Jetstar deferring 787 deliveries?
 

This is still very much speculation, but is it possible the Jetstar 787 deliveries are being deferred?
The next aircraft due for delivery from Everett in Line Number 175, VH-VKF. It was rolled out of final assembly in late March and is yet to take its first flight, which usually happens about a month after rollout.
The one after that is LN 189 VH-VKG which was rolled out on May 1. Instead of being parked in the pre-flight stalls for all the necessary stages of preparation for flight testing, it has been parked at the tower apron, which is where 787's have been placed in the past for storage. The regular stages of preparation were not performed on this airframe.
This may be part of some effort to manipulate the financial performance of the company, avoiding the large capital expenditure, probably on the short term.
(Long term storage for 787's is also on the disused RWY 11-29).:hmm:

Operational spares? You can't have too many!

Jetstar deferring 787 deliveries?
 

Something weird happened with the paint job on VKF. It's been back in the Paint Hangar in May, but had to wait a while. There's this Matt Cawby photo from the end of April.
VH-VKF at Paine Field

Very well picked up.... I n t e r e s t i n g.

Although, given the extraordinary 'leadership' we exist under, it could just as easily be yet another total cluster disaster...

That photo clearly shows two different tones of silver on the fuselage. No wonder it went for a re-spray.

As far as our leadership's ability to create chaos where only order existed before...I expect that we haven't yet seen the full breathtaking scope of their ineptitude. We have thus far witnessed 5 1/2 years of palpably stupid strategy; now we shall witness the messy unravelling of it all.

I heard that they upgraded management's omni-directional blame pointer in order to finger all of the external factors preventing Joyce's grand vision being realised. All of which are unique to Qantas, of course.

The thing is, the 787-8 can't operate on all the long routes the A330 operates because some genius ordered the 787-8 with the wrong engine pylons. Im not sure how many 787's Jetstar has currently, but just on the top of my head, the 787 wont be able to fly to Honolulu, or Melbourne to Narita, Melbourne to Singapore. So thats 4 less 787's jetstar needs.

Pylons and ETOPS
 

What differences do Engine Pylons have that effect ETOPS criteria?
Housing for STBY ELEC / RAM air turbine?

Uhh, I was under the impression that there is only one engine pylon for the 787, hence why the engines can be swapped between RR and GE without too much hassle.

Both are on the CASA register as of 16 May. Both owned by the mothership and leased to the parasite.

Where is all of QFs cash going again?

Rumor has it that Qantas have engaged a Melbourne law firm to find a way to back out of a recent aircraft acquisition program.
B787 - unlikely, A380 - probably not, unless its the remaining 8 deferred aircraft, A320 - maybe. They could drop half of the order and still have too many.

Ebt...we were all under the impression that there was a single pylon, but apparently there was some savings to opt for a lightweight pylon matched to the low thrust engine option.

As you know, engine thrust is changed by a setting, but pylon choices are forever. The story goes that the first eight 787s have the low thrust pylon and will forever be cripples. The specification was changed from the ninth aeroplane. In the meantime the low thrust option plus very high seat density means the aeroplane cannot fly the routes for which it was purchased.

Smartest guys in the room. Very small room though.

C441.

If true, the smartest of a bad bunch must have been Boston Bruce.

In my opinion he saw the writing on the wall and made a dash for the Emergency Exit.

All 787-8's have the same engine Pylon, all that is required is a relatively minor mod on the fuel control unit and some minor software upgrades but that will cost $$$$. Current mod status allows any current JQ 330 sector to be covered by the 787 but there will be payload restrictions on the longer sectors i.e. HNL.

STRONG rumor has it as the A380. A particular chair thrower from the past has been "contracted" to share the lawyers bed sheets until finalization.

What I have heard is that there is one pylon design NOW, but originally there was a lighter one offered. The only company to order it was (guess who!) even though Boeing advised against it. 3 or 4 aircraft have these pylons before Boeing stopped offering them. So later aircraft will have the capability for more thrust.:ugh:

Rumour sounds very dodgy in my view.

I suspect any aircraft purchase contract would be governed by US/ European law rather than Australian law, so a Melbourne law firm wouldn't help much.

As for the A320s - if there are too many for JQ, then I suspect we may see them with a red tail. The last big 737 replacement commencing 2001 with the planes taken from AA after Ansett fell over.

On 787-8s order was trimmed from 15 to 14 in Jan-13, then 3 deferred in Feb-14 (wasn't announced for how long). So JQ is only expecting 11.

The A380s wouldn't surprise me - although at some point QF does need to replace the continuing (and refurbed) 9 747s (inc 6 ERs) and then ultimately the A380s themselves.

Cancel that last few A380 orders and get the 777X for the 744ER replacements ...ha I had to mention the 777 but it's too old gen now

I would go for it been the 380. Rumour has it that the deferment is $20 million per airframe per year. Don't shoot the messenger please it's only a rumour.

They are probably deferring to save on parking costs throughout SE Asia.

Best way out of it is to go bankrupt !

no it isn't. Once an administrator is called in it turns into a complete fustercluck. Then it would be all about them maximising their fees.... Anyway, who is likely to appoint? The banks don't seem to be concerned yet, and the board is hardly likely to wave the white flag just yet.

Maybe that's the plan all along. Administration. The wolves made a fortune out of Ansett.

