP?
Wasn't he a Vice President under Holt?
I've spoken to numberous pilots this chap has "helped" as a union rep, when a pilot has to go to management for tea and bikkies,guess what?
His abilities as a negotiator when defending a fellow pilot have been reported to be like that of the AIPA lawer who was sacked, "Don't make waves, just apologise,write a letter and say you're sorry and you won't do it again"
Even when according to some of these chaps ,their case was very strong and easily defendable.

It appears to me that what was happening under the Holt Qantas sponsored junta was a systematic and systemic undermining of the pilots resolve and trust of the Union so when the final coup de grace occured they the pilots would have nowhere to turn.
Looks like we're about to head down the same road again.

Why do you think they, management do not want Qantas Group pilots united under one industrial umbrella?

It would appear that Airline management do appear to have their dirty fingers associated with the running of a few Aviation Unions in this country.

[noip]

it's spelt .... noip .... no one in particular ....


:)



There have been a lot of ..er .. undesirable things happen in the past and I think that even Robin Holt has regrets, however .... who do you think is suitable as President?

Certainly, I fear a Möbius loop if things don't change. ( hmm a sentence with a self-fulfilling prophecy ..... )

Hey .. nobody wants to go back to the hope that the Company will do the right thing if we give in (cuz they won't) ... BUT ... neither do I think the current incumbents are doing much either. The eba8 disaster is eloquent testimony to a major managment f*ck*p on the part of the current AIPA administration ....


BUT

back to A380 ops ...

Is it true they are severely limited on the LAX-MEL-LAX sector?

Maybe there is hope for the ER yet?


n

[What The]

You blokes should check under your beds. Talk about full of crap.

[noip]

Nah,

No bad person could stand the fluffballs that reside under my bed.


n

[max1]

An EBA is a contract.
Fair minded people will do things not covered in an EBA for the long term health of the company.

Unfortunately some managements treat them as a contract to be exploited. They try to twist and subvert clauses to 'screw' their staff. They will attempt to play bush lawyer with wording, as against intent, to extract any gain they can.

Ask yourself ' Is my management one of a short-term bonus driven culture' or are they truly interested in the long term health of the company and do they see me as an asset to be developed, or as a unit of cost to be minimised and as a resource to be exploited.

When you have your answer, you will realise what the prudent thing to do is in relation to the wording of your EBA.

[Buster Hyman]

As an aside...I watched it doing some rotations at Tulla today. From the distance I viewed it from, I initially thought it was a 733 side on, but that enormous bloody tail is a dead giveaway!!!

[A37575]

Heard the QF A380 was on a proving flight Sydney -Adelaide and had to turn back to Sydney after being told there was a 35 knot crosswind component at Adelaide. Expensive turn back and that's with no passengers.

[Keg]

Expensive turn back and that's with no passengers.

Given the amount of non revenue flying it's been doing over the last few weeks I hardly thing one weather related diversion is going to break the bank!?!?! :suspect:

[oicur12]

Transition layer,

Yeah, I guess I must be a manager at QF huh. Fellow aviators would never dare question the insignificant issues QF pilots have with thier nasty managers, would they?

Have you ever worked outside the sheltered workshop?

[Capt Kremin]

Tell us your understanding of the industrial situation in QF re: compliance with longstanding, but non-contractual arrangements, then?

[Keg]

oicur, the allowances and accommodation issue is like skin cancer. Can appear pretty insignificant at first glance to those who don't actually know what's going on but underneath the surface it's actually a very big deal. Of course those that are dealing with the 'insignificant' little surface spot are in fact dealing with an issue that is much, much bigger than what it appears to be by those who are ignorant of all the details.

[Capt Kremin]

Keg is correct. Two years ago, flight ops management decided that tech crew would no longer have an annual review of their allowances. The reason appeared to be that because it wasn't in the LH EBA, then they didn't have to. The fact that it was a long standing practice meant nothing. In many ports now, Tech crew get substantially less than the Cabin crew they operate with.

Now Flight Ops management have belatedly realised that they don't have an agreement with AIPA to operate the A380 to a 17 hour TOD a-la LAX-MEL. They want AIPA to give them the concession, even though it is not contained in the contract. It is a long standing arrangement, but why should AIPA apply a different standard to the relationship than the one exhibited by senior QF management?

