Just announced in ausbt additional 6 787-9s to be ordered for QF

This reduction in capacity is an absolute game changer!

Very good points.
There is a crossover where old versus new is considered necessary, a large input in the consideration is the fuel price.
Simply put if fuel is cheap enough, it makes sense to hold on to older aircraft, despite supposed higher maintenance and operating costs.
With the IATA required reductions in CO2 difficult to achieve with the current fleet metrics, fleet renewal was increasingly obvious.
The fact that the RPK costs 64% more to deliver across the Pacific is empirically relevant when considering the relative urgency of the renewal.
It may well be, contango in the fuel price and an increase in the cost of capital forced their hand.
We were prepared to consider the narrative of RealityCzech with the caveat that they 'didn't' need a fleet renewal if fuel price was low. We surmise that the narrative of Relaityczech is more an industrial theme that has been used many times before. Qantas has demonstrated a liking for fear and doubt. Scaring the staff is an airline management preoccupation. Effectively QED, Qantas needed a new fleet.

Effectively a book value of zero represents the accountant perception. Depreciation schedules vary enormously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Economic life in an asset is a different metric.

Given the current JQ fleet of A320 are older and may in most jurisdictional contexts have a close to zero book valu,e perhaps the only place they can go realistically is into yet another subsidiary?

According to the FAQs because the 787s require less maintenance they'll be able to fly more passengers. Not sure how that works given the 747s pretty much arrive everywhere and turnaround and depart immediately after (except for HND) but I'm no genius.

Reckon the training system's under pressure now? This announcement has just dropped AT LEAST 260 additional movements (minus a few inevitable retirements) in to the system in the next two and a half years. That's roughly 10 a month on average, more if the RIN results in displacements and further residuals. Not sure how the system will cope. Not well, would be my conclusion at this point.

Be interesting to see how the RIN from this pans out. Obviously some will go to the 787, but a high percentage would have the numbers to displace from the 380.

What will happen to the Santiago and Joburg flights with no 747's? Also will this be a significant down gauge on the Pacific routes currently operated by 747's? Whatever new routes the additional 787's explore will surely be a reduction in existing routes operated by 747's. You can't have it both ways.

Thanks BB, I knew it was something like that

I dare say quite a few crew will disappear with the old girl.

My bet is zero chance of the ER's to be gone by 2020. Think back to the Classic and how long they hung around, so Zero chance.

But it looks good on paper to the market stating that they are getting rid of those expensive pesky gas guzzlers.
This morning Sky Business were talking oil to potentially spike through $100per barrel by years end so if this becomes reality QF have been smart pre-empting the market by this news. If the oil price doesn't come to fruition then they lose nothing and can potentially extend the ER's life expectancy.

Sometimes things aren't always black and white.:ok:

Literally most of the 600 787 airliners flying have been protecting their operators from rising fuel included CASK for the last five years!
Sorry we politely disagree, pre-emptive it is not. Any oil industry analyst has been warning that contango is very much part of the term structure of crude oil pricing for the last 12 months. Qantas are forward hedging fuel, but they are hedging into a bigger headwind.
The point of this thread is that they have been way behind on this issue having only been spared because of the low fuel prices, which now is accepted are no longer so low.

Qantas need a new fleet.

Please....end the suspense. Who is 'we'?

The ‘We’ could be almost any one of Qantas’ loyal employees. If ‘we’ can be discredited for asking questions with simple answers (because business IS simple and complex answers are rubbish - trust me on that) then so much the better.

It’s the questions that are important. The questioners should be welcomed. A transparent operator has a simple (and believable! Take note RC!!) answer to every question. Nor should the questioner be ridiculed.

It’s the lack of sensible and simple answers that have led to so many problems.