PPRuNe Forums - So you need a new fleet Leigh?

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)

- - So you need a new fleet Leigh? (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/604103-so-you-need-new-fleet-leigh.html)

Maybe it is. But due to the wonders of our capitalistic society, you have a choice..........

A 738 burns approximately 21.20 kg fuel per passenger on a 90-minute sector. A 788 burns, depending on configuration between 21.45 kg per passenger and 33.0 kg per passenger on a 90-minute sector.

Given Qantas in economy have a 30-inch pitch seat, a higher density is likely, bringing the fuel per passenger close to that achieved by a Jetstar 788 of 21.45kg per passenger. Of course you are correct there will be a small fuel saving, but to achieve that small ‘saving’:

· Qantas require nearly 4 738 to uplift the same passenger count. ( Or maybe a B717 instead of the fourth B738-Interestingly the hourly cost is almost the same)
· 8 pilots not 4 are required
· 8 engines, not four are required
· Assuming that the configuration is greater than 216 passengers, the 788 or alternative twin aisle will require 8 flight attendants (16 in total) as detailed in CAO 20.16.3, Qantas can, fly with 4 flight attendants on the 738, although often times they carry an additional flight attendant. Thus they require 16 flight attendants spread over the four 738 aircraft.
· Four gates, dispatch staff and engineering support are required, in both Sydney and Melbourne.
· Four aircraft are now squeezed into the airspace that two could occupy. Of course the same congestion applies to the check in, baggage and tarmac space.
· There are four invoices totaling somewhere in the vicinity of $2,700 per hour, not two.

Currently the Qantas A330 domestic configuration can deliver 297 passengers at around 26.5 kg of fuel per passenger. Again the airspace is less congested, less pilots are needed and if less than 100% load factor is achieved on the 738 Qantas still need to squeeze four of them in the airspace and on the gates.The yield and revenue mix is difficult to quantify outside fort fumble, but our guess would be that the premium seat would yield significantly more in Qantas livery than Jetstar

Depends on their focus. If management talk about fuel (isn't it a DFO KPI?) and exclude all other practical considerations, then sure thing, shut down an engine when sitting at a holding point as the three aircraft in front wait to cross the same intersection. Naturally departures may also be sequenced off the active runway, so you may be a while. Of course having crossed the intersection, kindly wait for the occupied gate to become unencumbered so that your aircraft can enter the same apron, fourth in line.

Qantas need a new fleet.

As usual, things are more complicated than your analysis.

2 pilots vs 4?
Well, a 737 crew do a SYD-MEL-SYD pattern they are paid 3 hours. 787 crew do it and they get 5:30 and the 787 hourly rate is higher. So from a pilot cost perspective is it cheaper running 2 737’s?
Obviously the 787 looks better if they do another return service but you’ll be outside the peak time by then so do you need to fly a widebody load then?

If less than 100% load factor is achieved on the 738...
Well that is surely a situation where 2 737’s are a significant advantage. Look at how Qantas dynamically manage capacity during the peak hours each day. On days with a light load they cancel the half-past the hour flight and roll pax onto the on the hour flight. Huge cost saving for the company.

You can’t do that with a half empty 787 as you’d end up with an hour long hole in the schedule and business passengers won’t stand for it.

Gate congestion?
How many gates in SYD, MEL and BNE can 787’s park on? A quarter, a third, of the available gates?? If you widen the gates you end up with fewer anyway.

And what of the cost of the aircraft? The 789 costs almost triple the price of a 738 yet holds less than double the passengers.

The 789 is a brilliant aircraft and I hope they order many more but to say that they are foolish for not running them SYD-MEL ignores a lot of the real operating dynamics of that route.

Quote:

International has been a difficult division for Qantas, which has faced an influx of competitors adding routes to Australia and driving down airfares.Earnings grew 6 per cent last financial year, but plunged 60 per cent in the first half of this year, from $224 million to $90 million, thanks to a $219 million blow-out in its fuel bill.

If the rumoured discussion took place, resulting in Ms Webster being rapidly escorted form the premises, then telling the truth in a time of company wide deceit is indeed a revolutionary act.