An industrial relationship cuts both ways. The issue of airport hotels is another example of the state of the relationship, and the respect shown one party by the other. I hope the AIPA COM realises that the membership has had enough on issues such as this, and acts appropriately.

[Lusty Blows]

Well said! Now if we can only keep the "alternative president" out of the CP's office till COM can debate this, AIPA have a chance of making some progress!

[Taildragger67]

So let's cut back to the main question:

Will Fatso operate up and back from the 20th?

[Keg]

Without a doubt. At the end of the day, despite the unreasonableness of management, most pilots- and even AIPA- are 'reasonable' people. Some side issues may be highlighted and they may even be fixed (I hope they are) but I'm pretty sure the aircraft will go to LAX and back from MEL.....weather permitting of course! :ok:

[Bleve]

Sure it'll go. But the question is will it go non- stop ???? Unless both CASA and AIPA agree to a Flight/Duty time concession it'll be stopping somewhere enroute.

[man on the ground]

Any update on whether the BUFF (to borrow a term from the B52) leaps over the pacific non-stop from the 20th, as advertised?

[captaindejavu]

Yep, it's going. :ok:

ETD 1115 AEDT.

[Dropt McGutz]

The above is definitely confirmed.

[Jed Clampett]

It is still in hangar 96 at Sydney. Drove past it tonight at 1900. U/s or getting spruced up for tomorrow?

[Capt Fathom]

Yep, it's going. ETD 1115 AEDT.
The above is definitely confirmed

About as definite as any scheduled Qantas departure! :uhoh:

[blow.n.gasket]

To really be Qantas it will have to push back late!:O

[oicur12]

Kremin,

So to clarify, the possible A380 service delay was not because the pilots were unhappy with the amount of play money from the company, but because the cabin crew get more play money than the pilots.

Looking at the big picture, its still rather pathetic. Billions of dollars worth of kit sitting on the ground because the guy earning 300 grand and his mate earning 200 grand want a bigger lunch allowance.

I know there is more to it than this, we all have many mates in the "shelter", but QF pilots have a charmed set of work conditions. This is one such example.

[Ken Borough]

Oicur12 is a very brave man but at least he has the b@@lls to say what a lot of us are thinking. :D:D

[Keg]

oicur, this is nothing to do with 'play money'. This is about our company being consistent in the application of our award. The company wants to apply the letter of our conditions in one aspect of our working lives. I'm down with that- and the allowance issue doesn't trouble me overly much- but that hard line by the company cuts both ways. If they want to adhere to the letter of our award rather than the 'spirit' or the intent then both sides can decide to run with that philosophy.

It's also interesting to note that a recent court decision against QF indicated that they acted in breach of the award- a matter unrelated to the A380. They want to adhere to the letter in one area, ignore it in the other area and then wonder why the pilot group would be a bit upset when they ask for a concession in a third area?

....QF pilots have a charmed set of work conditions.

We sure do. I don't suppose that it's crossed your mind that there are multiple reasons for that. Taking an assertive stance- such as articulated by Kremin about this allowance issue- is one of the reasons that they remain largely charming and the envy of many others. :ok:

Don't mis-read me here either. I'm all for simplification and providing efficiencies with some areas of our award quite archaic in principle and application. This issue isn't about flight crews being petty. It's about us applying the same adherence to the written policy of the award as the company does. Actually, given the recent course case it's about us at least adhering to the award even when the company do not.

[Transition Layer]

I'm regularly mystified when one group of individuals attacks another because they earn more money or work under better conditions doing essentially the same job.

[Shot Nancy]

I'm regularly mystified when one group of individuals attacks another because they earn more money or work under better conditions doing essentially the same job.

I think you will find that OICUR12 along with many posters here get paid in hand more than an A380 QF pilot.
Relax, it is not all about QF bashing. Feel free to explain to some the picture as you see it rather than dismissing their posts.

