777 for Qantas
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for QF getting the A340-600, SQ has spoken quietly into QF's ear about their hassles with the longest range A340 which are numerous.
Anyone wanting to challenge this go right ahead - SQ has no long term plans to have this aircraft in their fleet whatsoever and are keen to see it go in favour of the new B777.
Long term plans at SQ call for A380's and B777's only.
QF can have a mix of A380's, B744's, B777's and B787's to replace both the B737's and B767's longer term.
Anyone wanting to challenge this go right ahead - SQ has no long term plans to have this aircraft in their fleet whatsoever and are keen to see it go in favour of the new B777.
Long term plans at SQ call for A380's and B777's only.
QF can have a mix of A380's, B744's, B777's and B787's to replace both the B737's and B767's longer term.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sector C
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The_Cutest/longreach no type had ever been ruled out that had the pax/range requirement. QF already has an A340 simulator, and A340 containers, and could in 7 days of conversion have A340 flight crews. Cabin crew aleady trained on doors etc.
TIMMEEEE you are confusing the early A340s SQ had and the current ones. The 777 does not have local Singapore approval for "polar" operations (i.e Singapore-New York direct), the overall direction you stated is correct for passenger operations subject to regulatory constraints. They plan to keep the 744 as a freighter.
Airbus has set up a hub up in Singapore for SQ and QF for maintenance and training, the large A380 hangers are in place.
TIMMEEEE you are confusing the early A340s SQ had and the current ones. The 777 does not have local Singapore approval for "polar" operations (i.e Singapore-New York direct), the overall direction you stated is correct for passenger operations subject to regulatory constraints. They plan to keep the 744 as a freighter.
Airbus has set up a hub up in Singapore for SQ and QF for maintenance and training, the large A380 hangers are in place.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIMMEEEE,
Do you know the difference between the 500 and 600?
The 500 is the smaller of the two and has Ultra Long Range, the 600 is the long one and has a similar range to the 744.
QF would be looking (initially) at a replacement/supplement to the 744. Therefore the A340-600 or the B777-300ER would be the aircraft of choice.
The 340-600 is probably a better replacement because it carries very similar pax, a lot more freight and better range then the 744.
Compared to the 346, the 777 carries less pax, less freight, but has a similar range. The bean counters will decide if the economics of the 777 make up for the size differential.
Longer term QF will have to consider an Ultra Long Range A/C and the 777-200LR does seem to be better than the 340-500, so this may be playing on their minds. Having said that, a 500 with an extra 15T MTOW would have it all over the 200LR, stranger things have happened.
Do you know the difference between the 500 and 600?
The 500 is the smaller of the two and has Ultra Long Range, the 600 is the long one and has a similar range to the 744.
QF would be looking (initially) at a replacement/supplement to the 744. Therefore the A340-600 or the B777-300ER would be the aircraft of choice.
The 340-600 is probably a better replacement because it carries very similar pax, a lot more freight and better range then the 744.
Compared to the 346, the 777 carries less pax, less freight, but has a similar range. The bean counters will decide if the economics of the 777 make up for the size differential.
Longer term QF will have to consider an Ultra Long Range A/C and the 777-200LR does seem to be better than the 340-500, so this may be playing on their minds. Having said that, a 500 with an extra 15T MTOW would have it all over the 200LR, stranger things have happened.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eyes only,
yes I get all that, but you clearly stated earlier that QF have chosen the 773ER for delivery Q1 2007. So, they have ruled out the 340. Others were saying the 346 is back in the picture. Was only giving my views on why that may be so.
I'll be quite surprised if they don't select the 773ER. It's got way too much going for it in this competition IMO.
You ruled out the 772ER in an earlier post. What about the 772LR??? Dixon and QF have been making some "hub-busting" comments in the media of late. I still see the 787 as a big "hub-buster" at QF.
Compared to the 346, the 777 carries less pax, less freight, but has a similar range. The bean counters will decide if the economics of the 777 make up for the size differential.
You\'re kidding aren\'t you. The 773ER is a lighter plane with a greater range and in the QF 2 or 3 class international configuration would carry significantly more pax(particularly in the premium cabin(s)). Not sure about cargo capacity but there wouldn\'t be much in it and I wouldn\'t be surprised if that favoured the Boeing as well. The 773ER\'s cabin width allows a seat/row extra over the 346 cabin. 30-40 more pax I would estimate.
yes I get all that, but you clearly stated earlier that QF have chosen the 773ER for delivery Q1 2007. So, they have ruled out the 340. Others were saying the 346 is back in the picture. Was only giving my views on why that may be so.
I'll be quite surprised if they don't select the 773ER. It's got way too much going for it in this competition IMO.
