Qantas sick of the 380 [Archive]

TIMA9X

4th Oct 2010, 12:09

It wasn't long ago, the Boeing marketing boys were joking about the delays with the A380 program, all well documented. Looking back on it, I think Airbus did get through all the problems and have come up with a pretty good product. By all accounts the A380 appears well accepted by the end users.

As for Boeing, I can't help thinking moving the head office from Seattle (its traditional manufacturing base) to Chicago at a time when the 748F & 787 projects were past the "go ahead stage" in development.. certainly did not help the cause at all, leading to a possible fragmented corporate communication breakdown.

Since the move, it appears the management of "outsourcing manufacturing components" went badly wrong.
Global Corporate Citizenship
Interesting name pops up here, Boeing: Anna (Anne) Eleanor Roosevelt Biography (http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/community/roosevelt.html)
really got me wondering...... two words came to mind.. aviation & outsourcing...:confused:

swh

4th Oct 2010, 13:34

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Boeing offer the 777 or even the 747 in plastic? I reckon it would cripple Airbus

I doubt it. The only thing that will cripple Airbus is their own mismanagement of the A380, A400M, and A350 if they do not get them right. Boeings mismanagement of their current projects have left them in a position where they are finding it very hard to fund derivatives.

Last year Boeing took a US$1 billion charge for the delay on the 747-8 alone, with the additional delay just announced, that additional charges will be extended for the next 2 years of reporting. The latest delay in the 787 until Q1/Q2 2011 is also going to have significant financial impact.

Goblin i think the qf group are getting these payments for the plastic 787 already.

Do you remember how much ? I thought it was to the tune of AUD$100+ million.

mrdeux

4th Oct 2010, 20:40

Its notable that all QF techies that have come from 747 land just cannot get enough of the aircraft and I'll be the first to say how much I love the 747.All? Rather a lot less than all....

Capt_SNAFU

4th Oct 2010, 22:46

They wouldn't be the ones who have struggled (under statement) through the course would they Mr Deux. I heard a certain ex fleet manager embarrassed himself badly after failing endorsement check ranting and raving.

Not too say that the 380 is the be all and end all. Somewhere between the bus and the boeing would be perfect. Yet it does the job, not always well but better than most.

mrdeux

4th Oct 2010, 23:03

The aircraft (or perhaps Airbus) seems to have a group of fanbois who are uncritical of anything, and cannot see any faults. And if you do, then you're simply a Boeing holdout. The Boeings are anything but perfect.

My theory is that they (Airbus) worked a 7 day week, but went to the pub on Friday at lunchtime, so everything done after that is rubbish. The software and manuals were written over the weekend, by people who didn't want to be there, so that explains their failings.

So, much of it is good, but there is a lot that isn't. Perhaps I expected too much, but, for instance, it really shouldn't have been too much to expect that FMC fix circles would actually be circles, and might not be in error by up to 30%.

Feather #3

4th Oct 2010, 23:08

A mate of mine's summary is "A great idea poorly executed!"

The aircraft is a delight but the manuals are a disgrace. Elsewhere, it's alleged they're being completely re-written.

G'day ;)

The The

5th Oct 2010, 00:14

The only rumour I have heard is that the announced reconfig of the A380 from No.13 onwards (I think?) to have no first class is being reconsidered.

Word is Airbus will not alter the config without huge penalty payments.

TIMA9X

5th Oct 2010, 00:30

FMC fix circles would actually be circles, and might not be in error by up to 30%.

Amazing, and from the guys (Airbus) who cheer lead with that old "common cockpit v a/c type" selling point..... metric v feet possibly? :eek:

Rings home true though, that old saying... "it's the airline tech crews who develop/refine the new product" after it's delivered.
Some things never change, no matter who gets the development outsourcing contract back at the concept stage..

Wizofoz

5th Oct 2010, 04:04

Well, as someone working for the mob who has ordered 90 of the things, I can assure you that on the right route the A380 is a profitable aircraft-

BUT.....

ONLY if you can fill it with a decent yield, as it's operating costs do not stack up against a large twin-

and ONLY

Because we are getting them VERY cheap- word is we pay around 2/3rds as much for an A380 as we do for a 777- all thanks to the Eurozone taxpayer.

