PDA

View Full Version : QF 747 Retirements


knobbycobby
23rd Feb 2017, 02:52
From the official Qantas Half year announcement to the ASX today:

The arrival of Qantas International’s first two Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner aircraft in late calendar 2017 enables the retirement of Qantas’ two oldest 747s by mid-2018. A total of five 747s will be retired as eight Dreamliners enter the fleet.

Berealgetreal
23rd Feb 2017, 07:26
Going to miss looking at the Queen of the skies. Must have been a great gig for those that flew them.

AerialPerspective
23rd Feb 2017, 12:23
Going to miss looking at the Queen of the skies. Must have been a great gig for those that flew them.
Me too... at least two examples have been preserved for posterity in Longreach and Wollongong (and even better that one of them is VH-OJA).

ANCDU
23rd Feb 2017, 22:39
It will be a sad and for some a very emotional day when the 747 finally departs from Qantas. The 747 really epitomizes the "real" Qantas. I sort of see the future departure of the 744 as the end of what once was a great and respected airline throughout the world into one that really has no soul,and is no different from any other offering out there. That's no reflection on my fantastic workmates but a direct reflection on how the company is run, which unfortunately is the way of the world these days.

There is nothing that compared to arriving at LHR or LAX or even SIN and seeing a line up of those magnificent 747 tails with that big roo standing proud, you felt special to be part of it. Unfortunately a little single 787 red tail in the middle if a sea of ugly Middle East A380 tails doesn't really produce the same pride.

The Spirit of Australia is nearly no more.

Berealgetreal
23rd Feb 2017, 23:13
There is nothing that compared to arriving at LHR or LAX or even SIN and seeing a line up of those magnificent 747 tails with that big roo standing proud, you felt special to be part of it.

100% Envy from me!

romeocharlie
24th Feb 2017, 02:20
So the other 6 will be in service until 2022 as they announced a year ago?

knobbycobby
24th Feb 2017, 10:02
The total order of 8 787 replace 5 744(two older ones and OJS/T/U)
The 6 newest GE powered 744 will stay subject to decisions on fuel/Maintenance et cetera.
Not sure the 787 can do SYD-JNB or SYD-SCL so that's 4 aircraft staying for a while.

maggot
24th Feb 2017, 10:05
The total order of 8 787 replace 5 744(two older ones and OJS/T/U)
The 6 newest GE powered 744 will stay subject to decisions on fuel/Maintenance et cetera.
Not sure the 787 can do SYD-JNB or SYD-SCL so that's 4 aircraft staying for a while.

Soooo.... 747 RIN?

Maxmotor
24th Feb 2017, 11:58
The total order of 8 787 replace 5 744(two older ones and OJS/T/U)
The 6 newest GE powered 744 will stay subject to decisions on fuel/Maintenance et cetera.
Not sure the 787 can do SYD-JNB or SYD-SCL so that's 4 aircraft staying for a while.
Is it only Casa that prevents twin engine widebodies on the Australian register doing South American runs as Air Nz & Latam do it with their 787s.

Keg
24th Feb 2017, 21:01
I think the 744 divisor has been very high for quite some time. OJM is due to go in a few months but it's been 'slow flying' so not sure that will have much of an impact on crew hours. The only route the 744 loses to the 787 in the next 12 months is three times a week MEL- LAX. So it'll be late 2018 before any excess 744 crew starts to become an issue. With a few Captains approaching 65 on the 744 they may not need to RIN in that rank.

So 18 months or more before a RIN may come into play? Perhaps they'll consider it as part of the 18/19 training year allocation and do a bunch of 'redeployment' slots on other types.

SonofCoco
24th Feb 2017, 21:43
To Keg or anyone else who knows:

What is a RIN?

Cheers!

C441
24th Feb 2017, 21:54
What is a RIN?

"Reduction in numbers."

For example when the 767 was retired from the fleet, crew were redeployed to other fleets by a RiN process that is largely set out in the Enterprise Agreement.
Some may be demoted, some may be lucky enough to take up slots in there current rank on other types.

SonofCoco
24th Feb 2017, 21:58
"Reduction in numbers."

For example when the 767 was retired from the fleet, crew were redeployed to other fleets by a RiN process that is largely set out in the Enterprise Agreement.
Some may be demoted, some may be lucky enough to take up slots in there current rank on other types.

