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 1st Aug 2015, 08:09
  #601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 202
You forgot that the Boeing CCQ includes the NG/787/777. Most crew for the 787 will come from the NG. Short course endorsement.
Troo believer is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2015, 09:44
  #602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 13
Posts: 1,517
Most crew for the 787 will come from the NG. Short course endorsement.
I think most will come from the A330...... they have the seniority.
blueloo is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2015, 03:04
  #603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 374
There will be no short course for NG to 787. In fact the course will be longer as we all know shorthaul know nothing about international flying or big jets
The The is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2015, 08:41
  #604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 13
Posts: 1,517
In fact the course will be longer as we all know shorthaul know nothing about international flying or big jets
That's unfortunate. Perhaps they can do some study in their transits.
blueloo is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2015, 11:15
  #605 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Prison Island (WA)
Posts: 1,343
There will be no short course for NG to 787. In fact the course will be longer as we all know shorthaul know nothing about international flying or big jets
Apparently a certain manager wasn't a fan of the 737 -> 787 short course idea, and was subsequently shown the door!

Last edited by Transition Layer; 2nd Aug 2015 at 12:55.
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2015, 11:31
  #606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 13
Posts: 1,517
Apparently PP wasn't a fan of the short course idea, and was subsequently shown the door!
Really? He found a pretty short course for the 767 FOs going to the 380!
blueloo is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2015, 23:06
  #607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Qantas definitely getting 789's and also more 78?'s for Jetstar to be announced!
howyoulikethat is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2015, 23:46
  #608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,742
Qantas definitely getting 789's and also more 78?'s for Jetstar to be announced!
Gareth Evans has stated that Jetstar may get the three deferred B787-8's to make a total of 14 but they wouldn't be getting any B787-9's because the extra capacity/range of the -9 is not required for JQ services.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2015, 23:55
  #609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,897
Actually GB they would come in very handy for Hawaii. Rumour has it JQ are keeping a couple of 330s for the route until they can get some 9s.
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 02:50
  #610 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,307
May help JQ stop the bleeding on HNL. The loads for JQ on that route on the days qantas operates are appalling. On the days QF operate they generally have 15-25 empty seats. JQ on those days often has 100+.
Keg is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 03:07
  #611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,742
GG, I'm only passing on what I heard (directly, not hearsay) from Gareth Evans and he is high enough to know what the fleet plans are for the entire group. He also said that the LCC model only works up to a certain range and although he didn't say what that range is, I got the strong impression that it's shorter than SYD-HNL.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 04:08
  #612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 296
I think it was in the LH EA FAQ's where it was stated that JQ won't be getting any more 787's.
That must be tempered with the fact that it was in a document supposed to sell the EA, but that is what it said.

I heard a rumour just yesterday that all the 787's were going to come to QF, including the JQ ones. I don't believe it for a second, but it to is a rumour, and if Goblin's could be true, I guess this one could be also.
SandyPalms is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 05:46
  #613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 187
Keg,

A little cheeky (and out of character from what I've seen of your posts in the past) to just post simplistic figures.

Looking at the QF website, it shows that all 4 weekly QF-operated flights to/from HNL are operated by A332s. The same website states that the configuration of these aircraft is 235 seats.

It goes on to say that JQ operate 5 weekly services to HNL from three cities. The 332s are configured in 303 seats, the B788s are about 330 seats.

Blow me down if the resultant isn't the same average load (as stated by you) or - heaven forbid - 20 or 30 more bums on seats (depending on which aircraft type is operating on the day).
RAD_ALT_ALIVE is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 07:04
  #614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: in denial
Posts: 245
Airbus always insisted that the A380 would climb to F350 at max weight and cruise at M0.85 - yes, it can do that, but not in an operational sense so it's desirable to know what the true capabilities of the A350 are.
Going Boeing, LRC in the A350 is M0.85, so it is every bit as capable as the 787, perhaps even more so. Looking forward to getting my hands on it from next Feb.
Veruka Salt is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 07:39
  #615 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,307
G'day RAD ALT. I really should know better than to post in a hurry I guess. I'm going to commit the same error now though as I've only a couple of minutes.