[Capt Kremin]

OICUR, its not about that. Maybe this will gve you an idea. The following was related to me by a COM member.
The Company and AIPA are required to have a conference regarding the introduction of a new type. It's clause 40 of our EBA. That conference was held some months ago and an Interim agreement on operation of the A380 was agreed.
It was -400 pay and T & C's under EBA 7.
Under the terms of EBA7, AIPA must give its approval for TOD's over 14 hours and also the TOD's required for the LAX-MEL op.
Clause 40, according to the company, also means they can operate the aircraft as they see fit for three months. They have interpreted this to mean that they don't need AIPA's approval for the above operations, even though they signed an Interim agreement to operate under EBA 7. They are cherry picking the clauses they will honour because it suits them. They recorded their first ever breach of any award last week. It cost them 5000 bucks. If AIPA take them to court over this the maximum it will cost them is $33,000. So they don't care.
The only good news is that after three months they will have to deal with an AIPA COM that is getting more and more Po'ed about this sort of treatment by the day.
In the meantime the question must be asked of Flt Ops. Why did they bother going through a conference to get an Interim Agreement to operate the A380 under EBA 7, ALL of EBA 7, not just the bits they like, when they had no intention of honouring that agreement?
That is what this is about. The constant Bull****e they engage in. The allowances is just part of the story but if you are not QF then it is too long to relate here.

[Transition Layer]

Shot Nancy,

Maybe I'm way off the mark, but referring to QF as "the shelter" and a "charmed set of work conditions" seemed like oicur was having a dig and to be honest, he couldn't be more wrong.

Continually fighting with management over issues such as allowances and airport hotels might seem trivial to those on the outside. However, if the company wants to implement the EBA to the letter of the law, then AIPA has the right to do the same.

[Keg]

Did it end up getting away on time?

[Critical Reynolds No]

11.30am departure. Is that classed on time?

[Capt Kremin]

It had a 11.15am scheduled pushback time so it must have been close.

[Wod]

Off blocks 1112 - 3 minutes early. According to the QF web site.

[Hoofharted]

Who bloody cares. Things must be boring as bat sh1t at the mo!!!:suspect:

[denabol]

Now that it's on its way can someone tell me who caved in? Qantas or the pilots?

I found this YouTube of the departure.

YouTube - Qantas A380 First Commercial Service (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-WGGXBAXHK0)

Looking at the time it took to rotate that was about 24 seconds to air under the wheels. I seem to remember taking longer to takeoff going from Canberra to Brisbane. The Age site says it was also carrying a full load.

Guess that proves it has grunt. Hope the Hairdoes or what ever those things in the Airbus computer that went mad over Western Australia are called all work proper.

[Keg]

Ops to LAX are allowable without any agreement from AIPA. It's ops from LAX to MEL that require the agreement. As previously mentioned, it will go non-stop. We may be hacked off by the way the company treats us but we're not entirely ignorant of the multitude of different issues at play.

[denabol]

That seems to me to be the important issue. Will Qantas start to treat its people with respect, or will it be more of the same, as described on this board for the short time I've been watching it.

[Capt Fathom]

From the Sydney Morning Herald website..The eerily quiet behemoth took off at precisely 11:32am (17 minutes late)

It actually pushed back at 11:12, 3 mins ahead of schedule, as previously posted.

[Plastic fantastic]

No prize for second place, let alone third or is it fourth?
Must be a slow news day but, one thing is for sure, it shouldn't have any maintenance problems like some of the other sh-t heaps that QF are flying!

[Shot Nancy]

Capt’n Krem’n,
Good post, spot on.
TL,
When I was on the 400 QF safety dept used the term “sheltered workshop” and it is in common use in some circles. The work conditions are appropriate for the environment. Don’t give management an inch.
As you can see they can push and push and eventually they will get pushed back.
Good luck to the A380 ops.

[max autobrakes]

In Qantas as in other airlines these days ,labour relations between Management and the workers is based on the "give and take principle".
The employees give and management takes, all quite simple really.:{

[Sleeve_of_Wizard]

Why can the 744 go LAX - MEL but the 380 needs a TOD dispensation? Seems like you guys would all be happier if you were all paid the same for whatever plane you flew, and had to endure such wonderful hotels such as the FLAG INN in Richmond Vancouver.... Tis the changing times...... Goodbye to Luxury!!! We're a happy lot up here. (SIC)

[blueloo]

So who flew it to LAX - the muppet in the ad with the hat on in the flight deck? Also available with personal family autographed photo in QF newspaper.