Charlie Fly Away,

Lets have a look at some of your:-

comprehensive and factual piece about a terrific aircraft.

First point-

All A380 operators have publicly reported a very smooth service entry

Both Emirates and Singapore have been publically critical of the Aircrafts dispatch reliability.

The A380 has outstanding fuel efficiency, superior performance, and half the noise…

It has MUCH lower fuel efficiency on a per pax basis than the 777. It cruises M.02 faster, which equates to a few minutes on a typical sector. And "Half the Noise"? Sorry, half the noise of what? You represent yourself as making "Factual" statements, then make an unsupportable, open ended statement like that one.
Yes it is quieter than a 747-400 designed in the mid 80s- how about comparing it to a contemporary aircraft!

With the lowest fuel burn per seat,

NO-IT-DOESN'T, NOT-EVEN-CLOSE!!

To conclude, Importantly, as its early operators have said, the A380 delivers, on every single commitment.

EXCEPT delivery date, dispatch reliability and it's initial fuel predictions (It was billed as a 10T/hr aircraft, it aint!!)

33 aircraft since October 15 2007.

Yep- 33 aircraft in 3 years, on a project that is 2 1/2 years late- Boeing produced 100 747s in its FIRST YEAR of construction.

And lastly:-

The A380 program has attracted 234 firm orders from 17 customers.

Yes, factual, but the inference is that this is somehow a good thing. Almost half those orders are from 1 customer, and without its recent top up, orders laguished at 200 odd for almost three years. Apart from Emirates, the Aircraft has had virtually no new orders since it's first flight.

Break-even was originally quoted at 260, before the delays and compensation payments- now it's not even talked about.

On the backs of European taxpayers, we have a pretty good people mover (though you then have to send a 777 in to pick up the frieght!!) that will be profitable on some routes for some operators. If it doesn't pick up any more customers, there will be around 1/4 as many A380s flying as 747s, with the 747-8- a derivative of a 40 year old design- already having 2/3rds as many sales.

The A380 is not a bad aircraft.

it is NOT some kind of revolution!!

parabellum

5th Oct 2010, 05:02

Airbus thought they would produce and market a B747 replacement, with a similar market to the B747. Boeing had serious doubts about the commercial viability of an Extra Large Aircraft and suggested to Airbus a Boeing/Airbus consortium to investigate viability, Airbus declined and said they would continue with the A380 on their own. Shortly after that decision Boeing reviewed their position, consulted the customer base and canceled their plans for an A380 competitor.

Airbus did not accept that the B747 replacement was already defined in the shape of the B777 and to a lesser extent the A330/A340, despite airlines like SIA ordering the B777 in large numbers and reducing their B747-400 fleet by equally large numbers.

The A380 has only a niche market. The airlines do, of course, welcome the arrival of the aircraft, provided it remains fully supported. They have specific routes they use it on , the UK-Australia route for one and it has great passenger appeal, but they will never order it in the same quantities as they did the B747-400, SIA won't have fleets as large as their previous B747-400 fleets at their peak, (52 pax aircraft), they and others like them only require the A380 in considerably smaller numbers.

I believe Airbus said originally that they needed around 269 sales to break even but since that figure was announced they have had major budget overrun and major penalty payments to customers to cost in, not to mention the discounts they will have offered launch customers just to get the order book going. How many orders to date? After Farnborough less than 240 and they are still mired in technical difficulties. It is highly unlikely they will ever reach break even whatever the revised number must now be, closer to 500 aircraft I would suspect.
Technically the A380 may be ahead of the market in many respects but it is leading Airbus Industries into very serious financial trouble and commercially the A380 is a dead duck.

There is no doubt that when it's problems are sorted the A380 will be technically way ahead until the others catch up. The problem is that the A380 was intended as a B747 replacement with a similar size of market and that is not going to happen. The future of the A380 lies with the airlines and they only require this aircraft for a niche market that is not big enough to generate sufficient orders to enable the project to break even.
Technically excellent, possibly, unrivaled passenger appeal (even though it looks wrong!), commercially, for Airbus, a dinosaur.