You ruled out the 772ER in an earlier post. What about the 772LR??? Dixon and QF have been making some "hub-busting" comments in the media of late. I still see the 787 as a big "hub-buster" at QF.
Compared to the 346, the 777 carries less pax, less freight, but has a similar range. The bean counters will decide if the economics of the 777 make up for the size differential.
You\'re kidding aren\'t you. The 773ER is a lighter plane with a greater range and in the QF 2 or 3 class international configuration would carry significantly more pax(particularly in the premium cabin(s)). Not sure about cargo capacity but there wouldn\'t be much in it and I wouldn\'t be surprised if that favoured the Boeing as well. The 773ER\'s cabin width allows a seat/row extra over the 346 cabin. 30-40 more pax I would estimate.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sector C
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
longreach,
773 is on as a 743, old 744 replacement, and as a hub feeder to the A380.
772/ER/LR is not being considered in any form, it carries less cargo than the A333. A340 is still being looked out where a 4 engine aircraft is more econimical to run on thinner routes or where ETOPS is a problem. 777 will need to gain in service history within QF to get CASA ETOPS approval for it to do the work as a 747 replacement.
A340 has other operational efficiencies over 777 as crew could be on a mixture of long and short haul rosters between the A330/A340. The A330 simulator is also an A340 simulator, crews can cross qualify.
773 is on as a 743, old 744 replacement, and as a hub feeder to the A380.
772/ER/LR is not being considered in any form, it carries less cargo than the A333. A340 is still being looked out where a 4 engine aircraft is more econimical to run on thinner routes or where ETOPS is a problem. 777 will need to gain in service history within QF to get CASA ETOPS approval for it to do the work as a 747 replacement.
A340 has other operational efficiencies over 777 as crew could be on a mixture of long and short haul rosters between the A330/A340. The A330 simulator is also an A340 simulator, crews can cross qualify.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speeedy,
Why is it then that SQ do not want the A340 in their fleet long term.
They have clearly stated that they will only be operating the B777 and A380.
I'm sure that if the A340 was a good and proven aircraft then SQ would be keeping it.
But then again who knows, the A340 and B744 pax aircraft may be around for alot longer if the A380 doesnt become a success or lacks performance.
Why is it then that SQ do not want the A340 in their fleet long term.
They have clearly stated that they will only be operating the B777 and A380.
I'm sure that if the A340 was a good and proven aircraft then SQ would be keeping it.
But then again who knows, the A340 and B744 pax aircraft may be around for alot longer if the A380 doesnt become a success or lacks performance.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIMMEEEE,
You originally said that SQ were not happy with their 500's, which seemed a bit irrelevant because QF would be looking at 600's initially, they are very different aircraft (especially given that SQ's problems seemed to be one of range/payload meeting expectations.)
SQ would have plans to eventually replace their 500's with 200LR's and as I have said that would make sense, the LR has a better range (at this stage), and because they already have lots of 777's it would help streamline their fleet.
QF on the other hand is looking for a 744 replacement, and despite what others have just said, the 346 does carry more pax and more freight a similar distance to the 777-300ER. The 777 is cheaper to run outright, but not necessarily when taking into account the potential extra income of the 346.
QF already have Airbuses not 777's and all the associated infrastructure (although the Sim is not a quick conversion 340 version as suggested by eyes only).
I'm not saying that they WILL choose 346's, but there is no concrete reason why not, either.
I personally think either would do the job very well indeed, so it will probably boil down to purchase price, nothing more, nothing less. Surely this would not surprise anyone who knows QF.
Also your last comment shows that you have an aversion to Airbuses (and probably a pathetic desire to see the 380 fail), therefore anything you say is probably tainted by your Boeing coloured glasses.
You originally said that SQ were not happy with their 500's, which seemed a bit irrelevant because QF would be looking at 600's initially, they are very different aircraft (especially given that SQ's problems seemed to be one of range/payload meeting expectations.)
SQ would have plans to eventually replace their 500's with 200LR's and as I have said that would make sense, the LR has a better range (at this stage), and because they already have lots of 777's it would help streamline their fleet.
QF on the other hand is looking for a 744 replacement, and despite what others have just said, the 346 does carry more pax and more freight a similar distance to the 777-300ER. The 777 is cheaper to run outright, but not necessarily when taking into account the potential extra income of the 346.
QF already have Airbuses not 777's and all the associated infrastructure (although the Sim is not a quick conversion 340 version as suggested by eyes only).
I'm not saying that they WILL choose 346's, but there is no concrete reason why not, either.