[Kiwiconehead]

I'm assuming someone did the sums to see if it's got enough gas to get back from LA to MEL.

[lowerlobe]

I'm assuming someone did the sums to see if it's got enough gas to get back from LA to MEL.
Or if that is a problem at various times of the year and when fully loaded can it do a tech stop in places such as Nadi just like the good old days when we first operated the 747-200?
(and that was only from HNL)

[ACMS]

Here's a youtube of KTLA reporting it's landing LIVE.

YouTube - First Qantas A380 Landing at LAX Oct 20, 08 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8BbAKRMlFU)

I see it Landed 25L then had to backtrack down 25R after LDG, why?

( ignore what the female reporter in the Helicopter said about it landing on 25R, she was wrong even though she was looking down from the Helicopter!! )

Is it too big for the taxyway?

[Dragun]

Being the first commercial flight to LAX it was probably just cleared back down the runway for the show and cameras cos ATC were being nice!

[max1]

Did GD ever slip back to Business, or heaven forbid Cattle class. Or did his contract state First Class and this is what he insisted on even if it meant bumping a full fare payer off.
If you have a contract. enforce it. Take your lead from those above.
For all you quibbling that the pilots are now being petty, look where they have got their leadership from.

Unfortunately people who are used to 'doing the right thing' are sick of getting p!ssed on from on high.

The do as I say, not as I do bullying culture has finally disengaged formerly 'Company' people to the point that they will rigidly enforce their contracts to protect themselves. The days of 'what you missed on the swings you made up on the roundabouts' have been over for years and now we are starting to wake up to it.

P.S. I don't even work for Qantas but am feeling pretty disengaged where I work as the upper levels of management grab as much as they can, whilst screwing everyone under them. Welcome to the new Australia.

[Wod]

Seems to have got out of LAX on time. (QF web site)

On the subject of payload, my ball park understanding is that relative to the standard 747-400

. Most numbers including weights, payload and volume are 25% higher, but fuel burn over like sectors is the same.

. At high weights it goes directly to FL 320 plus, without the "step" at FL280 or so.

. At longer ranges,(LAX-MEL) it carries a higher proportion of its volumetric payload (say 744 plus 35%), but is still limited to less than full payload.

. Min cost cruise .86 v .84

I don't know how it stacks up against 744ER. Obviously a lesser payload improvement over payload limited sectors like LAX-MEL.

Still going to wind up in SYD or somewhere further back if MEL weather is nasty and full limited payload is on board.

I stress "ball park" - some numbers are 22% and others are other - just looking for confirmation or a revised ball park number from "one who knows".

[Capt Kremin]

I believe that if they taxi on the taxiways at LAX then they have to close the one beside it, that is why they would backtrack on the parallel runway. If they get a bunch of A380's taxiing at the same time at LAX, it is going to cause massive problems.

[ACMS]

even 1 A380 backtracking down 25R will hold up departures..............

wonderful machine the Dugong :}

[Parc-Ratstej]

so what is the pay for an A380 captain in Qantas?

[Keg]

Currently the same as for a 744 driver. Depending on what happens with EBA8 will determine what it ends up being. Personally I reckon they're paid enough and the efficiencies gained for flying the A380 should be passed on to the hard working and under paid 767 drivers. :ok: :} :E

[Jabawocky]

hard working and under paid 767 drivers. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif

That was only for a few weeks mate....its cruise mode for you know!:}

[rammel]

I think it will go all right on the Aust - LAX - Aust sector, because the type of cargo carried is no where near the weights to Asia. To Asia there is a lot of meat carried, where I've rarely seen this go to LAX.

On the 747-400 (non ER), it was only sometimes (not every leg) that cargo was offloaded. On the ER of course it is less of an occurrence as the -400.

Overall I think it will do as advertised on these runs, though haven't seen too much of it myself yet. On the first flight it was about 12-T off MTOW.

[CaptCloudbuster]

KEG Wrote: the efficiencies gained for flying the A380 should be passed on to the hard working and under paid 767 drivers

Unfortunately Keg, with the change of leadership coming in the AIPA hierarchy demanded by the membership, any hope of building on an EBA 8 style fleet pay proposal is dead in the water.

