Qantas to sell 2 747-400s this year

[Avid Aviator]

Facts

I don't have any inside info on the current sale progress, but do know a few things:

$10M for a fully serviceable B744 is rubbish. The 747-300s topped that when traded for coke cans without instruments/engines/interiors etc. Check out the websites for grounded/damaged/no-engined B747s and you'll work it out...

The B743s have all been sold, delivered and (I hope for QFs sake), paid for. That post is a furphy, A320.

Boeing will now provide an STC for B744 pax to freighter config; given the number of classic freighters still flying and the status of the 748 program, I'd say these aircraft are still very much potentially saleable.

Surely on the books these A/C must of been written many years ago

One of the main problems with Qantas accounting is their depreciation procedures. There is a lot of plant more than 20 years old still excessively valued. Eg. OJH insured at $100M when it pranged and repaired at a cost of ~$150M - a result of dodgy finanicial control (notwithstanding hull-loss implications).

[Skystar320]

I'd say these aircraft are still very much potentially saleable.

There a waaaaaaay better a.c on the market atm... But US$10million, I agree is rubbish.

The B743s have all been sold, delivered and

Why are they still being advertised????

[c100driver]

If there are no buyers then they are worthless!

A friend who is in the jet trading buisness told me that B744 with GE engines are still selling for conversions but at lower prices and much slower rate than 2 years ago, but a B744 with RR engines are not really marketable for conversion as world wide support is not good compared to GE or Pratt, and the RR machines are heavy compared to a GE machine.

He could be correct about that as in a former life I remember QF, NZ, BA and CX had to have an engine pool agreement for a spare engine sitting in LAX.

The QF GE powered B767-300 will probably sell well, though would being the lightweight version reduce the conversion potential?

[Keg]

Avid, what a load of crap:

Eg. OJH insured at $100M when it pranged and repaired at a cost of ~$150M - a result of dodgy finanicial control (notwithstanding hull-loss implications).

Given how inaccurate this statement is I'm not sure we can trust much else of what you say. The aircraft was insured for well north of $100mill. The aircraft was repaired for less than $100 mill- just over $90mill.

[regitaekilthgiwt]

QF GE powered B767-300 will probably sell well, though would being the lightweight version reduce the conversion potential

If it is OGA and OGB, they are heavy weight versions when required.

[Joker 10]

A fundamental truth," Price is what the market will bear".

[alangirvan]

747-400s painted up as Jetstar? Surely not, but back in 81/82 when Qantas has a whole lot of early model 747 parked up against the fence they did something radical - they put them back into service and operated them! At the time they figured, the planes were totally depreciated, the staff were there, so all Qantas had to pay for was the fuel. 82 was the year when fuel prices started to ease after a nasty couple of years.

So, whether the older planes are painted as Qantas or as Jetstar, why not operate them? A 747-400 with about 500 seats would be an ideal way to take lots of happy smiling faces to Bali or Hawaii. Australian Domestic Transcons. If the Qantas Group does want to get back into Southern Europe, arguably, a depreciated 747-400 would give them cheaper seats than a brand new 787 straight out of the factory, even operated by Jetstar.

Are the old planes letting them down? Do they get four good starts from the engines each time? Do they chew through the spare parts? They could still have a few more years of happy flying.

[Going Boeing]

Alan, yes the aircraft are in good condition now. Since the reduction in flying hours, the ginger beers have now got the time to service them so that we are generally presented with aircraft that have no MEL's & few hold items. The engines are in good condition as evidenced by the low fuel flow correction figures and they all fly straight (including OJH/K despite what some misinformed Prooners post).

[Cool banana]

QF GE powered B767-300 will probably sell well, though would being the lightweight version reduce the conversion potential

All QF GE 767-300 are heavy weights. I think QF only payed for only 5 to be operating at max weigh at any one time. When they did operate the placard at the back of the cockpit door was changed to max weight and a hold item in the tech log to say it was a max weight a/c.

[WX-T]

Cool Bananas wrote;

All QF GE 767-300 are heavy weights. I think QF only payed for only 5 to be operating at max weigh at any one time. When they did operate the placard at the back of the cockpit door was changed to max weight and a hold item in the tech log to say it was a max weight a/c.

OGP,Q,R,S,T,and U operated at 185,065kg MTOW all the time. OGA,B and C only operate at 185,065kg MTOW when the placard shows that weight. No tech log entry required.

[Going Boeing]

Cool Banana is correct in that all the GE powered B763's are HGW capable providing the extra money is paid to Boeing - there are no structural differences between the aircraft.

VH-OGA/B/C were the first aircraft to get the higher weight capability because it was cheaper on older aircraft (Boeing discounts it by 5% for each year that the aircraft has been in service). From memory, I believe that the formula was US$55 per pound increase per aircraft minus 5% per year of service. As the weight increase for each aircraft was approximately 13 tonnes, it is clear that it is not cheap and thus is only paid if that extra capability can be used to increase revenue