I personally think either would do the job very well indeed, so it will probably boil down to purchase price, nothing more, nothing less. Surely this would not surprise anyone who knows QF.
Also your last comment shows that you have an aversion to Airbuses (and probably a pathetic desire to see the 380 fail), therefore anything you say is probably tainted by your Boeing coloured glasses.
I hope someone who has a vote is reading this and takes my word (as a very frequent flyer) that FFs will go for the A340 any time. Apart from any niggling ETOPS worries, it's so much quieter (esp in J) and has a better ride. Like the DC10!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speeedy.
Not a huge Airbus fan, but when it comes to the A380 I would like to see the beast do well.
It has really put the rocket up Boeing's clacker and made them sit up and take notice - and justifiably so.
As for not being an Airbus fan, when an airline wants to put in sleeper style beds in their first/business class and Airbus turns around and says that the floor isnt strong enough, that really makes me think carefully about the ships structural integrity.
As a metallurgist in a former life, when I heard of this debacle I really stood up and took notice.
Apparently Airbus have "options" when it comes to weight saving measures for flooring.
Boeing do not in this area.
That's why its called the "Boeing Foundry and Iron Works" Speeedy !!!
And speaking to mates in the middle east that have flown both the A330/A340 and B777, guess which one they prefer unanimously?
I think its a number thats between 6 and 8....
Keep flogging that bus old son !
Not a huge Airbus fan, but when it comes to the A380 I would like to see the beast do well.
It has really put the rocket up Boeing's clacker and made them sit up and take notice - and justifiably so.
As for not being an Airbus fan, when an airline wants to put in sleeper style beds in their first/business class and Airbus turns around and says that the floor isnt strong enough, that really makes me think carefully about the ships structural integrity.
As a metallurgist in a former life, when I heard of this debacle I really stood up and took notice.
Apparently Airbus have "options" when it comes to weight saving measures for flooring.
Boeing do not in this area.
That's why its called the "Boeing Foundry and Iron Works" Speeedy !!!
And speaking to mates in the middle east that have flown both the A330/A340 and B777, guess which one they prefer unanimously?
I think its a number thats between 6 and 8....
Keep flogging that bus old son !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hmmmm... have to agree with Tim here. From what I have read and heard the 773/ER far outperforms the 346. I'd like to know how the 346 carries more cargo... its narrower, and although EVER so slightly longer... tapers at the rear further fwd than on the 773. I'm no expert in this case, but I don't think the argument for the 346 with regards to "more cargo, more pax and same range" is accurate. Still I stand to be corrected by statistics. However, I do believe that the Scarebus still stands a very good chance with the 330s being online and 380s on the way... no doubt they would be cheaper too!
Either way... QF will have to place an order soon, and either choice would be great in my opinion and regardless, both types have their advantages.
Either way... QF will have to place an order soon, and either choice would be great in my opinion and regardless, both types have their advantages.
I hope someone who has a vote is reading this and takes my word (as a very frequent flyer) that FFs will go for the A340 any time.
FWIW there's only been two times that I've been sooo uncomfortable in an airliner that I've had to get up during the flight to ask for another seat.
Both times were A-330/340's ...
Guest
Posts: n/a
The_Cutest_of_Borg:
Well I'll be farked. An Airbus pricier than a Boeing? Is that at list prices, or current market prices though? Isn't it well known that Airbus sell way below list??? Dunno, but I'm sure we'd all be interested to know what airlines are paying with regards to "list prices". Thanks for the info anyway.
Well I'll be farked. An Airbus pricier than a Boeing? Is that at list prices, or current market prices though? Isn't it well known that Airbus sell way below list??? Dunno, but I'm sure we'd all be interested to know what airlines are paying with regards to "list prices". Thanks for the info anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
773 is on as a 743, old 744 replacement, and as a hub feeder to the A380.
772/ER/LR is not being considered in any form, it carries less cargo than the A333. A340 is still being looked out where a 4 engine aircraft is more econimical to run on thinner routes or where ETOPS is a problem. 777 will need to gain in service history within QF to get CASA ETOPS approval for it to do the work as a 747 replacement.
A340 has other operational efficiencies over 777 as crew could be on a mixture of long and short haul rosters between the A330/A340. The A330 simulator is also an A340 simulator, crews can cross qualify.
Eyes only,
I have trouble believing QF would go for a 773ER/346 combo. That's just adding more fleet types and expense to an airline with already too many types. Sounds like the 773ER will be ordered in greater numbers, if the above is true, as the roles you indicated it will perform would easily require 20+ frames.
