Qantas Fleet 2010+
Thread Starter
Qantas Fleet 2010+
There have been quite a few threads recently on both this and other forums relating to the future make up of the QF fleet. Many have thrown up some very interesting points, so here's my two cents worth for what it's worth.
Firstly (and many people will disagree with this I know) I think there is definitley a place in the QF long-haul fleet for the Boeing 777. In just a quick look, I counted 9 major operators worldwide of both the A330 and the B777. It is worth noting that most of these can be found in our region. They include Cathay, Thai, Malaysia, Asiana, Korean and also Emirates and Gulf Air. Clearly these airlines perceive these types as having very different roles.
It is envisaged the A330-300 will replace much of the regional international flying currently performed by the 767 in the QF network. Qantas has already stated publically that the 767 will be phased out of operations in around 10 years' time.
The B777 can perform many of the heavier routes currently operated by the B747. This includes services to Japan, Honolulu, Indonesia, NZ and Singapore. Taking a quick glance at the 8,500 nm range capability of the recently re-launched B777-200LR also offers some interesting city pairs which have probably not escaped QF's eye. Such a range would allow non-stop city pais such as Perth-Rome, Singapore-Frankfurt/Paris, Auckland-Los Angeles and would you believe, Auckland-New York.
The A380 will be introduced from 2006, operating on very heavy routes such as London and Los Angeles. As I see it, this leaves little room for the B747-400 in Qantas' future fleet. It would be pointless to keep the 'original jumbo' in service for other routes which have no ETOPS restrictions and can be operated by the B777 at a far more economical rate while carrying just as many passengers in the case of the 777-300.
To duplicate the role of the A380 and the B747 seems irrational.
So, as I see it, the Qantas fleet might look something like this:
A380-800 High demand service to US and London
B777-300 Services to Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, NZ, Indonesia, Honolulu
A330-300 Regional workhorse of smaller Asian/Pacific ports.
This fleet make-up comprises three main type ratings in operation - just the same as the current number in the international fleet (B744, Classics and 767.) Obviously, the A330 would also operate on high demand domestic routes, supplemented by something like the 737-900X which will accommodate close to 200 passengers on an identical rating the the current NG's already in service. A world-wide amd domestic network on just four types sound pretty reasonable to me.
All this of course is subject to just how many routes will eventually be taken over in the future by AO. Interesting times ahead....
Firstly (and many people will disagree with this I know) I think there is definitley a place in the QF long-haul fleet for the Boeing 777. In just a quick look, I counted 9 major operators worldwide of both the A330 and the B777. It is worth noting that most of these can be found in our region. They include Cathay, Thai, Malaysia, Asiana, Korean and also Emirates and Gulf Air. Clearly these airlines perceive these types as having very different roles.
It is envisaged the A330-300 will replace much of the regional international flying currently performed by the 767 in the QF network. Qantas has already stated publically that the 767 will be phased out of operations in around 10 years' time.
The B777 can perform many of the heavier routes currently operated by the B747. This includes services to Japan, Honolulu, Indonesia, NZ and Singapore. Taking a quick glance at the 8,500 nm range capability of the recently re-launched B777-200LR also offers some interesting city pairs which have probably not escaped QF's eye. Such a range would allow non-stop city pais such as Perth-Rome, Singapore-Frankfurt/Paris, Auckland-Los Angeles and would you believe, Auckland-New York.
The A380 will be introduced from 2006, operating on very heavy routes such as London and Los Angeles. As I see it, this leaves little room for the B747-400 in Qantas' future fleet. It would be pointless to keep the 'original jumbo' in service for other routes which have no ETOPS restrictions and can be operated by the B777 at a far more economical rate while carrying just as many passengers in the case of the 777-300.
To duplicate the role of the A380 and the B747 seems irrational.
So, as I see it, the Qantas fleet might look something like this:
A380-800 High demand service to US and London
B777-300 Services to Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, NZ, Indonesia, Honolulu
A330-300 Regional workhorse of smaller Asian/Pacific ports.
This fleet make-up comprises three main type ratings in operation - just the same as the current number in the international fleet (B744, Classics and 767.) Obviously, the A330 would also operate on high demand domestic routes, supplemented by something like the 737-900X which will accommodate close to 200 passengers on an identical rating the the current NG's already in service. A world-wide amd domestic network on just four types sound pretty reasonable to me.
All this of course is subject to just how many routes will eventually be taken over in the future by AO. Interesting times ahead....
Last edited by Buckshot; 25th Apr 2003 at 08:14.
.
