An 'amazing' revelation
 

In news just in, Mr Joyce has an epiphany...

Got to be worth $25 million surely...

Just don't tell the other 20 odd operators of the aircraft that its CASK is half an A380 :E

If the Irish Einstein has figured that out then why the f##k isn’t he pushing the A380 and 747 out the door ASAP and firming up orders for 50 more 787s? A dead set goose, living proof you don’t need a long neck and feathers to be one.

Maybe because you have to pay for the goddamn aircrafts in the first place?

The same reason why everyone don't already own an electric car even when the cost per mile is less than 10%(!!!!) of a petrol/diesel engine?

Just because you have double the aircraft running cheaper ASKs doesn't mean you have the slots to actually use them.

Exactly. Also I’d like to know if it’s just seat cost per mile in the air, or does it include the two lots of airways charges, landing fees and ground handling.

Blind Freddy can see him and others mouthing off about A or B’s weakness depending on the negotiations.

A’s argument was go big due slot constraints and B’s argument was smaller and point to point.

Given the contribution of fuel per ASK (fuel included CASK) I find it incredible that this comment of Joyce's is given any credence and is considered insightful. Lowering a fuel included CASK is elementary:
Denying Qantas a big twin internationally meant the cost base laboured unnecessarily

All the while they focused on JQ, growing that business, from 36 to 120 (approximately) pushing an IR rhetoric beyond Australia that only opaque accounting shields them from the deserved scrutiny of their 'investment'

The JQ 788 a case in point: Denying Qantas domestic a twin aisle 767 equivalent and leaving it with 67 737 meant a crowding of airspace and denying Qantas an asymmetry in product Virgin could not have matched.

Etihad's USD$1.87 billion loss was largely a fleet write down ($1.07 billion)..
Although the A380 purchase was not Joyce's decision the rest has been and Qantas has gone backwards ever since he and the three ringed circus headed by Clifford sat in the seats.

The 'game changing' promise of the 787 has been witnessed by 20 odd other operators. With years of service data, the hoped for gains are readily observable, but Qantas cannot see over the dashboard and any critical thinking once the domain of the mainstream media, has been hastily abandoned for junkets and advertising!

If you replace one large aircraft with 2 smaller ones, won't you need twice the number of crew?

Today MH announced their 6 x A380's will be grounded in 5 months time.

This announcement is hot on the heals of the MH CEO Peter Bellew tendering his resignation. This means they have lost 3 CEO's and 2 x B772's in 3 years.

He just isn't trying. He could have said 3 times 737 couldn't he? 12 dash 8s perhaps?

Bloody lazy management.

And it's not the whole story, is it?

Not the same premium seat complement on 2x B789 vs 1x A380. No first class, for starters.

Yeah; more J on the 2 789s... Probably too many to compare to a 380 side by side and the economy punters are sardined!

Is it still too late for QF to go for a mixed fleet of B777 (various) and B789?. When Singapore gave up on the A340-300 Boeing bought them in exchange for a triple seven order.

I suspect the answer is two fold: fuel prices (the reason for the transformation) and the lack of capital budget. They expended huge resources growing JQ for no tangible return (yet!!!)

It matters little the manufacturer but the simple economics of seat cost given that fuel impacts the operating revenue in a drastic way suggest to not have a twin engined international fleet is at best short sighted. It shows how little corporate governance is actually evident when statements like Mr Joyce's are considered newsworthy and somehow insightful where shareholders reward myopic strategy with the largest corporate pay cheque in Australia.

From a RASK perspective no it is not. It is quite possible that the RASK/CASK premium is better for certain configurations than others.

However any calculation of operating cost returns you to the same question; Mr Joyce is only working out now that CASK is lower on twin engined aircraft?

Why do you think Air New Zealand dumped the last of their four-engine airliners?


It ain't exactly rocket science.

Folks,
It is a reasonable statement to make to say that: If Qantas had had a fleet of B777 in recent years, carrying the same number of passengers as the combined B747/A380 fleet, the fuel operating cost difference would have eliminated the widely publicized "international" losses of the airline. Or, at worst, reduced the losses to the degree that the QF corporate bias against "international" operations may not have been so marked.

Or put another way, having the wrong aircraft in times of high fuel prices (or any time, really) puts you at a huge competitive AND financial disadvantage, vis a vie the airlines who have the best equipment available --- and who are now rolling over old B777 fleets into new B777 (or A350 - maybe) fleets -- CX, BA and one of the world's biggest(~140) B777 fleet operators, Emirates, CZ etc., to name only a few.
Tootle pip!!

615 seats on a 2 class EK 380 at 11.6t/hr. Don't think those little plastic jets will even come close.

DPMO,
Looks like all those major airline managements who have ordered B777/A350, particularly those who have dumped A380 orders, have got it wrong --- I guess that's why the A380 order and production book is really humming along?
Tootle pip!!

On the longer routes to me aircraft type plays a big part in who I will book my flight with also the hub has a role.

I will take the A380 then a 747 over what would next be a 777. Other than the A380 I have not liked the twin rides I have had with Airbus. I certainly don't mind a bit of a wait in Singapore if need be.

Now the idea of running 2 Game Changers as being cheaper than 1 A380 I don't think has been fully calculated - what would the cost of getting another gate and slot (at the same premium time) at say Heathrow?

How much ground equipment will be required? How much extra labour will be needed?

What will be the provision for sick crew both during flight and pre take off (all crew)?


How many extra hotel rooms will need to be used?

What is the difference in insurance?

Will it become too temping to cut a light load flight and run just 1 Game Changer to save a few bucks? Thus giving some punters a reason to fly another airline and maybe preferring it? (As long as the Irish Man gets where he wants, he does not mind leaving other stranded.)

Real-estate at major airports is prime real-estate and not cheap and this is where 2 is better than one isn't so good.

Please don't forget Singapore Airlines, right up there with the most successful in the world! :)

You are sort of right angryrat. It plies it's trade through Copenhagen, Manchester, London and Bangkok. The slave masters still seem to like the bar behind J class.