Which routes, other than JNB is a 4 engine more suitable than a twin in QF's existing route structure??? The 773ER seems tailor made for SYD/MEL/BNE- US West Coast, with a 500nm range increase over the 744ERs. I would have thought QF's CASA's ETOPS approval for the 773ER would not be an elongated process. The 773ER comes ETOPS 180min compliant and QF have vast ETOPS experience with their 763 fleet. Surely, the rest is a fairly simple and brief process?
772/ER/LR is not being considered in any form, it carries less cargo than the A333. A340 is still being looked out where a 4 engine aircraft is more econimical to run on thinner routes or where ETOPS is a problem. 777 will need to gain in service history within QF to get CASA ETOPS approval for it to do the work as a 747 replacement.
A340 has other operational efficiencies over 777 as crew could be on a mixture of long and short haul rosters between the A330/A340. The A330 simulator is also an A340 simulator, crews can cross qualify.
Eyes only,
I have trouble believing QF would go for a 773ER/346 combo. That's just adding more fleet types and expense to an airline with already too many types. Sounds like the 773ER will be ordered in greater numbers, if the above is true, as the roles you indicated it will perform would easily require 20+ frames.
Which routes, other than JNB is a 4 engine more suitable than a twin in QF's existing route structure??? The 773ER seems tailor made for SYD/MEL/BNE- US West Coast, with a 500nm range increase over the 744ERs. I would have thought QF's CASA's ETOPS approval for the 773ER would not be an elongated process. The 773ER comes ETOPS 180min compliant and QF have vast ETOPS experience with their 763 fleet. Surely, the rest is a fairly simple and brief process?
Nunc est bibendum
I certainly wouldn't be writing off the 772LR in the mix somewhere- even if just a handful of airframes. I think that QF desperately wants to open up London and other parts of Europe direct to Sydney/Australia and the 772LR can do that for them.
Interesting times. When is Boeing due to have the 772LR fly from LHR-SYD direct? I thought that was scheduled to be done sometime in March? Perhaps they've rolled it a bit to steal some thunder from the A380 if/when it gets up and going!
Interesting times. When is Boeing due to have the 772LR fly from LHR-SYD direct? I thought that was scheduled to be done sometime in March? Perhaps they've rolled it a bit to steal some thunder from the A380 if/when it gets up and going!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: mexico
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft sales represent some of the biggest ticket items involved in global trade. To think QF will purchase billions of dollars worth of aircraft based on fuel burn and seat pitch is naive. "Free trade agreements" (if ever there was such a beast), currency woes, changing strategic alliances and manufacturers scrambling to pass aircraft on at any cost for political purposes means much of the decision for future fleet purchasing will be made over a liquid lunch in Canberra.
Timmee, pilot preference will have absolutely nothing to do with aircraft acquisition. The A330 has factory weight saving options that ultimately make it one of the most fuel efficient machines around - the accountants love em.
Longreach, dont fall for the "too many fleet type" nonsense. A number of types with similar fleet numbers is not as detrimental to an airline as some would have you think. Some of the most successful long haul airlines in the world operate 3 or more types.
Keg, imagine how much cheaper it would be if QF purchased "airframes" instead of aircraft - no engines, avionics, landing gear.
Timmee, pilot preference will have absolutely nothing to do with aircraft acquisition. The A330 has factory weight saving options that ultimately make it one of the most fuel efficient machines around - the accountants love em.
Longreach, dont fall for the "too many fleet type" nonsense. A number of types with similar fleet numbers is not as detrimental to an airline as some would have you think. Some of the most successful long haul airlines in the world operate 3 or more types.
Keg, imagine how much cheaper it would be if QF purchased "airframes" instead of aircraft - no engines, avionics, landing gear.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
777-300ER vs A340-600:
Range: 773ER = 7880nm vs A346 = 7900nm
Pax (3 Class): 773ER = 365 vs A346 = 380
Freight: 773ER = 200.5m3 vs A346 = 207.6m3
The freight is misleading however, because of the width of containers versus the width of the airframe, the 777 ends up with a lot of wasted space. In terms of pallets able to be carried the difference is dramatic.
Pallets: 773ER = 8 vs A346 = 14
But airbus do have an option for a lighter floor, so I guess the 773 must win!
Range: 773ER = 7880nm vs A346 = 7900nm
Pax (3 Class): 773ER = 365 vs A346 = 380
Freight: 773ER = 200.5m3 vs A346 = 207.6m3
The freight is misleading however, because of the width of containers versus the width of the airframe, the 777 ends up with a lot of wasted space. In terms of pallets able to be carried the difference is dramatic.
Pallets: 773ER = 8 vs A346 = 14
But airbus do have an option for a lighter floor, so I guess the 773 must win!
Last edited by speeeedy; 24th Mar 2005 at 00:54.