Thanks C441 👍

knobbycobby
24th Feb 2017, 22:13
Keg,

Suspect your close to the mark. Won't be till 2018/2019 744 surplus becomes an issue.
Think retirements will take care of any surplus depending on rank.
Having said that I can't see a lot of promotional growth if 8 787 replace 5 744 leaving.
Certainly in the CPT ranks I can't imagine many senior 744 crews wanting to go Airbus and potentially not passing the conversion. Those that wanted to make the switch did so in the last Rin/Redeployment.
So it would be 787 or be close to retirement anyway. Redeployment from 744 to 787 be reasonably speedy Boeing to Boeing? That's dependent on a SYD or BNE base for the 787.

AerialPerspective
25th Feb 2017, 00:17
It will be a sad and for some a very emotional day when the 747 finally departs from Qantas. The 747 really epitomizes the "real" Qantas. I sort of see the future departure of the 744 as the end of what once was a great and respected airline throughout the world into one that really has no soul,and is no different from any other offering out there. That's no reflection on my fantastic workmates but a direct reflection on how the company is run, which unfortunately is the way of the world these days.

There is nothing that compared to arriving at LHR or LAX or even SIN and seeing a line up of those magnificent 747 tails with that big roo standing proud, you felt special to be part of it. Unfortunately a little single 787 red tail in the middle if a sea of ugly Middle East A380 tails doesn't really produce the same pride.

The Spirit of Australia is nearly no more.
I know exactly where you're coming from as I spent many wonderful years with the company and my father before me - he also played cricket for Qantas with Hudson Fysh and met him many times. I'm not sure it's accurate to say it's lost its soul though. Once again, I completely understand what you're saying but in my view, any soulessness was during the reign of one James Strong who hated the Qantas name and everything about it. He single handed tried to convince the Board to change the name allegedly. He threw a lot of good people out the door, mostly the near-do-wells survived while he brought in a bunch of cronies including one who had to resign for feeding his own consultancy company with Qantas work, another who was more concerned about the bird poo on his office window and chewing gum on the escalators than actually caring about the company and sent a belt-tightening memo world-wide at the same time as he was taking delivery of his company purchased BMW luxury car. This period was soul destroying for anyone who loved Qantas. However, I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately after discussing with a number of former colleagues the 100th anniversary. I think people of the era we talk about were either new to Qantas half way through it's life or like me and many others, were children of people who were directly connected to the founders. I'm sure there are companies a lot older than Qantas who are still respected that if you brought people back from the days of their founding or the generation after would say similar things. Companies change over time, many core things stay the same, Qantas is still respected around the world even if we don't see it so clearly in Australia. Mind you the constant carping of tall poppy cutting Australians bagging it at every chance (many of whom have never flown with it) doesn't help. But I think overall, there is still something about Qantas that is enduring and which has outlived all the bad management in the past. It survived Strong, it survived Sir Lennox and it survived CO Turner, all of whom I am told were not liked at all and viewed in much the same light as the current CEO. There are changes happening yes, but some of these are essential and aren't necessarily management's fault but rather the result of stupid government policy on both sides in selling Qantas, then allowing every tin pot airline in the world, even ones banned in Europe to fly here and squeezing the company to the point of unfair competition. I'm not a protectionist but many of these airlines are STILL owned substantially by their governments and money is no object or fuel is virtually zero and they therefore do not create a level playing field. Qantas is one of the few among those that has to make a profit or else. With that sort of ridiculously tilted playing field, Qantas has to make changes and sadly that means changing some of the things it's done for many years. We may not like it but it's preferable to having no Qantas at all until such time as the country wakes up and starts putting some priority on Australian businesses over foreign ones. I have worked for many companies since but I carry a huge amount of Qantas around with me in everything I do and that is a testament to its endurance as a brand that it will always, always be my first choice above all others - I don't care if their boarding passes are covered in gold leaf, I will still take Qantas over the others.

CharlieLimaX-Ray
25th Feb 2017, 01:10
It will be a sad day for all, when the Pacific Baron's Chariot is retired.