My 2cents worth.

Nunc

5th Oct 2010, 05:23

How many have Emirates ordered to service their niche market? like it or not it is here to stay.

parabellum

5th Oct 2010, 06:34

How many have Emirates ordered to service their niche market? like it or not it is here to stay.

Probably they have ordered far too many and in their unique way can afford to take the loss or lease them out. Using an A380 on a B777 route isn't commercial, but they probably don't care.

Qantas 787

5th Oct 2010, 10:06

Is this from the same source that said we would order the 777.........I have heard that one hundreds of times

max1

5th Oct 2010, 11:00

The Sarah Jessica Parker- High Maintenance and f&#$ing ugly.

donpizmeov

5th Oct 2010, 11:49

Wiz although you may have paxed in the 380 once or twice, (and most probably did so in preference to riding in the back of our older Boeing product), I don't think this makes you an expert in the cost comparisons between the new Flagship and your older has been. When you get time, check out the fare difference between Y, J and 1st on any sector the 380 flies. This is where it makes the money as it holds more of the punters with the cash than the 777 (some 34 extra j class and 6 extra 1st. This is in addition to the 47 extra pax carried in y class to your entire 3 class 773) . If as you say we get them for cheaper than 777 wouldn't that also help it compete with the bottom line?
Daily it seems that I am told some new "factual" information about the 380 from some 777 pilot. Are your 777 FCOMs this extensive?
The 777 is a great aeroplane. Don't feel bad that some new kid on the block has come along and made you question your Boeing propaganda. The good news is that when we get all the 350s you to will get a chance to once again fly a bus product, and when your seniority increases you to may get to become a mighty 380 driver!!!

the don
(not a 380 driver or a 777 driver)

Wizofoz

5th Oct 2010, 12:51

don,

Did you actually read what I wrote about the A380?
How it is profitable if you fill it with sufficient high yield passengers?
Isn't that exactley what you have said, while somehow trying to suggest what I said was wrong?

I don't need an FCOM to compare the fuel efficiency of the two aircraft. We run 777s and A380s on the same routes in many cases, and it takes no more than pulling the flight plans of two flights on the same day on the same route to show that the A380 simply does not have anything approaching the "lowest fuel burn per passenger". This was stated and is simply false, do you dispute that?

The A380 has great passenger appeal, the bar is nice, and being able to have a shower is loverly.

So I guess I should admit that it is pofitable on the right routes for the right carriers..... Oh wait!! That's EXACTLEY what I said, only to be told by you I was wrong!!

ETA:- You might have noticed most of my post was an analysis of "Charlie Fly Away"'s "Factual Analysis" of the A380- And faced with this, he has chosen to delete his posts!!

TIMA9X

5th Oct 2010, 13:17

Now... I am beginning to worry about the title of the thread....Qantas sick of the 380 :confused:

I nominate dropping the first word.... say "sick of the A380?" :)

alangirvan

5th Oct 2010, 22:26

The cost per Economy seat on an Emirates 777 may be lower than for an Emirates A380, but Emirates does operate the 777s in a high density 10 abreast configuration. If they could find some way of making the A380s 11 abreast (which you might hope they will never do).... Emirates said they are still interested in the bigger A380 with 100 extra seats. The stretched aircraft will be the one that gives the best economics.

another superlame

6th Oct 2010, 01:13

Qantas isn't sick of it, they just wished the idiots who were in charge a few years ago put more seats in them.

As for the showers Qantas don't have and wont have them, and they are causing Emirates a fair bit of grief with leakage issues. What a great place to put them, right near the avionics bays and cockpit.

The pax numbers on the 380 have been pretty damn good of late and no doubt 50-100 extra seats right now would be welcome. I believe we are getting 3 more aircraft before christmas if Airbus can pull it off, 10 will come in february and 11 and 12 later next year.

Aircraft 13 and onward would already have started to be manufactured so any rumour that they will stop at 12 is a load of crap.

When #13 arrives it will be used to fill in the gap as aircraft 1-12 are reconfigured with 50 extra seats. I have heard bizzo will reduce in size, premium economy will move forward and have extra and the aft end of the upper deck will become economy like SIA.