BJ and his team are pushing full steam ahead for 6-10% on the A380. This will be locked in well before the "results" from the member survey is discovered neutering any chance of savings at the top end being passed on to the majority.

What else would you expect when BJ's ticket has 3 x A380 Capts at the helm:hmm:

[woftam]

Let's hope it has a better run than EK's A380. DBX-JFK service cancelled today due A/C U/S again I believe. :hmm:

[Yarra]

What was the fuel uplift as a matter of interest??.

[Keg]

Not sure about the flight across but the flight home was circa 215T.

[AnQrKa]

I wish I could argue with my company about hotels and allowances etc. At least you guys get to discuss these items, we have no say at all. Like it or leave.

As for the union granting permission to Qantas to operate certain sectors - only in the industrial backwater that is Oz would this occur.

Dont rock the boat guys, you are on clover.

[Jabawocky]

And what is a FULL load Keg? Not 216T I assume!:ooh:

Now out of interest when you were on the 744, what would the burn from LA to Melbourne?

J:ok:

[Back Seat Driver]

With only 215 Tonnes of fuel in the tanks there is still enough room for a volley ball court, Jaba.
Full Tanks- Depending on the SG about 242Tonnes:eek:

[TruBlu351]

What was the Dugong doing in Syd yesterday?

[Keg]

ow out of interest when you were on the 744, what would the burn from LA to Melbourne?

Lol. I was only scheduled for LAX-MEL twice. We only made it once. Given that was in the part of life known as 'before training' then it's also in the part of life that was 'dumped' when I entered that part of life known as 'training'. I vaguely recall 172T as being max for a standard 744. I think the ER max fuel was an extra 10T. I'll need one of the current 744 drivers to confirm that.

Don't know of max fuel on the Dugong.

[Jabawocky]

So doing the rough numbers then its used about 215T for a trip (assumed I know to be fuel used) compared to around 170T used in the ER..........if you make it!

Not a massive efficiency gain. Of course not having to do a stop is way more effecient than having to do one.

So the 748 argument comes back to mind:ooh:

J:ok:

[Zeke]

Jabawocky,

The aircraft will land with about 10% of their fuel for reserves and alternate.

Per seat, it seems the A380 is burning 10% less fuel, lifting about 30% more revenue payload, and supplying about 50% more floor area than the 744ER.

And it still has range/payload up its sleeve, I remember a few people on this thread previously say it did not have the range for trans pacific sectors....

Now does anyone have the 747-300 numbers......

As for the 747-8I, it will have the same operational restrictions as the A380, they are both ICAO CAT F due to their physical dimensions (wingspan).

[Buster Hyman]

I hadn't seen the Airbus delivery ceremony (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=YBRykh-lcPo&feature=related)....double plus good eh?:ok:

[lowerlobe]

Per seat, it seems the A380 is burning 10% less fuel, lifting about 30% more revenue payload, and supplying about 50% more floor area than the 744ER.

And it still has range/payload up its sleeve, I remember a few people on this thread previously say it did not have the range for trans pacific sectors....

Now does anyone have the 747-300 numbers......
Zeke.....Firstly....The fuel burn and revenue per seat per km and so on is great if.....the thing is full.In this current financial climate is this going to continue?

Plus we still have to find out if it can operate all year on the Mel/Lax run with the same loads as it does on the Syd or Bne/Lax flights...

Secondly....What has the figures for the 300 got to do with the flying brioche?

Thirdly..What has the floor area got to do with the price of eggs?

We all know that when the excitement has died down and the sales people get the marketing people to sit down and stop partying they will put as many seats in the thing that they can....just as they did with the 747.

Remember the upper deck lounge as well as the wide galleys in Y/C....they lasted for a long time didn't they?

If there is a spare space anywhere in the brioche they will want to put a seat in it or if they can re design the interior and put pax in places like the over head lockers the sales team will try to...if they can get away with it.

[kotoyebe]

If there is a spare space anywhere in the brioche they will want to put a seat in it or if they can re design the interior and put pax in places like the over head lockers the sales team will try to...if they can get away with it.

I'm no aircraft interior designer, but on my quick bolt through the dugong, there didn't appear to be a lot more room to put extra seats anywhere with the current 4 class config. Drop it to 3 or even 2 class, that's another story!