Qantas need a new fleet.

https://www.smh.com.au/topic/qan-199

So much for OEB going on the 5th of April. Does it have a new retirement date or just ‘whenever Jetstar get their 787 back’? Passengers must be happy especially the ones getting upgrades.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patty50 (Post 10447813)

So much for OEB going on the 5th of April. Does it have a new retirement date or just ‘whenever Jetstar get their 787 back’? Passengers must be happy especially the ones getting upgrades.

It was and still leaving on 30th April.

I suspect there may be a first new aircraft order from Joyce about to happen. With Boeing looking at having cancellations for the Max there will be a lot of new aircraft at very good prices.
What's the betting that 75 Max 8s will be ordered as soon as the aircraft is OK'ed.
It would help Boeing to have long established customer support them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by limelight (Post 10449237)

Why would they? Its unlikely the public will ever accept them after the crashes and Boeing's almost point blank refusal to accept responsibility, instead being shamed into doing anything by foreign regulators grounding the aircraft, and their cosy relationship with the US regulator which means nothing will change.

I have been told that Qantas have knocked back any more additional flying for Jetstar, I’m guessing no aircraft probably.

I reckon LL is on the money, well if a SH order goes in. Yes the 320/321 would be perfect but that’s a complete type replacement.

The general public WILL forget.

The slightly knowledgeable may not. However if it’s a direct flight on a Max v stops? Only flight?

Unless the Max never flies again it will sell, maybe under a new name.

Mmmmaaaaxxxxximum $ value is what will be seen!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Global Aviator (Post 10449243)

Yeah, there’s a fair chance Boeing would love to get a high profile legacy customer to place some orders so as to espouse confidence in the aircraft. Both for future orders and those already flying. So a too good to refuse deal could make that a reality.

It it wouldn’t be out of the realms of possibility for this to be the case. Add in that the training, engineering and operational expertise is already there as well, so more $$$ saved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExtraShot (Post 10449281)

So a too good to refuse deal could make that a reality.

Qantas would have problems rebuilding one of them if it nosedived into planet earth...let alone killed anyone... Safety is one of their top priorities, would they jeopardize that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee Vee (Post 10449283)

Qantas would have problems rebuilding one of them if it nosedived into planet earth...let alone killed anyone... Safety is one of their top priorities, would they jeopardize that?

So no one should buy anymore 737 max aircraft ever again?

Clearly, Qantas, CASA, EASA, FAA etc would have to be satisfied that Boeing has fixed the issues with the 737MAX, and that it is safe to fly. That is kind of a threshold issue, and it is pretty clear that the various safety authorities are looking into this much more thoroughly than is normally the case - i.e. each country certifying the MAX and not following the usual practice of accepting the US certification.

I'm fairly certain that the point being made is that, once recertified, Boeing would be eager to land a blue chip order like Qantas to help restore the reputation of the plane.

Quote:

I'm fairly certain that the point being made is that, once recertified, Boeing would be eager to land a blue chip order like Qantas to help restore the reputation of the plane

Exactly. Maybe it’ll be Qantas, maybe not, but someone will get some cheap aircraft out of this, that’s for sure.

Boeing: "you can have the 737 Max"
Qantas: "that's good"
Boeing: "the 737 Max is cursed"
Qantas: "that's bad"
Boeing: "the 737 Max has MCAS"
Qantas: "that's good"
Boeing: "the MCAS is also cursed"
Qantas :"that's bad..."

Does the Max come with a free frogurt, or contain potassium benzoate...? :hmm:

I wouldn’t worry about QF ordering the MAX. Ay Jay doesn’t see the need for an airline to own aircraft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruprecht (Post 10449541)

The frogurt is also cursed

Quote:

Originally Posted by maggot (Post 10450123)

The frogurt is also cursed

if the crew followed the checklist Memory items they would not have lost control. It’s not a fault with the Max, it’s pilot error in this case unfortunately. The stab trim cutout switches should not have been reengaged.

Better call the world’s regulators and Boeing then. They'll be glad to hear that the Max has been safe all along.