Imagine Qantas?

It's the only explanation for the incompetence.

JQ's 788's
 

It is difficult to understand what the problem is. Based on a 335 passenger load ACAP OEW plus ~3t to bring the aircraft upto DOW the MTOW for HNL-SYD for a 10-hr sector is ~211t. The lowest thrust engine at 53K has no trouble getting this weight in the air on a field length of ~9000ft.

There is no problem with the 788 in JQ service. It's just a great deal more enjoyable to watch the various and baseless heavy landing/ weak pylon/ passenger cap/ RTOW limited/ deferred delivery/thrust rating rumours take life on this forum as 'fact'.

Rubbish the lot of it, but long may it continue!

Allegedly.

Not rubbish
 

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story! The Gold Coast is 2492m long. It CANNOT lift what they wanted out of there (with the first three I believe) because of rwy length and pylons. Told to me by someone who really does know. FACT!

Maggotdriver,

Sorry to disappoint your twisted agenda, but the B788 will be operating:

-Cairns to Tokyo and Osaka by September 14 and

-Gold Coast to Narita late July 2014.

Myth busted

VKA, VKB and VKD all have the same pylons as VKE and every other 788 on the planet, maggot. It's a fallacy and your source clearly does not know.

As for the runway length, every RPT jet has limitations out of that airport under certain conditions. EVEN THE 737/A320!!!! Out of interest, the TODA at Gold Coast is 2402m (2552m on RW32), TORA is 2342m (2492m on RW32 from full length).

A good illustration of how 'FACT' can be distorted so very easily. Especially when it suits your agenda.

Keep 'em coming though. It's fun to watch the falsehood-frenzy!

Allegedly.

Wow, thanks for explaining TODA, TORA etc., I don't know how I got my command without you! Didn't realise that aeroplanes have limitations out of some airports, once again thank-you. The person who told me was one of your pilots involved with the introduction - face to face. I asked why they don't chip the donks and he said they couldn't. Pylons according to him and I've never known him to be anything other than a straight shooter. Personally, I don't think it matters because from what I hear they're usually half empty!:eek:

Hey Maggot,

OK then. Your mate is wrong about the chip as well as the pylon. Each engine could be chipped up to a higher rating but it's not necessary. The aircraft performs just fine.

Loads are good too. Often very few seats spare in fact.

But please, continue your aggressive ranting. I'm enjoying it. FACT!

:D

Muck Fe.

What's that about brotherhood of pilots and all that.

With guys like you all in the "GROUP", who needs enemies or Management to help their agenda? You make their task so easy to achieve. Self destruction at work.

You guys are absolute twits.

I agree entirely.

But he started it...... :}

Focus on the problem
 

Everyone should focus their bad thoughts on the twits that made the decision to buy the frames in the first place.A330's arent any better current config.What model have the light weight floors and long range tanks

Flyingins
Heres another fact:
VKF is now the oldest airframe in Everett (except for the "terrible teens" of course, and besides an Air Canada frame that was damaged by a forklift) that still hasn't flown. An inordinate amount of time has passed since its rollout without any good explanation for this highly unusual 9+ weeks just standing there like some piece of modern art.

That airplane is scheduled to B1 next week, and deliver June 30.

No explanation for the long delay after rollout, but the schedule does show "repaint".

It's not uncommon for new aircraft to be "build ahead" - operators often want to take delivery all at the same time (e.g. to handle the peak summer season) so new aircraft can 'stack up' a bit, then a bunch deliver in a short period. But I have no idea what the story is on this aircraft.

BTW, I asked some counterparts on the 787 program about the "lightweight" pylon. No one had heard of that, but came short of saying it didn't exist.:sad:

Tdracer
Thanks for that, it just about wraps up this story.

Geez Maggotdriver, don't you know anything? I can't believe your a captain!

Every body knows its easy to operate out of the Gold Coast to anywhere when you are empty................. :E

I'm just surprised that they'll even be using two engines due to the piss poor loads. :hmm:

Maybe they could use a caravan.............. :ok:

Normasars, take a bex and have a lie down. I'm well aware of our unity (or requirement thereof) within the GROUP.

Flyingins I assume you must be on it. Apparently, the person I referred to must have told me a porky? Just for my own edification (and their defense), is there, or has there been at any stage a change in thrust ratings for any of the J* 788s? And further, is there any difference between thrust ratings amongst J* 788s? And last but not least, on a normal summer's day can you lift out of the Goldie (on the lower engine speced if indeed you have them) what the 330 can to Narita and if not, is there a higher thrust rating engine spec for the J*788 that could?

moutere101 sorry for the other posts I was just trying to let you know that the runway they operate from wasn't quite 9000 feet more like 8500.

For those who are into this sort of stuff.

A table of all 787 production details, with times for each stage of pre/post production.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=2&output=html

definitely gonna need some more ergs out of the Goldy...but judging by announcement,the negotiations with GE have taken place.......

JQ 788
 

with 53k engines and 8100ft at OOL and assuming a std day (15c) + 12c the MTOW is about 198t. I am assuming the OEW of JQ's frames to be very close to QR's ( similar internal config) at about 115.5t plus about 3t to bring it upto DOW. Piano-X tells me that at max passenger load this variant is good for about 8.5hrs/3950nm which is about OOL-NRT