I was mildly disappointed with the thing. It reminded me of the word bland. And didn't I get a ribbing from the boss when I got back from work for not raving about it!

I was soooo impressed with the small sign at one of the walk up bars that said words to the effect "Achtung! Return to your seat after making your selection now!!"

[lowerlobe]

I'm no aircraft interior designer, but on my quick bolt through the dugong, there didn't appear to be a lot more room to put extra seats anywhere with the current 4 class config. Drop it to 3 or even 2 class, that's another story!
kotoyebe...Never underestimate QF .They redesigned the aft galley when they had had the 747 for a couple of years so they could fit more seats in.I'm sure they have alternatives to the current lay out already on the drawing board.

If Emirates and SIA can do it then QF could do it with their eyes closed...

Wait until they sell the underfloor Cabin Crew rest to premium Y/C pax....for a premium $ of course and when they find out how well they sell add some other under floor pallets with bunks as well for a wad of bucks.:E

The motto with airlines is ..."Never say Never"

[Back Seat Driver]

Jaba, Le Dugong uses (early days) around-about 80kg/Pax less fuel LAX-MEL compared to 744ER. = Huge efficiency gains. AND carries a whole lot more pax.
If you need to move a lot of people a long way - A380
If you need to move 2/3'rds as many a long way - 744
If you need to move 1/2 as many a long way - 777
(If you need to move an A380 load in 2 steps = 743):)
QF have been doing it better than most for a long long time now. I reckon they know what they're doing.

[Jabawocky]

QF have been doing it better than most for a long long time now.

Do not doubt that for a minute :ok:.

Having said that the 748 was not on the horizon when the A380 was ordered.

I know the numbers are just plain off the cuff quotes but if you said say 215T V 170T of fuel, and Le Dugong caries only 450 PAX when Full, for its 25-26% more fuel overall, well thats only 28% more passengers. Assuming its full.

There must be a heap of other efficiencies involved here otherwise it would be a close call.

It would be good to see some serious factual debate not a slagging match on what the Q can expect from the A380 compared to its 744 and maybe 748 cousins when you look at real passenger / freight loadings.

J

[Autobrakes4]

"There must be a heap of other efficiencies involved here otherwise it would be a close call."


It can't be in the flight attendants then. I remember carrying 460 back from Frankfurt once (not unusual) with 14 flight attendants. Only around 50 more passengers on the 380, but an extra 8 flight attendants. Mind you they are saving by using QCCA employees.

I know which aircraft I'd rather be working on as a flight attendant!

[Back Seat Driver]

Jaba,
When airbus 1st mooted the A380 it was delayed in design commitment for several years, because Boeing threatened to bring out a new 747 design (what we now know as the 748) which would make airbuses financial commitment in a new design untenable. So airbus cooled on the mega bus idea. This cycle happened several times until airbus eventually bit the bullet and actually started building the 380. So the Johnny come lately boys at Boeing decided to go ahead with the 748 design to compete with the mega bus. So far Boeing has been a little under whelmed with response and sales for the 748.
Le Dugong planned to burn 201T fuel on the 1st LAX-MEL.
Savings over previous 744 service was about 80kg/pax fuel.
Multiply that by 400+ pax by 3 or 4 transpacific flights per day (as more dugongs arrive) times 365 days a year and you will no doubt see the potential increase in efficiency. As for the 748, I'm sure it will be a great leap forward, but where the bloody hell is it - only Boeing knows, and they could have built it 10 years ago but chose not to. Airbus beat them to the ULH/bigpella market.
ps. It (A380) flies beautifully

[Jabawocky]

Back Seat driver..... or are you A380 front seat driver now?

So at 450 PAX thats all good, what about the avearge loading for the MEL-LAX-MEL runs. How does that stack up? I assume that the fairly full loads on the 744 were actually limiting the supply so they will actually increase total ticket sales despite a economic downturn.

J:ok:

PS: Dont get me wrong, its probably the right machine for now. I wonder if the 748I when it comes along will shave the costs more. It is started in the Everett factory, albeit waiting for workers to stop their mindless strike! And no I do not work for Boeing.

