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

Qantas to get A321 NEO

Old 5th Oct 2021, 03:14
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2,717
My money is on the 737 Max as they will be the cheapest option and everyone can keep on shoehorning themselves into a domestic aircraft for another 20+ years. Joyce is already winging about prices in that article so we all know what this is about and it's not passenger experience and comfort.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2021, 04:27
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 1,046
The A320/1 order is still too heavy for the Star, unless they push those deliveries out to early next decade. Japan does not want these.

Perhaps a A220 order with an associated change in dates for the above narrow-body order as part of the deal.

Cheap MAXs will be too hard to ignore.
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2021, 06:13
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: In the Trees
Posts: 166
I think with economies of scale and the ability to shift airframes between entities as required as per Jetstar and Network, coupled with the ULA cargo loading, reduced ground handling costs and crews being able to do the load calculations I think the 737 days in Qantas colours might unfortunately me numbered ( as a tear drops from my eye!)

I think the only real question will be does short haul mainline survive or does the domestic fleet become ďlinkĒ with the associated flying done under an entity, leaving long haul the only mainline brand ??
ANCDU is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2021, 06:17
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 1,046
Boeing wonít let the 737 vanish from the fleet. They will give them 50 for next to nothing if they need to.

MAX and NEO is end of life for this narrow body series, Boeing will want QF in its court for the next 20 years, so they can transition them over to whatever follows the MAX. Otherwise they will be in bed with Airbus forever and ever.
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2021, 06:35
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 564
Originally Posted by brokenagain View Post
A350 + A320NEO + A220.
Absolutely and this post was the first mention of the 220? I suspect the 220 could be Australia bound for the F100s.
nivsy is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2021, 06:36
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 564
Originally Posted by PoppaJo View Post
The A320/1 order is still too heavy for the Star, unless they push those deliveries out to early next decade. Japan does not want these.

Perhaps a A220 order with an associated change in dates for the above narrow-body order as part of the deal.

Cheap MAXs will be too hard to ignore.
Yes on the 220....maybe?
nivsy is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2021, 07:02
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by nivsy View Post
Absolutely and this post was the first mention of the 220? I suspect the 220 could be Australia bound for the F100s.
Too expensive for the work that the Fokker does. Fokker work will be done by Alliance (in QLink colours) into the future, Network will expand into intra-state (ADL and DRW) 320 work, 717 will eventually be replaced with the newer 100 seat jets.

Whatever happens the most important thing is to not let QF make it a competition to bring down Pilot wages. If your flying a 100 seat jet with a Kangaroo on the tail you should be getting paid the same as every other 100 seat company. I think NJS is the leader for wages at the moment so thatís the target for Network F100 and Alliance E-Jets as a bare minimum.
aussieflyboy is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2021, 07:45
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Al's Diner
Age: 61
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by Goat Whisperer View Post
what about a surprise bid from China with ARJ21s and CR919s!

(tongue firmly in cheek)
Donít tell McGowan that China makes jets. Heíll be mandating them for WA FIFO

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-...ness/100502212
Potsie Weber is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2021, 08:07
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: HKG
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by Potsie Weber View Post
Donít tell McGowan that China makes jets. Heíll be mandating them for WA FIFO

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-...ness/100502212
McFlog is sh^t scared of China invading his state so he canít get enough of sucking up to them. No doubt he will try and use his Navy ties to cancel the subs too, donít want to prod the bear.

Oops, thread drift, sorry.
Green.Dot is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2021, 14:52
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 190
Iím surprised the French havenít withdrawn their bidÖ or have they forgiven us already?
Derfred is online now  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 03:50
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: 3rd Rock
Posts: 201
My money is also on the Max.

The group wide economies of scale (regarding the bus) will be negated by Airbus being able to bend Qantas over the barrell with any fleet planning in the long distant future should all (but a few 787s) already be operated by that one manufacturer. Divide and conquer works beyond the pilot group.

Mostly however I say Max because surely they must be cheap which seems to be the priority in local fleet acquisition.
For that reason I also can't see A220s coming. Ever.
Lapon is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 05:55
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Oztralia
Posts: 127
I’m guessing MAX. The big factor before was workers comp payouts for baggage handlers. Isn’t that all outsourced now?

Also, the 73 fleet I spread out considerable from oldest to youngest. Thought it would with transition training being drip fed Nnew max’s…as opposed with a new set of 321’s.

