Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Qantas August 23rd announcements

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Qantas August 23rd announcements

Old 26th Aug 2012, 10:19
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 141
Qantaslink.
DeafStar is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2012, 10:52
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,056
Arnold, I think he means qantas' capital expenditure is already stretched with all those 320s on order without coughing up more for 787s.
ampclamp is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2012, 12:01
  #183 (permalink)  
short flights long nights
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 3,010
You wait, they will cancel the A320s next.
SOPS is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2012, 12:54
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
So where do the 135 A320s go. Is that part of the capacity war against virgin?
Jetstar Asia, Japan, Hong Kong. That's where the 320's are going
QF94 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2012, 22:38
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 69
Qantaslink
teggun is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2012, 23:38
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 216
So where do the 135 A320s go
As well as Asian expansion, some of these new A320s will replace the older A320s currently flying with JQ. LCCs tend to hold their fleets for around 10 years and the original JQ A320s will be 10 years old in 2014.
1A_Please is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 00:37
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Twilight Zone
Posts: 79
definately NOT QANTASlink, ask your two new bosses. QLink status quo (crewing and aircraft) to remain for at least next two years. Direct from the new guru's mouth.
vigi-one is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 01:15
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 216
One thing that the press never picks up AJ on is his constant reference to fleet age being very low. When he quotes this, he is always talking about the total Group fleet including JQ. When you do QF alone, the average fleet age is 11 years, which is average by world standards not the 8.3 years quoted in the investor presentation. JQ's average fleet age is 5 years.

Hopefully the QF average will decline as the final 734s leave the fleet but it will be much higher than the group average for the forseeable future.
1A_Please is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 01:48
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 23
Not to mention, joyce says we're closing maintenance facilities as new aircraft don't need as much work, like a new car. Now that he's cancelled the 787s, what new aircraft is he talking about?
Condition 1 is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 02:16
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 11
Posts: 1,057
Now that he's cancelled the 787s, what new aircraft is he talking about?
Classic, how true, but too technical for the institutional investors to comprehend or they still just don't get it.. So many holes in what AJ says going unchallenged by people who should know.... gives us little hope for the future direction of Qantas, it's all about J*

Last edited by TIMA9X; 27th Aug 2012 at 03:56.
TIMA9X is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 02:34
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 201
Can anyone explain why it is financially beneficial for a LCC to turn over an aircraft every 10 years but not financially beneficial for a Full Service airline to do the same?
HF3000 is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 02:49
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 53
Posts: 628
Originally Posted by HF3000
Can anyone explain why it is financially beneficial for a LCC to turn over an aircraft every 10 years but not financially beneficial for a Full Service airline to do the same?
Careful what you wish for.

It IS beneficial for a Full Service airline to do the same.

Provided they get rid of all the service elements that support the older aircraft - smaller maintenance team, smaller tech team, smaller everything i.e they need to "get rid" of vast numbers of people working in the "old way".

That costs them redundancy money so I guess it's not absolutely as beneficial but in the long run that's where they will head. Numbers will be wound down and many positions will go the way of manual telephone exchange operators - tens of people replaced with just one and an automated system.
Romulus is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 03:36
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by HF3000
Can anyone explain why it is financially beneficial for a LCC to turn over an aircraft every 10 years but not financially beneficial for a Full Service airline to do the same?
Careful what you wish for.

It IS beneficial for a Full Service airline to do the same.

Provided they get rid of all the service elements that support the older aircraft - smaller maintenance team, smaller tech team, smaller everything i.e they need to "get rid" of vast numbers of people working in the "old way".
When things go wrong, it's amazing how often the "old way" of doing things gets them out of the deep hole they continually dig themselves trying to eradicate any form of legacy practices. Even new cars have to have old maintenance practices done on them at times.

Yes. Just ask Team A380 how little maintenance they do on their aircraft. They require more people on a transit than a 747. More things go wrong with the highly "advanced" systems and continual failures of the electronic seats and gizmos at the front of the aeroplane.