[Back Seat Driver]

Jaba,
I don't know the answer to your question.
A little more history.
The 744ER's were purchased specifically for the MEL-LAX-MEL route because the 744 std had trouble carrying a good load home, particulary in winter (more headwind enroute) and often had to make a pitstop in syd for a splash and dash.
QF uses the ER because it is/was more efficient than the STD.
For exactly the same reason they are now choosing to use Le Dugong - it is more efficient than the ER. I'm not knocking the 744 - I loved it (as much as one loves aluminium tubing) :O
But it is quite simply
744 - Good
744ER - Better
A380 - Best


As for the 748 - If P.Abeles were still alive :yuk: He'd have probably bought a couple of those as well to go with the couple of everything else he bought. A little bit of everything didn't serve Ansett too well in the end.

[Capt Fathom]

I remember carrying 460 back from Frankfurt once (not unusual)

Not a bad load, for an aircraft with 412 seats (http://www.qantas.com.au/info/flying/inTheAir/ourAircraft/seatMap744) or less. :E

Those infants can be demanding! :uhoh:

[Autobrakes4]

Fathom, pre skybed days they were configured a little heavier. :ouch:

[Keg]

And they were still two class back then too!

[twiggs]

I know the numbers are just plain off the cuff quotes but if you said say 215T V 170T of fuel, and Le Dugong caries only 450 PAX when Full, for its 25-26% more fuel overall, well thats only 28% more passengers. Assuming its full.


What you are not considering when making this comparison is that on the LAX route, the 744 pacific always has had the least capacity of all our 744 aircraft with extra J/C seats and when they are set up as 4 class as well, their capacity will be down to 307.
This has already been mentioned elsewhere, but when comparing to this capacity, the A380 has approx 46% more seats than the pacific 744.
When its starts going to London, the comparison will be with the 353 seat 4 class Kangaroo 744 which is closer to the 28% increase in capacity you mention, but would also have a different fuel burn.

[stubby jumbo]

AHHHHH errrrrrr mmmmmmmm

.........'just run those calculations past me again Twiggs.

I'll just run into the study and grab my 5th Form -Triganometry book and protractor. :hmm:

[Jabawocky]

Thanks for the no-nonsense answers! :ok:

The bottom line is from what I see here is so long as the seats sold are proportionally higher all is good. I hope they are, its good for not just Qantas but the whole country!

J:ok:

[aussie027]

Hi A389-800 driver.
Can you please tell us what the QF Operating Empty Wt is for the A380 and the normal cruise planned MN (approx TAS).
Also what is the approx 1st hour cruise FF at MTOW??
I was told yrs ago for the B744 it was approx 14000kg/hr reducing to approx 9000Kg/hr at the end of a long haul(12-14hr flt)
I see earlier someone mentioned a min cost crz speed of 0.86M???
Thanks, Cheers.:ok:

[Keg]

I don't think A380 driver drives them for QF. I suspect he (or she) heralds from somewhere with slightly more sand.

[Going Boeing]

The A380 is a very efficient aeroplane compared to the older technology B744, however, it would be an extremely efficient aircraft if the wing & centre wing structure was designed and built for that fuselage size. It has been designed by Airbus with a capability to stretch the fuselage and consequently the wing and centre wing structure is much stronger (& heavier) than what ia required for the existing fuselage. The A380 has an empty weight approximately 80-100 tonne heavier than the B747-8I which effectively offsets its high technology efficiencies. I believe that the B747-8I is more efficient than the A380-800 but sometime in the future, the stretched A380 will be unbeatable.

[lowerlobe]

Originally posted by Twiggs...
What you are not considering when making this comparison is that on the LAX route, the 744 pacific always has had the least capacity of all our 744 aircraft with extra J/C seats and when they are set up as 4 class as well, their capacity will be down to 307.
This has already been mentioned elsewhere, but when comparing to this capacity, the A380 has approx 46% more seats than the pacific 744.
When its starts going to London, the comparison will be with the 353 seat 4 class Kangaroo 744 which is closer to the 28% increase in capacity you mention, but would also have a different fuel burn.

Twiggs....I did not know that an aircraft burnt fuel at a different rate going to London than it does going to LAX....:E

While Twiggs has her maths wrong her main mistake is the difference between capacity and yield.