13-20 won't have first class. This is a great for engineers decision as it is a very labour intensive cabin to keep looking good and they are a total pain in the butt to work on

Wizofoz

6th Oct 2010, 05:54

A380,

If we get a 650 seat version or greater - it will blow the 777 out of the water.

I assume you mean in two class?

Two flights to LHR this morning:-

The A380 Flight fuel was 83.8 tonnes, the 777 was 54.7.

If the A380 had 650 seats, it would have used 129kg fuel/pax.

A two class 777 holds 440. That would be 124kg fuel/pax.

If we went max certified (850 in the A380, 550 in the 777) it comes out about line ball, the A380 about 1% in front, the difference being you coul;dn't fir 850 pax bags in the A380, whereas the 777 would take it's 550 PLUS frieght.

So even your theoretical aircraft under no circumstances "Blows away" the 777.

The claim wasn't the A380 "Will" or "Could" deliver the best seat-fuel burn, but that it DOES.

It doesn't.

At no time did Airbus tell anyone that the 380 would have a 10t burn.

I seem to remember Airbus bandying those kind of figures when it was launched, but I can't find a reference, so I'll concede that one.

Oh, and every new 300ER has had a negative fuel degredation- on book figures that were already better than Boeings original predictions.

Dude, you fly a good aeroplane to nice places. It's going to be good for EK. It is NOT some quantam leap in efficiency.

parabellum

6th Oct 2010, 06:54

I find it interesting that when Boeing first introduced the 747 it was 50% larger than any other aircraft on the market. Thank goodness PPRuNe wasn't around then. Can you imagine all the naysayers - "IT WILL NEVER WORK - TOOOO BIG BLAH BLAH BLAH"

The biggest mistake Airbus made too, thinking the market for the A380 would be similar to the market that did exist for the B747.

Pedota

6th Oct 2010, 11:08

It looks like the economics of QF380s are about to change . . .

Qantas to cut A380 flight attendants

Matt O'Sullivan
October 6, 2010

QANTAS will cut the number of cabin crew on its flagship A380 aircraft despite unions raising fears about an ''inferior service'' due to a heavier workload for staff.

The airline plans to reduce flight attendants on the aircraft from 22 to 21 late next month; it has cut cabin crew levels on its A330-300 planes from 10 to nine.

The international flight attendants' union says the reductions are likely to increase stress among cabin crew faced with ''already challenging service requirements''. It said they raised ''potential safety implications'' and could lead to an ''inferior service on board''.

The Flight Attendants Association of Australia said ''a desire to obtain costs savings in the face of a difficult international flying environment'' was the key reason for Qantas's decision. It has been arguing against the reductions in crew levels for months.

The A380s are seen as giving Qantas an advantage in the lucrative business travel market on key routes to Los Angeles and London. Singapore Airlines has cabin crews of 23 on each of its A380s.

A Qantas spokesman said the changes were ''above or in line'' with Civil Aviation Safety Authority requirements and had been ''planned so they will not impact our high in-flight customer service''.

The Green Goblin

6th Oct 2010, 12:39

Which loosely translates to work your staff harder for less money, keep them tired, fatigued and disengaged which in turn pisses off customers.

Good job boys. There are only so many bricks that hold up a wall and sooner or later, it will come crashing down.

Rice power

6th Oct 2010, 12:57

380 used to be called the 180
now called the vagina
not too good to look at but sort of nice once you're inside it

Massey058

7th Oct 2010, 04:40

Yes it is quieter than a 747-400 designed in the mid 80s- how about comparing it to a contemporary aircraft!

Also significantly quieter than a 777-300ER, in fact I was in awe at just how much quieter. My ANR travel headset was almost pointless, whereas it is still a necessity in the 77W.

The airline plans to reduce flight attendants on the aircraft from 22 to 21 late next month; it has cut cabin crew levels on its A330-300 planes from 10 to nine.