And they lost an engine on one of those flights too buckshot, ended up having 3 hours across the ocean to hawaii on one pony. Give me the A340 or a 747 over oceans anyday!
Despite all the range promises EVEN after SQ has ridded itself of the earlier A340s and a current huge fleet of 777s, they are going for the A340-500s for SIN-US west coast services.
Despite all the range promises EVEN after SQ has ridded itself of the earlier A340s and a current huge fleet of 777s, they are going for the A340-500s for SIN-US west coast services.
Thread Starter
True, UA did have a 3 hour diversion - but that was a Pratt. Wouldn't happen in a Trent or GE! (Ducks for cover....)
Seriously though, your average punter wouldn't know the difference between 2,3 or 4 engines. Ticket price is the driving factor.
It's not my intention to turn this into an ETOPS argument though.
Seriously though, your average punter wouldn't know the difference between 2,3 or 4 engines. Ticket price is the driving factor.
It's not my intention to turn this into an ETOPS argument though.
Thread Starter
Hobay,
Once again, I think that the -400ER will become somewhat redundant in the QF fleet once the A380 arrives from 2006.
If you compare the performance of the two types, the Bus does it better and cheaper.
-400ER A380
MTOW (k) 413t 560t
Range (km) 14,200 14,800
Pax (PJY) 416 555
Whether or not you really need a 555 seater on a sector like MEL-LAX is another thing - time will only tell. I'm sure the folks at Toulouse will happily trade in the Boeing flagship following the SQ A340 events.
Once again, I think that the -400ER will become somewhat redundant in the QF fleet once the A380 arrives from 2006.
If you compare the performance of the two types, the Bus does it better and cheaper.
-400ER A380
MTOW (k) 413t 560t
Range (km) 14,200 14,800
Pax (PJY) 416 555
Whether or not you really need a 555 seater on a sector like MEL-LAX is another thing - time will only tell. I'm sure the folks at Toulouse will happily trade in the Boeing flagship following the SQ A340 events.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just out of interest about that 777 that had the shutdown and went to hawaii, heard that they busted the etops time by about 10 mins or so. If so what is the deal with that? Is the route dependent on the winds, ie the aircraft continuously computes its position relative to a 207min single engine cruise distance???
Hope someone has some more info..
Hope someone has some more info..
Nunc est bibendum
Kiwilad, the ETOPS time limit is a PLANNING limitation only. Once you're in flight, you can take as long as you like to get to your airport. EG, QF uses 430 knots as our ETOPS speed (it was originally based on Darwin to Manila and two hours!). Lauda used a greater speed on their 767s due to their particular route structure. Once the event occurs though, you have no requirement to be there in the time limit. As an example, if the event happened at the exact mid point between DN and MNL, then there is no way you could average the 430 knots to get to MNL (including the descent phase). So, it would actually take closer to two hours ten to get there. Further, wind is NOT a factor in determining the ETOPS airfield. You may battle a 100 knot wind all the way there. Obviously, this is going to turn a 'two hour' sector into close to a three hour one.
ETOPS is a distance. How long it takes to get there is another thing entirely!
ETOPS is a distance. How long it takes to get there is another thing entirely!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Keg,
Thanks for that, is the 430kts figure taken from the single engine crusie table or is it something the operator can choose to fit its route?
If an aircraft does bust the time limit but not the distance limit does anything happen? If not then what is the point of ETOPS? Having a shorter time period only reduces the amount of sweating the pilots have to do. I do agree lessens the chance of further failure also, but seems to be a little bit ironic?
Interested in your reply.
Thanks for that, is the 430kts figure taken from the single engine crusie table or is it something the operator can choose to fit its route?
If an aircraft does bust the time limit but not the distance limit does anything happen? If not then what is the point of ETOPS? Having a shorter time period only reduces the amount of sweating the pilots have to do. I do agree lessens the chance of further failure also, but seems to be a little bit ironic?
Interested in your reply.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The actual ETOPS speed is chosen by the operator and subject to approval. The speed schedule used is for planning purposes only and assumes nil wind. The schedule may be (say) M.82/340kts or M.80/290kts. or whatever. There is NO requirement that the crew actually fly at the ETOPS speed schedule in the event of engine failure. The Sp Scdl. is only used to determine the radius of operation from an adequate airport. The whole objective with ETOPS is to somhow achive an equivalent level of safety for twins compared to 3 or 4 engine aircaft. It does this by requiring a high level of engineering reliability and aircraft serviceability; certain MELs may preclude ETOPS. The whole thing is really nothing more than a bit of a fudge when all is said and done...