The Dugong (at present) is configured..
14P/72J/32PYC/332YC

747-400
14P/66J/40PYC/187YC
or
14P/52J/32PYC/255YC or 14P/50J/32PYC/255YC (Depending on configuration)

The noticeable difference is in the number of YC seats...which is surprising.

So in essence Twiggs is twisting the figures to show an overall increase of 46%.

PC is the same
JC is only increased by 6 seats
and the big surprise is that the Dugong Premium YC has actually 8 seats less than the 747-400 in it's Pacific configuration....

For all the increase in cabin space the difference is less than what you would imagine.

Especially when you think of the yield on the US run and why the company configured the 400 to have a larger number of Business seats in the first place.

They now have reverted to a larger YC area....I guess they will now tell us that is where the money is and not the business market....

Perhaps the reason could be that the Dugong in it's current form is weight restricted and the weight of the JC seats is an issue.Until they increase engine performance as they did with the 747 it might remain so...

[B772]

A380-800 driver. Can you confirm that EK can only carry 21 tonnes of payload if you fill the 'tanks'

[Wod]

Two more by year's end. When are they due?

[Huyin]

Slight thread creep here but taking A380Drivers figures of DOW at 300 tonnes & MZFW of 366 tonnes & assuming a full load for the sector with no MLW restrictions the 66tonnes payload translates into around 730 pax at average wt of 70 kgs + 20kgs bags ,or being more realistic just under 700 pax at 95kgs average. To get to the certificated max pax load of 853 would indicate a further 12 tonnes (approx) payload requirement & a reconfig to all EY would not produce that weight saving to the DOW,so how can you achieve a full pax load of 853 (assuming you wanted to & that an endless supply of children & infants were not readily available)?? No cargo either ,regardless of available hold volume

[Ken Borough]

Would be very dodgy to use the numbers that apply to the EK A380's as they use an engine that is several percentage points better in terms of fuel flow than the RR version. The basic OEW of their aircraft just may be somewhat heavier than the examples flown by QF and SQ. This in turn would somewhat skew the performance data.

My understanding is that EK ships are somewhat heavier than SQ/QF what with private rooms, showers and even two extra crew to act as cleaners (EK call them Cabin Service Assistants). As an aside, would be curious to know if these poor buggers just attend to the shower block or if they routinely service/clean all of the thunder-boxes.

[ACMS]

ooohh. get in there with the punters and clean the shower hey?

I must travel EK first class.

[Buster Hyman]

Maybe the people in "steerage" could get a discount if they cleaned the showers? (stoke the boilers whilst they're at it!)

[Huyin]

Ken B
Your points re different carriers APS weights well taken & certainly if EK carry 1000 litres of non recyclable shower water then there will be significant penalties as opposed to the SQ/QF variants. However my point was not in regard to performance but limited to the DOW/OEW/APS weight of the aircraft vs the MZFW & its apparent inability to carry its certificated load.
I also think I read somewhere that the proposed DXB to India all EY A380 service would carry around 730 pax which seems to fit in with the figures in my previous post.
Just left with a nagging doubt that if Boeing have not leapt on this then I must be wrong.Maybe the MZFW is a paper change you can pay for, but,if so, I dont see the point as this is not a factor in the calculation of Landing & parking fees.

[Huyin]

Thanks A380 -D
I had considered that but felt it was either a PR stunt or alternatively, their only sales target was Ryanair !

[Zeke]

To get to the certificated max pax load of 853 would indicate a further 12 tonnes (approx) payload requirement & a reconfig to all EY would not produce that weight saving to the DOW,so how can you achieve a full pax load of 853 (assuming you wanted to & that an endless supply of children & infants were not readily available)?? No cargo either ,regardless of available hold volume

The manufacturers empty weight for a green A380 is around 240,000 kg, EK then have put in around 60,000 kg interior (that may include 6,000+ kg of catering and crew). If you are going to put 853 passengers you would be looking at an all Y configuration. Y class seats are in the 10-15 kg range, F/J seats/suits can easily go well over 100 kg per seat, not to mention the extra galleys for F/J.

I expect their 2 class 600 medium range EK A380 to have a lower operating weight than their 489 ULR configuration. I would also expect to see a lower MTOW (around 510t) and higher MZFW/MLW for the medium range aircraft, as it would not need all the fuel capacity. Airbus does similar on their other models.