The last time I flew on a QF A330a year and half ago so probably had the larger compliment. Giving Qantas one last chance soon to prove they can actually be a proper airline but doesn't bode well if the service was crap with 10 and they're dropping it to 9.

standard unit

7th Oct 2010, 05:04

Attention all Long Haul Cabin Crew
A330 AND A380 REDUCED CREW

Members would be aware via the FAAA and recent media reports that the Company has decided to remove a crew member from the A330 and A380 aircraft.
This comes at a time when the Australian dollar is travelling at the highest point in many years, the cost of fuel is down on previous highs and aircraft are full everyday as a result of increased confidence and the power of the Australian dollar.
Furthermore, you would not be aware unless you had logged into a crew voice that the level of engagement of Cabin crew is once again sliding towards 2004 levels. Dissatisfaction with the way we are being managed coupled with the now reduced crew numbers should make for an interesting impact on the next engagement survey later in the year.
It beggars belief that whilst Qantas has the lofty ideal of being the world's best premium carrier that we could reduce the crew that are the 'very' product that is the purpose of the whole bloody airline.
How less crew can improve service levels is quite frankly beyond me as a CSM and your elected spokesperson.
I noted with some chagrin that an invitation arrived via email to a cocktail evening with the "leadership team' to celebrate our contribution to service excellence. I presume a number of my OBM colleagues have been similarly invited. I will not be attending and I would suggest that those of you that feel similarly slapped in the face for our hard work might want to take a similar principled stand and do likewise. Many of you have asked what can we do to let the Company know how we feel and clearly this is one way.
Normally these things are a way of thanking OBM's for their efforts as often these efforts involve much or their own time and a huge personal commitment. Sadly with my colleagues being required to work harder with fewer resources with this de-crewing, I don't think that there is anything I am particularly keen to celebrate.
This reduction in crew will have direct impact on our flight attendant colleagues and we want you to know that the FAAA will be doing everything we can to have this ridiculous decision reviewed by Senior Management.
Finally, for purposes of comparing our reduced crewing (on the A380) to Singapore Airlines and Emirates (the two that Qantas likes to make comparisons with); we inform members Singapore Airlines operates with 23 crew on its A380 and Emirates operates with 24 crew plus two cabin crew assistants.
Our management has decided that 21 crew are enough on our self proclaimed flagship, the A380 and that 9 crew are sufficient on the A300-300. Another brilliant decision that will aid us to compete with Emirates and Singapore Airlines. No wonder we mere mortal cabin crew only get 3% pay rises but senior executives get massive increases. Obviously, they deserve their big increases based on brilliant strategic decisions like de-crewing.

Written by Steven Reed - President International Division
and authorised by Michael Mijatov - Secretary International Division

skybed

9th Oct 2010, 19:44

offered a no smile day(not being happy with management), the current president is not accepting a cocktail.
A STATEMENT WITH A HUGE IMPACT!!!!!:yuk:

maybe start throwing a handbag might help;):E

cart_elevator

11th Oct 2010, 01:42

How bout instead of refusing to go to a cocktail party... the FAAA actually start demanding a reduction in service to reflect the reduction of cabin crew? Would that not be a simple cause-and-effect argument?

Or how bout this:

They want us to significantly increase our productivity through de-crewing, then give us a pay rise to reflect said productivity increase. We have been through de-crewing time and time again, yet the FAAA has never addressed the increased workload effectively.

The FAAA is a toothless tiger... lots of ROAR.. no BITE :rolleyes:

I am sure management will be devastated he wont attend the cocktail party :}

stubby jumbo

11th Oct 2010, 07:51

Good Point Cart !

Its not long ago..... back in 2002 when we were DE CREWED on the 763 from 8 to 7. This turned out to be an absolute debacle when the aircraft was FULL. The whole "safety" premise went down the S-bend when you have the rear galley unattended for 2 hour periods whilst the crew sprint from one end of the tube to the other ....all in the name of EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE. :hmm:

As for the FAAA -they did zip then and now boycotting a cocktail party.....pleeeeeze :ugh:
Why don't they boycott the cosy little Chrissie drinks held each year at the bunker with the so called "enemy".