That costs them redundancy money so I guess it's not absolutely as beneficial but in the long run that's where they will head. Numbers will be wound down and many positions will go the way of manual telephone exchange operators - tens of people replaced with just one and an automated system.
Yes, the level of service will decline even further than it is already. Management, short-term financial gain. Company, long-term pain.
QF94 is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 03:45
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Bubble
Posts: 636
Provided they get rid of all the service elements that support the older aircraft - smaller maintenance team, smaller tech team, smaller everything i.e they need to "get rid" of vast numbers of people working in the "old way".

That costs them redundancy money so I guess it's not absolutely as beneficial but in the long run that's where they will head. Numbers will be wound down and many positions will go the way of manual telephone exchange operators - tens of people replaced with just one and an automated system.
Or so the spin goes. I wonder why these new advanced aircraft such as the A380, so advanced it almost fixes itself, for some reason has quite a few more engineers attending this aircraft when it rolls into the gate? whereas the old, maintenance intensive 767s and 747s don't ?

The redundancies we have seen in the engineering side of things is more to do with removing the legacy of the TN era, MOC/Heavy Maintenance and consolidating it in one place, Sydney.

The only advancement is the shared liability of the newly built airliners being outsourced to many different manufactures, having the balls to delay the periodic inspections, A checks, C checks etc, to levels which make the current era of jets seem maintenance intensive. How successful that will be remains to be seen - and I think most will believe it when they see it.

At least the A380 has provided plenty of jobs for the guys who would've been made redundant in Sydney when they closed down that engine shop a few years ago. You gotta thank airbus for that at least.
600ft-lb is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 03:47
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 216
Can anyone explain why it is financially beneficial for a LCC to turn over an aircraft every 10 years but not financially beneficial for a Full Service airline to do the same?
I would think it is a combination of factors:
  1. LCC aircraft tend to accumulate cycles very quickly.
  2. LCCs tend to want to avoid heavy maintenance "D" checks

Some of the other posters are probably correct that legacy airlines would love to turn over their aircraft quicker and some of the wealther ones (SQ/EK for example) do.

I'm not technical so can't contribute as to whether modern aircraft need less maintenance. My hunch is that they need different maintenance and that tends to be more of the pull out, throw away then replace rather than the older style reconditioning. I assume aircraft are part of the throw away age, just like everything else.
1A_Please is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 04:11
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 43
Posts: 104
The JQ A330 fleet will be due for D checks from 2014 onwards, I bet any money these aircraft will be transferred back to mainline just before they are due and mainline (most likely the international division) will foot the bill.
MELKBQF is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 04:57
  #197 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ozzzzzzz
Posts: 229
MELKBQF

You'll notice the JQ 330's are on lease from QF, as such, QF are responsible for maintenance on these aircraft anyway. The bill has already been looked after!
Ultergra is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 06:48
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 53
Posts: 628
Originally Posted by 600
Or so the spin goes. I wonder why these new advanced aircraft such as the A380, so advanced it almost fixes itself, for some reason has quite a few more engineers attending this aircraft when it rolls into the gate? whereas the old, maintenance intensive 767s and 747s don't ?
There needs to be a base level of qualified personnel to work on the aircraft. As the numbers of aircraft increase the number of attending engineers in the 380 team will probably not change at all. Currently they have the numbers to build enough experience to suit the Qantas fleet, too many less than current and you can't ramp up aircraft numbers. Once they're trained they need keeping current so until more aircraft arrive over which the 380 team must be spread it gets a larger number of attendants.

Plus they get to work on sorting out those initial glitches so extra manpower as a risk mitigator is easily justified.
Romulus is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 07:54
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 58
The a380 is a manpower pig no matter how you spin it. It will always require extra engineers in comparison to a 747. It's over-complicated, over-sized, fragile and unreliable. It's been in-service 4 years and has barely improved in all regards. The Aj statement re the a380 requiring less maintenance is completely false. Feel free to argue but I work it daily and know the facts
booglaboy is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2012, 08:57
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 53
Posts: 628
Originally Posted by boog
The a380 is a manpower pig no matter how you spin it. It will always require extra engineers in comparison to a 747. It's over-complicated, over-sized, fragile and unreliable. It's been in-service 4 years and has barely improved in all regards. The Aj statement re the a380 requiring less maintenance is completely false. Feel free to argue but I work it daily and know the facts
Fair enough.

Have you calculated it over the lifetime of the aircraft?
Romulus is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.