V-Jet
25th Feb 2017, 08:23
I know exactly where you're coming from as I spent many wonderful years with the company and my father before me - he also played cricket for Qantas with Hudson Fysh and met him many times. I'm not sure it's accurate to say it's lost its soul though. Once again, I completely understand what you're saying but in my view, any soulessness was during the reign of one James Strong who hated the Qantas name and everything about it. He single handed tried to convince the Board to change the name allegedly. He threw a lot of good people out the door, mostly the near-do-wells survived while he brought in a bunch of cronies including one who had to resign for feeding his own consultancy company with Qantas work, another who was more concerned about the bird poo on his office window and chewing gum on the escalators than actually caring about the company and sent a belt-tightening memo world-wide at the same time as he was taking delivery of his company purchased BMW luxury car. This period was soul destroying for anyone who loved Qantas. However, I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately after discussing with a number of former colleagues the 100th anniversary. I think people of the era we talk about were either new to Qantas half way through it's life or like me and many others, were children of people who were directly connected to the founders. I'm sure there are companies a lot older than Qantas who are still respected that if you brought people back from the days of their founding or the generation after would say similar things. Companies change over time, many core things stay the same, Qantas is still respected around the world even if we don't see it so clearly in Australia. Mind you the constant carping of tall poppy cutting Australians bagging it at every chance (many of whom have never flown with it) doesn't help. But I think overall, there is still something about Qantas that is enduring and which has outlived all the bad management in the past. It survived Strong, it survived Sir Lennox and it survived CO Turner, all of whom I am told were not liked at all and viewed in much the same light as the current CEO. There are changes happening yes, but some of these are essential and aren't necessarily management's fault but rather the result of stupid government policy on both sides in selling Qantas, then allowing every tin pot airline in the world, even ones banned in Europe to fly here and squeezing the company to the point of unfair competition. I'm not a protectionist but many of these airlines are STILL owned substantially by their governments and money is no object or fuel is virtually zero and they therefore do not create a level playing field. Qantas is one of the few among those that has to make a profit or else. With that sort of ridiculously tilted playing field, Qantas has to make changes and sadly that means changing some of the things it's done for many years. We may not like it but it's preferable to having no Qantas at all until such time as the country wakes up and starts putting some priority on Australian businesses over foreign ones. I have worked for many companies since but I carry a huge amount of Qantas around with me in everything I do and that is a testament to its endurance as a brand that it will always, always be my first choice above all others - I don't care if their boarding passes are covered in gold leaf, I will still take Qantas over the others.

Exactly what you said. Except my family and I tragically now (and we all resent it) travel on other airlines as well. Flying home spending $20-30k+ when you are parked beside the (now bastardised beyond recognition) Flying Kangaroo is a quixotic moment. I'd rather give it to the airline, but a) it doesnt often stack up and b) Elaine does not deserve anyone's money.

Fatguyinalittlecoat
25th Feb 2017, 08:49
Sorry to hear that V-jet. Maybe one day we'll get you back. Thankfully for us, obviously not everyone feels the same. As is evident with the loads. We must be doing something right to show these results. Elaine doesn't get all of it.

Ken Borough
25th Feb 2017, 10:08
any soulessness was during the reign of one James Strong who hated the Qantas name and everything about it.

You can say that again but he also had a lot of fellow travellers. And the revolving doors continued during Dixon's tenure as CEO. The number and quality people who came and went during their tenure in office was breathtaking. They were not happy days for those who belonged to the Red Team The goings-on would make an extraordinarily interesting read but I suspect that the current laws of libel would preclude its publication.

AerialPerspective
25th Feb 2017, 17:06
Exactly what you said. Except my family and I tragically now (and we all resent it) travel on other airlines as well. Flying home spending $20-30k+ when you are parked beside the (now bastardised beyond recognition) Flying Kangaroo is a quixotic moment. I'd rather give it to the airline, but a) it doesnt often stack up and b) Elaine does not deserve anyone's money.
Fair enough, I also know and respect where you're coming from. I don't really care that much for the new livery but I can see (with a design background) the rationale behind it - I thought the last one, the Hulsbosch effort was pathetic and a mangling of the very sound Lunn/Dyer design of 1984. The Lunn/Dyer version needed a minor revision but I hated what he did to it. But then again, while I always loved the flying kangaroo, I did appreciate how dated it was when the 1984 change came along. It came from an era when designers just slapped a pair of wings on any object and thought it was design. I think the nose art of the new livery is a nice tribute. Having said all of that, I also remember when I started at QF in the 80s, fresh out of Uni and having grown up around and loving the company, there were more than a few people around even then that bagged everything about it, said it was worse than any of the other airlines, etc. so the negativity was always there. I do appreciate thought that LOTS of change has since happened which is hard to take.

AerialPerspective
25th Feb 2017, 17:10
You can say that again but he also had a lot of fellow travellers. And the revolving doors continued during Dixon's tenure as CEO. The number and quality people who came and went during their tenure in office was breathtaking. They were not happy days for those who belonged to the Red Team The goings-on would make an extraordinarily interesting read but I suspect that the current laws of libel would preclude its publication.
Yes, definitely... I used to give Dixon a minor pass for the fact he apparently told Strong he would walk if he changed the name and the livery because it was 'the best thing you have and you can't see it' (allegedly). I also liked Dixon for getting rid of someone who had their job saved by Strong after doing something that caused untold harm to the company reputation and destruction of property via a 'prank' - Dixon was (once again allegedly) livid by the fact the person concerned had their job saved by JS. That person did not last a nano-second when Dixon took over. But, I also cannot forgive him for what you say and for nearly bringing on the death of the airline with the APA sell out. I can't say more than that but you'd be flabbergasted if you knew the event in question and even more astounded if I expanded on it because I knew the person who carried out the prank from a previous department.