As much as I’d prefer tray tables. 321’s are great on paper, though.
SixDemonBag is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 06:05
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 1,471
Originally Posted by Lapon View Post
For that reason I also can't see A220s coming. Ever.
A220 listing price is 50% more than an E-195 for barely any extra capacity and a higher fuel burn, and Embraer have the advantage of a more mature airframe and plenty of existing types operating in Oz, including existing Alliance ones under the Qlink banner. Donít really need to splash out all the bells and whistles for a regional jet.

dr dre is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 06:27
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: home
Posts: 402
A220 to Notwork?
Tell him he's dreamin
I guess if they sold the entire Dutch oven fleet they'd have enough for a deposit...... for 1 A220
airdualbleedfault is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 11:07
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by ANCDU View Post
I think with economies of scale and the ability to shift airframes between entities as required as per Jetstar and Network, coupled with the ULA cargo loading, reduced ground handling costs and crews being able to do the load calculations I think the 737 days in Qantas colours might unfortunately me numbered ( as a tear drops from my eye!)

I think the only real question will be does short haul mainline survive or does the domestic fleet become ďlinkĒ with the associated flying done under an entity, leaving long haul the only mainline brand ??
I don't see QF ever allowing Tech Crew to do the Loadsheet. One of the advantages of the way it is done now on mainline is that the Crew are checking someone else's work - the system is too embedded with Altea FM down to a point now where the system is customised with very, very standardised planning and production, for those who knew the old QF ALP Load Control system, FM has something akin to the 'monitor control' in the old system which automated routine W/B functions but FM goes a lot further by taking it down to individual flight/day characteristics. Hence, the LC process is more secure with the Central LC folks doing it and the Captain signing it.

I don't see that changing in Mainline either, even with the A320neo if it ends up becoming the aircraft of choice - the ULD capability will virtually eliminate injuries on the ramp and make for quicker turnarounds. As long as they don't do the egregiously DUMB Ansett act of paying to have the ULD systems removed.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 11:11
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by SixDemonBag View Post
Iím guessing MAX. The big factor before was workers comp payouts for baggage handlers. Isnít that all outsourced now?

Also, the 73 fleet I spread out considerable from oldest to youngest. Thought it would with transition training being drip fed Nnew maxísÖas opposed with a new set of 321ís.

As much as Iíd prefer tray tables. 321ís are great on paper, though.
While it's not containerised/ULD capable, the MAX, like the 738s presumably will be retrofitted with sliding carpet which does virtually the same thing but still requires some stacking of load but not crawling halfway up the compartment crouched down to stack bags - and yes, with it all outsourced now, methinks the workers comp issue is now 'Problem-belongim-ground-handling-pela'
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2021, 03:11
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2,717
Isn't the issue with the ULD system that you need expensive ground equipment everywhere to make it work? It also makes diversions a bit more complicated. As opposed to just throwing a few bags down a conveyor belt.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2021, 03:50
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post
Isn't the issue with the ULD system that you need expensive ground equipment everywhere to make it work? It also makes diversions a bit more complicated. As opposed to just throwing a few bags down a conveyor belt.
Exactly the argument AN used and then proceeded to spend millions over the next 20 years on injuries and compensation, with which they could have bought more loading machines than they ever needed.

Any argument about cost of the equipment is irrelevant these days because there are now many more suppliers on the market and prices are a fraction of what FMC charges (FMC is the better machine but it 3-4 times the cost).

As for diversions, we used to have them occasionally many years ago, on one occasion a QF 743 and a 762 went into CBR - they just sent the pax on TN to SYD and MEL without their bags and flew them down the next day on the aeroplane(s).

Because of JQ, most ports have scissor lift equipment now anyway so I think the diversion point is moot.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2021, 04:14
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2,717
Exactly the argument AN used and then proceeded to spend millions over the next 20 years on injuries and compensation, with which they could have bought more loading machines than they ever needed.
Let me guess, the cost of the ground equipment affected someones budget and therefore their bonus but they could pay workers comp forever without impunity.

Someone should write a book on all the stupid short term self serving decisions made by airline management. It would be quite interesting.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2021, 09:36
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia the Awesome
Posts: 347
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post
Let me guess, the cost of the ground equipment affected someones budget and therefore their bonus but they could pay workers comp forever without impunity.

Someone should write a book on all the stupid short term self serving decisions made by airline management. It would be quite interesting.
And it still goes on to this day :-(
Roj approved 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.