The only ones to benefit in this exercise is JLB, Tarantula, Terminator and Fat Boy Slim.:8

A great example of balls is the A330 F/O slamming JQ in todays SMH:D
Come on Guardian....time to polish off those literary skills and fire one off to the broadsheets........or are you also caught in the Black Widows web like the rest of your "team".

Hand Bags at 50 paces:ok:

GENKI

12th Oct 2010, 10:11

if you take into consideration that no union can take any form of industrial action now as a result of workchoices, what do you expect the FAAA to do?

They make their views known, but the members are generally Pi** weak so even when they could have action the majority of members said under no circumstances would they take any form of action.

the union is only as strong as its weakest link. Take the fact that unions have less than 20% membership and the FAAA has over 90% i would suggest that they must be doing something right.

As for boycotting a drinks... i think it was largely symbolic.. but you can bet your boots the usual suckholes will turn up and these are the people that wouldnt follow a union direction even if it was given.

I think that the FAAA does a better job that most unions and FAAA members are better informed about whats going on than anyone working on the ground. i dont see many union officials who are still employed by Qantas taking such a principled public stand and making such comments....

Perhaps stubby you will say something publicly yourself and not behind anonymity? I know that crew down here in Melbourne are very appreciative that someone in the FAAA had the guts to tell the Company what we are all thinking and cant say ourselves for fear of retribution... they are bringing the media into it as well .... what would you do??

dizzylizzy

12th Oct 2010, 10:24

Hate to tell you but the 763 Y/c svc works very efficiently with 4crew, not sure what the 5th crew in Y/c would do - it doesn't take that long to setup carts/duty free ect.

But then again I've not experienced 763 operating with 5 Y/c crew so I guess I'm not sure what I'm missing out on? Maybe an extra cuppa tea?

Bumpfoh

12th Oct 2010, 10:57

How bout instead of refusing to go to a cocktail party... the FAAA actually start demanding a reduction in service to reflect the reduction of cabin crew? Would that not be a simple cause-and-effect argument?

Carty, nice sentiment and no doubt that is how I would feel too but from QF mgmt perspective I could quite confiendently say that rather than take notice of the discontent and the resulting negative impact on the paying punters they would instead go straight for the don't f@#k with us attitude and claim the unprotected industrial action line and march the FAAA into FWA for some half arsed political stunt whuch would no doubt have some traction with the p1ss weak commissioners who would at times appear to be on the QF payroll themselves, alledgedly that is.:E

dizzylizzy

12th Oct 2010, 15:21

... i'm beginning to think certain people don't want to work any harder, not realising how good they actually have it...

skybed

12th Oct 2010, 22:40

you sound like coming from a low cost carrier!
its about safety and not the extra cup of tea. yes the FAAA could demand a number of things but they haven't got the guts to stand up. thers is a thing called work value case, there is a thing called casa one needs to lobby, there is a thing called challenging QF perception of safety standards eg risk assessment. there has been a risk assessment with many questions being brushed aside by QF,and so on and on. There are several avenues to explore but lets not go to the cocktail party:yuk: amateurs, thats all i can say. if they are so confident why not bring forward the next FAAA election? You will see a change:ok:

stubby jumbo

12th Oct 2010, 22:58

.......you beat me to the punch skybed.

Agree, the inference from Lizzy is that we are just the "usual bunch" of overfed, wingers not prepared to move with the times and work hard / harder.

This decision should be about SAFETY.....nothing else.

Having been in a few hairy moments over the years,discussing critical incidents in Human Factors and watching a fair few ep's Air Crash Investigations.......reducing crew numbers can have a serious impact on Able Bodied Persons -post a critical incident. Just read the ATSB Report from the QF72. How many crew were left ...post the "event" to provide follow up duties to pax??????

So its time to move beyond the " Oh....it will never happen to me" or "I'm a fatalist" scenario and take a stand.

And yes, I have written to CASA to voice my concerns on this issue and signed my name.
I gave up voicing my concerns to QF " Management" -when after a long sector I came in and reported(both verbally and in writing-yes signed Lizzy !) a serious safety breach......to be told :
"GO HOME -HAVE A SLEEP AND I WILL CALL YOU BACK"

.........................I'm still waiting for the call:ugh: