Merged: QF 777s and other rumours
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are they still making 340s?
What ever they buy they will have to be very reliable as QF has run out of engineers.
Another very strong rumour is that QF engineering management is bracing it's self for some big changes and blood letting.
Let the games begin!
What ever they buy they will have to be very reliable as QF has run out of engineers.
Another very strong rumour is that QF engineering management is bracing it's self for some big changes and blood letting.
Let the games begin!
Skystar 320. The CFM56 powered A340-300 is no longer in production. Airbus has signaled the demise of the A340-500/600 saying production will cease when production facilities for the A350 is required.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi GoingBoeing, thank you for coming to this morning's ceremony. It was great to see so many Qantas people and their familes there. I felt very proud being surrounded by so many hardworking people and a great aircraft. I am sure we will welcome the 787 in the same way. As for the 777s, we are evaluating them along with other aircraft types. I expect we will make a decision some time in the next 12 months.
Saw this on the live blog thing qantas had this afternoon, so still nothing it seems.
any one know what the other types could be?
the whole blogs here Qantas Media Room
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas are experts in prevaricating especially when it comes to aircraft purchases.
Reports today of the company talking with airbus about more 380's.....or could just be the usual PR spin pushing a new toy.
Wingspar....You must be a fan of 'Yes Prime Minister'...Brilliantly funny shows.
Skystar320.....What is a scarcastic remark?...Does it mean that you think buying an airbus is a scary thought or that you were just caught out?
Reports today of the company talking with airbus about more 380's.....or could just be the usual PR spin pushing a new toy.
Wingspar....You must be a fan of 'Yes Prime Minister'...Brilliantly funny shows.
Skystar320.....What is a scarcastic remark?...Does it mean that you think buying an airbus is a scary thought or that you were just caught out?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmm lowerlobe, the title is "Merged: QF 777s and other rumours" nothing hasn't been ruled out, its just a hot load of rumours floating around at the moment,
You never know they might be looking at Airbus?
You never know they might be looking at Airbus?
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry Skystar320 but my post must have been too subtle and you obviously missed the point....again....check the spelling and definition....
As far as aircraft purchases are concerned the company is a master at playing one aircraft manufacturer against the other.I'm surprised that Dixon has not used the ploy and suggested that they are looking at Soviet aircraft....
I mean they are probably very cheap and the Russkies would throw in a few tanker loads of cheap fuel to seal the deal...
sarcastic |särˈkastik|
adjective
marked by or given to using irony in order to mock or convey contempt : sarcastic comments on their failures | she's witty and sarcastic.
adjective
marked by or given to using irony in order to mock or convey contempt : sarcastic comments on their failures | she's witty and sarcastic.
I mean they are probably very cheap and the Russkies would throw in a few tanker loads of cheap fuel to seal the deal...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote -aardvark144
"see the rumours once again have died in the ar*e. Any further news? When is the next board meeting?"
Rumors could have died like the EBA8. May be a bit off 'bait' gone off or just to much A380 hype going on.
During the company briefings before the EBA vote the B777 was a favourite "don't quote me but" line in there to give hope to wanabe B777 driver's.
FFRATS
"see the rumours once again have died in the ar*e. Any further news? When is the next board meeting?"
Rumors could have died like the EBA8. May be a bit off 'bait' gone off or just to much A380 hype going on.
During the company briefings before the EBA vote the B777 was a favourite "don't quote me but" line in there to give hope to wanabe B777 driver's.
FFRATS
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
They should take 12 of them, sell the other slots and buy the 748
I reckon in the 450 seat config the 12 with the fancy first class will do, and the 748 will be cheaper per seat in the long run.
Just my wild half ar$ed guess. Anyone else think that may be a good option?
J
I reckon in the 450 seat config the 12 with the fancy first class will do, and the 748 will be cheaper per seat in the long run.
Just my wild half ar$ed guess. Anyone else think that may be a good option?
J
Have you QF Airbus A380 lovers ever asked why CX has never bought the 380?
We can't be that stupid surely?
It must be because the 380 in it's current form can't carry anything worthwhile over a long haul and will cost a bloody fortune if it's not full.
ie it's a DOG.
pssst..........and it's butt ugly.
We can't be that stupid surely?
It must be because the 380 in it's current form can't carry anything worthwhile over a long haul and will cost a bloody fortune if it's not full.
ie it's a DOG.
pssst..........and it's butt ugly.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Cathay will be quite relaxed about having SQ fly A380s on SIN-HKG-SFO, and if SQ gets the rights to operate SIN-HKG-NYC what will they use on that? A380s will be operating SIN-LHR, DXB-SYD, MEL/SYD-LAX, all similar length routes to Cathay routes. MEL-LAX was one of the deciding routes for Qantas to choose the A380.
The original 777-200 non ER as chosen by Cathay is the aircraft that struggles to carry meaningful payloads over longer routes. Over shorter routes it carries a lot of extra weight compared with an A330-300 to carry only a few extra passengers.
The original 777-200 non ER as chosen by Cathay is the aircraft that struggles to carry meaningful payloads over longer routes. Over shorter routes it carries a lot of extra weight compared with an A330-300 to carry only a few extra passengers.
Well CX is a very profitable carrier, has been for decades and our experts crunched the numbers and the 380 cannot carry a decent load over the sector lengths we operate. LAX HKG with a headwind in Winter? Not even close, it would need a tech stop EVERY flight.
JFK HKG? ha!!, it would need an average 120 kt tailwind!!
If SQ get the rights it would be using a 77W
Overflight charges in Russia? HUGE.
Maybe HKG Europe might just cut it? It's a close thing aparently. But the 777-300ER comes way out in front for profit.
You may see CX order a few for LHR, but that's all we could use it for in it's current version.
Now if Airbus build a new version with a much bertter payload range then CX will buy it.
Hey no arguements about the original 777-200's we bought. They are "A" market 200's with less fuel in the centre tank and low weights. Ok to about 8 hours will a full load. ( 336 pax and 17 ton frt )
The 777-300's we have are lower weights too, CX were very savvy, they have a MTOW about 37 tonnes lighter than other Airlines 300's, but that's all we need around Asia, we then pay less landing charges.
JFK HKG? ha!!, it would need an average 120 kt tailwind!!
If SQ get the rights it would be using a 77W
Overflight charges in Russia? HUGE.
Maybe HKG Europe might just cut it? It's a close thing aparently. But the 777-300ER comes way out in front for profit.
You may see CX order a few for LHR, but that's all we could use it for in it's current version.
Now if Airbus build a new version with a much bertter payload range then CX will buy it.
Hey no arguements about the original 777-200's we bought. They are "A" market 200's with less fuel in the centre tank and low weights. Ok to about 8 hours will a full load. ( 336 pax and 17 ton frt )
The 777-300's we have are lower weights too, CX were very savvy, they have a MTOW about 37 tonnes lighter than other Airlines 300's, but that's all we need around Asia, we then pay less landing charges.
Last edited by ACMS; 22nd Sep 2008 at 08:17.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay's engineering experience is not in doubt. Quite a few years ago, when Cathay started doing LGW-HKG as a non stop with 747-200s, Qantas sent Engineering staff to Hong Kong, because Qantas operated their planes at the same weights as CX, and QFstaff could not see how Cathay were operating the sector as a non stop. Does Cathay face stronger winds flying over the North Pacific than Qantas does flying from the South Pacific? Usually flying West is harder than flying East. Yes, we do know that Qantas will be doing MEL-LAX with 450 seats rather than the 520 seats that we thought they were going to use when the A380 was ordered. 450 seats is still a meaningful payload, provided the First and Business Class seats are occupied.
Cathay would have been disappointed with the A340-600 between HKG and NYC, though the A340-600HGW would have been better. It may be the the A380-800+ that will suit Cathay.
Cathay would have been disappointed with the A340-600 between HKG and NYC, though the A340-600HGW would have been better. It may be the the A380-800+ that will suit Cathay.
CX was not happy with the 346's
The 3 machines used up 25% of the maint budget!!
They were not good to JFK, the 77W carries a lot better payload, burns quite a bit less and does it a bit quicker.
Yes, a much heavier model of the 380 would suit us better, actually I should re-word that...........A 380 with a better payload range would suit us.
maybe if it was 20% longer it would look better too
However, best of luck to QF with their new baby
maybe I'll get a ride in it one day.
The 3 machines used up 25% of the maint budget!!
They were not good to JFK, the 77W carries a lot better payload, burns quite a bit less and does it a bit quicker.
Yes, a much heavier model of the 380 would suit us better, actually I should re-word that...........A 380 with a better payload range would suit us.
maybe if it was 20% longer it would look better too
However, best of luck to QF with their new baby
maybe I'll get a ride in it one day.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: An old flying boat station on Moreton Bay
Age: 84
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To take it a step further, all fleet mix and scheduling decisions involve compromise.
The fundamental one is frequency v. capacity. (3pw with big plane or daily with smaller for those who haven't played the game)
Provided your philosophy is consistent, it's possible for both CX and QF to prosper with different philosophies.
The fundamental one is frequency v. capacity. (3pw with big plane or daily with smaller for those who haven't played the game)
Provided your philosophy is consistent, it's possible for both CX and QF to prosper with different philosophies.
yes yes, very true Wod.
But...........if Airbus can make a 380 carry 500+ pax and 30 tonnes of freight over 16 hrs then we WILL buy 100 of them.
Until then the economics don't stand up too well.
Unless you factor in "world pride at being a 380 customer"
But...........if Airbus can make a 380 carry 500+ pax and 30 tonnes of freight over 16 hrs then we WILL buy 100 of them.
Until then the economics don't stand up too well.
Unless you factor in "world pride at being a 380 customer"
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not just a matter of comparing Qantas against Cathay on respective North American routes. Both carriers have more seats between their home base and North America than the North American carriers. The competition will be between Qantas A380s and VA 77Ws, and between SQ and CX ( if SQ use A380s on HKG-SFO). I suppose Qantas and SQ have good guarantees out of Airbus for the payload range performance of the A380.