Qantas August 23rd announcements
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Plus they get to work on sorting out those initial glitches so extra manpower as a risk mitigator is easily justified.
Also, the A380 can't be used on the DFW sector, but the outdated 747 can, albeit the return sector is via BNE. What happens when the 747's are finally retired? No 787 to replace them, and the A380 is useless, unless it carries a greatly reduced number of passengers.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 380 airframe life is 20 years. Can't imagine the manpower requirements trending downwards based on the 4 years of service it's seen thus far. It takes 2 engineers to transit a 747 in 90mins in my port. The equivalent 380 will use 6 engineers and the turn-around time will be 180 mins minimum. Someone smarter than me will have to do the maths
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
One of the former smartest guys in the room said you'd need 24 LAMEs to do the whole fleet of 20! He has of course since left the room.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re D checks.
That's the whole point of AJ's statement about needing less manpower in OZ. The A380, and the B787 when it arrives, will never see a C or D check carried out in OZ as QF are doing what many other operators are doing and that's paying the manufacturers to arrange and take care of those checks wherever they have certified organisations. Half the QF A380 fleet have already been away to Germany for C checks.
As a side note, the B787 is anticipated to have D checks done about every 12 years so there's a long wait for those.
That's the whole point of AJ's statement about needing less manpower in OZ. The A380, and the B787 when it arrives, will never see a C or D check carried out in OZ as QF are doing what many other operators are doing and that's paying the manufacturers to arrange and take care of those checks wherever they have certified organisations. Half the QF A380 fleet have already been away to Germany for C checks.
As a side note, the B787 is anticipated to have D checks done about every 12 years so there's a long wait for those.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by qf94
There will be no increase in the number of A380's for a number of years, if at all, due to AJ deferring/cancelling the remaining order of 8. As the number of international sectors decrease, so does the requirement for extra aircraft.
Unless you expect that when the 380 team was set up they should have acted with the knowledge that would occur then you are utilising the power of hindsight and claiming it as some kind of flaw in AJ that he didn't. Current 380 numbers were based on projections as per fleet strategy at the time and allowed for increased aircraft numbers, natural attrition and even accelerated attrition based on people like Emirates and SIA poaching a number of people with 380 licences and experience.
The 380 team looks big for what it does I agree, but not for the future that was predicted for it. That was the key point.
Originally Posted by qf94
Redundant statement. No ramping up of aircraft numbers, therefore too many "attendants".
Originally Posted by qf94
Also, the A380 can't be used on the DFW sector, but the outdated 747 can, albeit the return sector is via BNE. What happens when the 747's are finally retired? No 787 to replace them, and the A380 is useless, unless it carries a greatly reduced number of passengers.
Again, you need to stop using hindsight to criticise decisions taken based on a very different set of beliefs.
Half the QF A380 fleet have already been away to Germany for C checks.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When did DFW start? Do you think it was included as part of 380 strategy planning? Methinks not.
Again, you need to stop using hindsight to criticise decisions taken based on a very different set of beliefs.
Again, you need to stop using hindsight to criticise decisions taken based on a very different set of beliefs.
The important part being "AJ deferring/cancelling".
Unless you expect that when the 380 team was set up they should have acted with the knowledge that would occur then you are utilising the power of hindsight and claiming it as some kind of flaw in AJ that he didn't. Current 380 numbers were based on projections as per fleet strategy at the time and allowed for increased aircraft numbers, natural attrition and even accelerated attrition based on people like Emirates and SIA poaching a number of people with 380 licences and experience.
Unless you expect that when the 380 team was set up they should have acted with the knowledge that would occur then you are utilising the power of hindsight and claiming it as some kind of flaw in AJ that he didn't. Current 380 numbers were based on projections as per fleet strategy at the time and allowed for increased aircraft numbers, natural attrition and even accelerated attrition based on people like Emirates and SIA poaching a number of people with 380 licences and experience.
Even by AJ's own words last year regarding QF International that it had been losing money for a number of years, and the "Group" was absorbing its losses, and they would be pulling out of loss-making sectors, yet they proceeded with proposed fleet expansion/replacement of aircraft that aren't really compatable with thier needs. Very easy to throw the money. Not so easy to make it back.
No, that's a flawed analysis. The ramping up of aircraft numbers or lack thereof could not possibly have been acted upon at the time the 380 team was set up. For you to go back and claim that somehow the number of people working the 380 should be spot optimised for the current situation is an example of the worst type of management thinking that AJ and Co are regularly accused of around here.
