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

Qantas Fleet Order Speculation

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

Qantas Fleet Order Speculation

Old 21st Jun 2015, 01:23
  #441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,754
The plans have changed - JQ are to keep their 11 (possibly 14 at a later date) B787-8's and will not be getting any B787-9's. Apparently, there is a flight length beyond which the LCC model doesn't work so the extra range of the B787-9 would be wasted in JQ service.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 01:45
  #442 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 298
Max flight length is about 4 hours. The passengers have bought all the food, beer, iPads and blankets they are going to by then and just want to get off. Land, quick turnaround, fresh pax, sell some more. The orange wide body operation has never been a strictly LCC.

Significant changes coming for group flying plan, domestic and international. I can't see any more 787 for JQ.
Iron Bar is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 02:39
  #443 (permalink)  
bdcer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Iron bar,

How good is your source on this info?.....Managers in both Q & J* are saying that J* will be getting their full complement of 788s.

(Disclaimer: I know, don't trust anything management tell you, but this is from both sides of the fence??)
 
Old 21st Jun 2015, 02:45
  #444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,897
The extra range of the 900 is wasted on JQ?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the 800 got US west coast range ability and similar size tanks?
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 03:09
  #445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South
Posts: 636
The 900 or 800 what?

No such animal if you are talking about the B787. They have a -8 and a -9.
c100driver is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 03:29
  #446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by c100driver View Post
The 900 or 800 what?

No such animal if you are talking about the B787. They have a -8 and a -9.
00. Insert customer number here. For Qantas it's 38.

So 787-938.
IsDon is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 03:44
  #447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,897
Thumbs down

You know what I mean......
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 03:48
  #448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 679
Boeing don't use customer codes on the B787 for some reason.
Going Nowhere is online now  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 05:23
  #449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,754
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the 800 got US west coast range ability and similar size tanks?
Yes, the B787-8 has great range (more than JQ will ever need) but the B787-9 has longer range as shown with UA's LAX-MEL operation.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 06:46
  #450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 14
Posts: 1,517
Yes, the B787-8 has great range (more than JQ will ever need)
Lucky they ordered the first 4 or so with the low rated engine pylons so they can't get the full range in case they ever needed it.

blueloo is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 06:52
  #451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 298
"I can't see any more 787 for JQ."

Yep, I'll qualify that by saying no more than the current flying plan/confirmed order book has listed and the boss has justified to the board. Apparently on a plane by plane basis. I doubt they could be deferred or cancelled, not much market for 8 over 9 I believe.

As far as additional aircraft goes, I very much doubt it.

Source outside exec management for Q or J. But probably no more reliable than either.

Watch this space.
Iron Bar is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 07:28
  #452 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,014
Lucky they ordered the first 4 or so with the low rated engine pylons so they can't get the full range in case they ever needed it.

Thought they removed the crew rest as well
swh is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 07:50
  #453 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 113
Waiting for the new financial year to be delivered to Jetstar.
Keep dreaming boys
toolish is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 13:31
  #454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 73
Posts: 1,366
A recent Boeing presentation given to me shows the -9 fuel tank capacity is 133 kgs greater than the -8. I assume the additional 450 nm range of the -9 is due to the lower SFC of the -9 engines.

What has me tossed is the -8 EOW is 28 tonnes heavier than the B767-300ER.
B772 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 15:36
  #455 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 91
The 787's pylons are able to handle all GEnX thrust ratings. There is no option to buy specific thrust-limited pylons.

This rumour is just like the heavy landing one. A heady combination of rubbish and wishful thinking.
flyingins is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 00:56
  #456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,897
I would have thought the -8 had the legs for LA to Melbourne.
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 01:29
  #457 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,392
Thumbs up

It does. According to the stuff on top of page 11 it can do MEL- YVR.
Keg is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 02:43
  #458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NSW
Posts: 65
Some figures to wet your appetite. I know firsthand the JQ 787s all weigh about 114ton empty they will carry 335pax and 10 ton of freight at Mach.85 with an average fuel burn over 9hrs of 4750kg hr. They will easy do Syd -Lax. They have the cargo room downstairs to accommodate 335pax and baggage with enough room for 20 ton of freight. All with the baby 64k ibs thrust engines. Just makes you wonder what QF will be able to do with a -9 with big engines.
Jet Jockey is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 03:20
  #459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 298
QF 9's are planned for less than 300 pax config. hopefully they will have proper galleys and sufficient lavs (unlike JQ, join then queue) plus crew rest for pilots and cc. So they will have to be proportionally heavier.


JJ's figures look pretty good though.

Last edited by Iron Bar; 23rd Jun 2015 at 06:35.
Iron Bar is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 09:37
  #460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Orstraylia
Posts: 285
Explained to me by a type rated CX engineer in MEL handling UA 789, greater range of the 9 over the 8 comes from Aerodynamic Slots on the vertical and hori stabs that improve boundary layer flow over the rudder and elevators respectively and hence aerodynamic efficiency.

No magic tricks other than that and as previously mentioned fuel capacity relatively unchanged.

No research on my behalf whatsoever.
I'll leave that to my pending type course.
Bumpfoh 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 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.