International Trader
27th Feb 2017, 13:48
A long over due action but, still playing 'catch up' with competitors.
Most first rate Airlines got rid of 74-300s some 20 years ago and the 400s 10 years ago. Those with their eyes on the ball were introducing 787s 3-4 years ago. QE2 was a nice ship but, you wouldn't travel in her today.
Also think that someone's 'perspective ' is that from life inside a a bubble protected by the government dollar.
Surely QF didn't take part in any protectionism in its history, it is beyond reproach ( lol).
QF has been milking the traveling public since its inception while being protected by the government . High priced fares on beat up , old planes and second rate service at best.
If QF 'has' to make a profit then why did grounding the company and dropping something like 900 mil not ruffle any Leprechaun feathers? QF has had its time and Instead of taking care of business , the man at the helm prefers to do deals with airlines that will only make the poor QF product stick out like a sore thumb and dress pilots like Busby Berkely chorus boys while front line staff are allowed to act like the entitled few who have no idea who pay their high salaries. His only strategic action is to expand J* , to take over as QF shrinks. That's a group tactic and is actually damaging QF ( the airline), probably intentionally .You probably guessed, I don't fly QF and 787s won't change that because the price will still be high and the service second rate at best. Don't particularly like ME or Asian carriers but, the prices are better, planes newer, service level is something that QF can not even aspire to . If the total 787 purchase is 8 units, those living in the sheltered workshop may be surprised to hear that some airlines are picking up 8 or more Boeing units alone , each year.

maggot
27th Feb 2017, 14:13
A long over due action but, still playing 'catch up' with competitors.
Most first rate Airlines got rid of 74-300s some 20 years ago and the 400s 10 years ago. Those with their eyes on the ball were introducing 787s 3-4 years ago. QE2 was a nice ship but, you wouldn't travel in her today.
Also think that someone's 'perspective ' is that from life inside a a bubble protected by the government dollar.
Surely QF didn't take part in any protectionism in its history, it is beyond reproach ( lol).
QF has been milking the traveling public since its inception while being protected by the government . High priced fares on beat up , old planes and second rate service at best.
If QF 'has' to make a profit then why did grounding the company and dropping something like 900 mil not ruffle any Leprechaun feathers? QF has had its time and Instead of taking care of business , the man at the helm prefers to do deals with airlines that will only make the poor QF product stick out like a sore thumb and dress pilots like Busby Berkely chorus boys while front line staff are allowed to act like the entitled few who have no idea who pay their high salaries. His only strategic action is to expand J* , to take over as QF shrinks. That's a group tactic and is actually damaging QF ( the airline), probably intentionally .You probably guessed, I don't fly QF and 787s won't change that because the price will still be high and the service second rate at best. Don't particularly like ME or Asian carriers but, the prices are better, planes newer, service level is something that QF can not even aspire to . If the total 787 purchase is 8 units, those living in the sheltered workshop may be surprised to hear that some airlines are picking up 8 or more Boeing units alone , each year.

8 a year? Oh gosh really i am surprised

Aussie Fo
28th Feb 2017, 03:59
International Trader

I think perhaps your view is a little outdated.

Jetstar appears to have stagnated, if you look at growth within both the domestic and international airlines in Australia. Granted there still is some organic growth in the other airlines particularly Japan.

There are no more 787 for Jetstar, and rumours stated here that a few could go to mainline. ( for the record I don't believe that one one bit) Mainline has returned to Tokyo from Melb and brissy, Perth London, Sydney shanghai.

It's not a lot but it is something. I've said it before and I'll do so again, There is no ambition inside Qantas to grow anything much now greater than say 3% a year give or take, they saw a opportunity to establish themselves in the low cost market. That has happened now it's just maximise profit , not maximise market share.

You saw it in the last 10 years during the " financial crises1/2 etc" Qantas doesn't have he backing to survive more than a few years of significant losses.

A smaller nimble operation where you can move capacity to various markets as you need, and have a percentage of your fleet that can be removed quickly and cheaply is unfortunately the reality. The rest is just about filling code share aircraft.

I've not heard anyone mention anything about Australian Jobs in years