No one has a crytsal ball, but due diligence when making a very expensive purchase, and maybe listen to those that have knowledge of aircraft and being able to go through the figures and see what is the best aircraft for your needs, and not the back room accountants.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Germany???? I would not have thought that labour was cheaper in Germany than Australia? So tell me again why QANTAS is getting rid of Ozzy LAME's?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
couldn't be flown at the speeds as required by the QF timetable. That's why the LAX run is an hour longer than the 747, as they were burning the fuel at a rapid rate to fly the 14 hour sector as per the timetable.
I'm not entirely sure as to why the planned sector times were increased but I suspect it was more to do with improving on-time performance. And yes, the times were increased about the same time the A380 came on the scene.
Standard cruise speeds for the 747 and A380 are pretty much the same. There might be .005 mach in it but that is about all. Added to that is the reduced TAS because the A380 cruises at a higher level. The 380 cruises pretty nicely at 0.86 if you want to. (so there MIGHT be 5kt - 10kt TAS or so in it?)
The fuel burn differential between a 0.86 and 0.84 cruise is not all that much.
N
Last edited by noip; 27th Aug 2012 at 19:34.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Arnold E
Germany???? I would not have thought that labour was cheaper in Germany than Australia? So tell me again why QANTAS is getting rid of Ozzy LAME's?
Somebody had to put together the capability to do larger checks on the 380 and aggregate the market in order to obtain enough work to keep a crew fully occupied. Qantas had the option to do it but didn't, Singapore have it. Emirates probably have big enough fleet projections to go it alone.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by qf94
I'm unaware of people from QF being poached by EK or SQ, but there could be some.
As for the rest, it's hard to blame AJ and Co for choosing the 380 based on decisions made later. At some point a decision had to be made and the 380 was it. One can always call for more time or analysis but that is a recipe for getting nothing done at all, the ultimate disaster.
With regard to flight times I can only say that as a customer who (or more accurately whose employer) generally pays a premium rate to fly Business I organise my timetable around the 380 flights. Quieter, far more comfortable, and if that means an hour extra so be it, well worth it.
When the 787 gets here I reckon that will have a similar effect on my timetable choices so this isn't a A v B thing, it's simply choosing to fly in the next generation of aircraft that provide more to the customer. Not saying the 777 isn't a good aircraft, it's just not AS good as the new ones.
Again, with hindsight and the delays in the 787 program and all the rest Qantas should probably have bought the 777 but they didn't. Decision based on information available at the time and if the 787 had been on time and on spec then QF would have stolen a march over the competition who bought the older technology.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not entirely sure as to why the planned sector times were increased but I suspect it was more to do with improving on-time performance. And yes, the times were increased about the same time the A380 came on the scene.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to improve the OTP of the 747's, but for the A380.
Last LAX-MEL, we had to fly at CI 0 to come close to arriving on schedule.
What I'm trying to say, is that whilst I at first thought as you do, the evidence does not support the assertion you make.
N
Spot the difference.
Virgin veers into a Qantas dogfight | Stephen Bartholomeusz | Commentary | Business Spectator
Didn't Gareth and Alan bang on the other day that it was about market share not yield?
No wonder they are the smartest guys in the room.
Delivering nothing for everybody!
Virgin veers into a Qantas dogfight | Stephen Bartholomeusz | Commentary | Business Spectator
Not only is it now profitable, with an underlying pre-tax profit of $82.5 million for the year to June, but revenue grew 19.8 per cent, yields were 12.2 per cent higher
No wonder they are the smartest guys in the room.
Delivering nothing for everybody!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looking for the bridge of trust
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before the 380 arrived Airbus said an "A" chk would take 56 man hours.
They're a hell of a lot more manpower hungry than that.
I'd hate to think how things would have panned out if John Holland had of got the gig to maintain it hey Romulus.
They're a hell of a lot more manpower hungry than that.
I'd hate to think how things would have panned out if John Holland had of got the gig to maintain it hey Romulus.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEB
I'd hate to think how things would have panned out if John Holland had of got the gig to maintain it hey Romulus.
That's one of the benefits of outsourcing, you get a price and you get reduced cost risk, the contractor wears most of the risk.
Or do you mean to say you think JHAS would have taken even more staff and thus cost Qantas more? Do you have any ability to back that up with supporting evidence?
Didn't think so. But we'll never know.