^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly my first thought too! Don't forget idle reverse, lessor flap & the new app to quantify precisely the savings in every phase of flight. I always wondered why my decent fuel was only half to a third of the flight planned burn, yet the actual FOD figure was always about what you would expect. A fudge in the system to make sure almost everyone "under-burns" compared to the flight planned figure?

It makes complete sense now. Thank you Rated De.

Perhaps someone more 'in the know' with regards to this topic could clarify, but I was of the understanding that these 787 Options were at such a good discount to List Prices the Qantas couldn't afford to NOT take them.

If that is the case, surely there were a few other options here that would have been more financially viable for the Group than letting the Option lapse, like perhaps, taking the frame and leasing it to another operator, or sending it to JQ (or haven't they proven the aircrafts 'worth' yet either?).

I'm fairly sure of one thing, if it is part of more of this childish IR rubbish, it is a waste of time. Most QF and JQ pilots are seemingly used to this kind of nonsense and no-one seems threatened by it anymore. We are all well aware of the looming Pilot shortage, and the difficulty in crewing the lower Paid subsidiaries for the birdseed they offer, and only a massive downturn is going to have any real effect on how individuals will approach the looming QF SH/LH and JQ EA negotiations this year.

All its going to achieve is increasing the risk of the next financial downturn coming around, and QF once again, stuck trying to manage through it with an inefficient, out of date fleet.

That is precisely the point.
They enjoyed a $597 million windfall in fuel price reduction.
The impaired the International fleet saving $326 million

That is pretty much the entire 'turnaround'
The fleet has how many 787 (3 or 4?) of a total of 8?

Mr Clifford may be well suited to the personality and characteristics of rocks, but airlines are completely different. At Rio Tinto if they didn't like the price of ore they left it in the ground. A substantial fuel price spike or indeed demand collapses airlines with inefficient fleets are precariously exposed.


Instead of actually structuring the business to deliver lower CASK, by re-equipping so that if fuel spiked again they would be prepared they instead vested million of options and spent nearly $1.75 billion pumping the share price..


This is from IATA itself...

Industry priorities

IATA recognizes the need to address the global challenge of climate change and adopted a set of ambitious targets to mitigate CO2 emissions from air transport:

• An average improvement in fuel efficiency of 1.5% per year from 2009 to 2020
• A cap on net aviation CO2 emissions from 2020 (carbon-neutral growth)
• A reduction in net aviation CO2 emissions of 50% by 2050, relative to 2005 levels

Short of a grounding or fleet change it will be interesting to see just how Qantas achieves the targets. Thanks CT it would appear that the office holders reap the KPI and the passengers suffer in stifling cabins because the international fleet burns almost double the fuel per ASK.


Interestingly Mr Joyce and Clifford denied Qantas domestic a twin aisle aircraft sending the 788 to JQ.

• There are now nearly three 737 required to carry the same ASK as two 767.
• Six pilots needed
• More cabin crew?
• More fuel burned
• Airspace congestion as more airframes in same 'air space' (think terminal area) leads to delays and holding

Seems like pure efficiency to me.

Must be the labour cost or the Sale Act. Have a look in the mirror Leigh it is that guy who is responsible.

So who's complaining about more pilots, F/A's and ginger beers having jobs?

As for congestion I suggest a trip to ATL TMA might give a hint to real congestion..

Nice.

However the thread and the conversation are about 'efficiency'.
More aircraft and pilots and engineers because management chose to send the twin aisle 788 to JQ denying Qantas domestic of a 'game changing' premium domestic product is not transformation now is it?

Rumours about A321s for JQ international might mean the 788 in JQ colours being bought back to mainline.

Why would you operate a small fleet of 788s beside a majority fleet of A320/321s? Sure the 788 has greater range, but does JQ actually utilise that range with any of its current 788 routes? The A321LR has comparable range to a 763 which should suffice for its needs.

Rumours may also be the next step in an IR campaign softening pilots for contractual outcomes more to the company likening. The first step was announcing 457 visas in the Christmas New Year shutdown.

QANTAS has a SMALLER 788 fleet than Jetstar (8 vs 11) IsDon...just saying ��

When did they ever ask for a $3b unsecured loan?

Qantas asked for $3 billion unsecured loan, Prime Minister Tony Abbott says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

There, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

Thanks. I couldn’t find it on google.

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/03/04/hockeys-hint-qantas-wanted-7-bn-guarantee-to-smash-competitors/
No you didn’t look. Couldn’t find it. Troll.

Not for long.

Allegedly....

Wouldn't be too stressed about this for awhile. Whilst it WILL do a Bali flight from Eastcoast Aus ports, the range the thing doesn't have is a problem. Airbus quote the 321neo as having 4000nm range.......:rolleyes: Perhaps..... but not with 230 punters jetstar want, nor carrying ANY freight in the holds because they need to be filled with auxiliary fuel tanks.
Anywhere else in the JQ international network forget it.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the 321neo, but I was reading something, somewhere, from Airbus the other week, that with a strengthened undercarriage being worked on, the 321LR supposedly will do that distance with around that number of punters. ‘Lightly configured’, whatever that means, a range closer to 5000nm was quoted :eek:(quoted by Airbus, so take it with a grain of salt).

The ABC is using a poor metric for evaluating efficiency. Breguet's range formula is appropriate to use if you are doing any comparison, but ASK is not.

The Qantas fleet mix is not optimum, but it also not bad. The A380 has a niche market that is appropriate to part of QF's program, but you definitely need the feeder system into it. The B777 and B787 are good aircraft, but if you want to you can also get lousy "marks" using the ABC's method for those aircraft as well. An aircraft is a transportation device to achieve a payload transport, and hat includes cargo etc. Comparing the A330 to the B777-200ER shows that the 330 looks great, if it is moving out to ranges of not more than 10 hours, AND if no cargo is hauled for commercial freight; add longer flight stages or high value freight, and the the picture changes. There are lousy routes to fly with particular aircraft, but the metric needs careful analysis to say which is which.

As a fraction of total weight for a given sector, very few airlines will match QF's fuel load or fuel burn for a specific airframe.

QF could use the 777 and the 787 effectively, but is also a good candidate for the A350.

A long time back I was doing an investigation on the MD11F and comparing with the B772, and it is interesting to see the similarity of the airframes performances, up to 4000nm, beyond that there is no comparison, but equally, at that sort of range, if you can tech stop without grief, then that is efficient to do usually, spot fuel price dependent.

Only 3x 787s and they are already changing the flying pattern. Melbourne - LAX was supposed to be daily now going back to 2 days a week with the A380 picking up where it left off.
Already leaving LAX at MTOW while having to lock seats out just to make it home. Game changer, absolutely.

What did they think would happen when reducing the available seats by over 50% on that route? It may be a good aircraft but I don't think it is an ultra-long haul aircraft.

PER-LHR another route with seats to be locked out and probably minimal if any cargo. Awesome.

The numbers don't add up, not on the routes they have chosen to use it on. It is not the right aircraft IMHO.

No wonder they have chosen not to take up the options at this time. Maybe there will be some announcement on Monday once all the execs have had their jolly on the A350-1000. Now that would be a game changer

A350-900 would be a good choice, 15 hr sector and no need to restrict seats

Bootstrap dunno where you get the 50% reduction from. A380 was and still is a daily service. Only change is the additional B744 (I think it was 5 days a week) now B787 4 or 5 days a week - hardly a 50% reduction. And don't forget soon Melbourne to San Francisco to add to Nth American routes.