You're right. It was very quick and dirty. Qantas tends to run across to HNL with a seat factor in the 90s. We make good money on that. JQ it appears seems to run across to HNL about 60-70% on the days we fly. I don't expect they're making good money on that.
Keg is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 08:34
  #616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Perhaps because they don't want to be crammed in the same airframe with 20% more people for 10+ hours to save a few $$.
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 08:42
  #617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 13
Posts: 1,517
When QF had the 767s doing the SYD/HNL sector, it was one of their highest revenue earning sectors (in part due to the 767s being paid off).

(This was straight from a person in the revenue department who came to visit the pointy end.)
blueloo is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 09:13
  #618 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,977
Originally Posted by Keg
The A350 doesn't seem to fit the metrics that Qantas is after. The 777X (particularly the 8X) does though.
The payload range numbers you were working on are out by a along way, and today Boeing have actually admitted as much in public. Its been covered in Flight International.

Boeing revises "obsolete" performance assumptions - 8/3/2015 - Flight Global

Essentially it has always been smoke and mirrors, you get the fan boys who quote the most optimistic range on Wiki. People in industry working with the long range aircraft knew you could never actually buy an aircraft at the assumed empty weight in your airline configuration, load that many people on the aircraft and fly them the distances claimed. They also know what the general trend is for performance decrease with age, and are more likely to plan a purchase on degraded performance numbers.

This is what Boeing is saying now

787-8, 242 pax 7,355nm
787-9 , 280 pax 7,635nm
787-10 323 pax 6,430nm
777-8X 350 pax 8,700nm
777-300ER 386 pax 7,370nm
777-9X 406 pax 7,600nm
747-8 467 pax 7,730nm

When they are quoting those numbers, the payload the aircraft is carrying is normally only the number of pax by 210lb, SFA allowance for catering, bare minimum crew, no IFE, no magazines, no duty free, no cans/pallets for luggage, no cargo. In terms of flight planning, they assume the best profiles, 200 nm alternate, and FAA reserves.

The seat pitch Boeing works on is 60" for F, 38" for J, and 32" for Y. For long haul QF uses something like 79" for F, 78" for J, 38-42" for W, and 31-32" for Y. The real airline seats are also significantly heavier, sometimes 100+kg per seat in the premium cabins. Bottom line is that QF will never get that many pax on a long haul flight, and if they want to carry cargo, baggage, and catering, will need to drop that max range back even further.

Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
The 350 is the right aeroplane for Jetstar. The 787/777. Is the right aeroplane for qantas.
If you look at what other airlines are doing, eg SQ, the 787 is going the LCC, and the A350 full service.

Does anyone know the true cruising speed of the A350 (not the manufacturer's stated figure)? With QF planning a lot of ULR flights, the cruise speed becomes critical because of crew duty limitations.
Yes it is known, and it is not constant in any airline environment. No airline I know of these days flies around constant Mach, its all econ speed. The cost index in the econ speed takes into account the crew costs. A 787/A350 in one airline will run around at different speeds to another, it all depends on what the accountants desire, not the pilots. The A350 will happily go between 0.76 and 0.96 and burn about the same fuel as an A330.

Originally Posted by Troo believer
You forgot that the Boeing CCQ includes the NG/787/777.
CCQ and MFF are Airbus terms, they not available on Boeing types. You are talking about recognized prior learning, which is not the same. In the US, the 787 and 777 are still different type ratings, not so in Australia.
swh is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 10:18
  #619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Orstraylia
Posts: 285
If you look at what other airlines are doing, eg SQ, the 787 is going the LCC, and the A350 full service.
So with that in mind QF would no doubt do the complete opposite and have the completely wrong aircraft type for the intended operation.
Bumpfoh is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 10:40
  #620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,742
Yes it is known, and it is not constant in any airline environment. No airline I know of these days flies around constant Mach, its all econ speed. The cost index in the econ speed takes into account the crew costs. A 787/A350 in one airline will run around at different speeds to another, it all depends on what the accountants desire, not the pilots. The A350 will happily go between 0.76 and 0.96 and burn about the same fuel as an A330.
Thanks for all the info, SWH. I'm aware of all the variables with Cost Index but as fuel is the most significant cost, we find that an aircraft type is operated at similar speeds by different airlines. What I was asking was what speed the A350 was designed to realistically cruise at when it is at optimum altitude for its weight and I believe Veruka Salt's answered the question. Wing sweep is probably the most significant of the many variables that affect the efficient cruise speed and, in the past, Airbus widebody's have had less wing sweep than their Boeing counterparts. It appears that with the A350 they realised the need to cruise faster than M0.81.
Going Boeing 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.