No one will order a 747 in passenger configuration going forward for the reasons given by Rated

Only 47 -8I bought so far and no order for 18 months+

The big twins will get more economic not less and the 747 will be only built as a freighter - but it's had a 45 year run so not to shabby really

This would come as a mystery to US carriers, for whom the C accommodation is only there for those paying Y fares who are at the upper tiers of their frequent flyer scheme, and F is there for those few paying C class fares/any politicians to influence, who are then bumped further forward from C to cater for the first group.

The 747's are old, noisy, have bad pressure and humidity levels and of course no WIFI. I will never fly one of these by choice.

I have on a number of occasions chosen a different airline, so I can fly on a modern, quiet, low altitude pressurised and humidified, WIFI enabled aircraft.

So you are limited to the 787 only. Don’t know that wifi is that common?

the A380 is my choice whenever possible, if you look at the airfare screenshot I posted earlier, you'll see almost every other aniline except Qantas offers WIFI to LHR (and many other destinations too).

Dee Vee
That’s because all those other airlines don’t have a massive executive bonus scheme dragging them down like Qantas’ management inspired millstones do !
Money that could be better spent on things like wifi and modern aircraft !

Qantas will have WiFi in long haul shortly. It’s being rolled out domestically and it works very well. It uses the NBN satellites and is about the fastest airborne WiFi you’ll see anywhere. No problems streaming HD Netflix.

My experiences with WiFi offered by other carriers has been so slow it’s really not even with considering. Ok for checking emails and web browsing but totally useless for streaming.

This is why Qantas haven’t yet jumped into WiFi internationally yet. The current offering is just not good enough. Domestically the geostationary NBN satellites provide the desired speed but there isn’t an internationally equivalent option as yet.

The cow-cockies will be happy about that.

Emails and browsing and social media is what most people use it for, and it is perfect for that, I've never encountered any problems.

Aircraft WIFI isn't designed for streaming, and to use that (or wanting to be "offline") as excuses for not having it is to be frank, insulting people's intelligence. If you want to stream Netflix, then download it before you leave and play it offline, if you want to be "offline" turn off your phone.

Given that the "cow-cockies" have to handle a thing called nbn's fair use policy which seems to be per receiver based I wonder how they are handling the potential usage from a lot of people on a single receiver.


Sky Muster has some "nice" features like it drops out with a bit of moisture in the air. More of an issue at ground level than at cruise levels but it is not as stable as some of the other commercial satellite services like the Optus birds.

Not having WiFi is to me an advantage as I'm left alone for a change!

I was using wifi on a trip to London via the ME in 2014!

What are Qantas waiting for exactly?

Q has a lot to make up for when it comes to international product offerings including but not limited to wifi. It’s pretty embarrassing what q dishes out to its customers relative to other airlines. Domestically though, it’s a proper and good service.

Comments not in haste, just want the best for q and it’s customers and at the moment... I reckon it’s lagging on the international front.

It would be great if Virgin had a bit more momentum and could expand its International network. One thing Virgin has done right is it’s widebody configuration. All 777s and A330s are the same, there is no second guessing which product rolls up at the gate. Virgin has one inflight config across the Pacific and Honkers. I’ve lost count how many varieties of configurations QF offer across the Pacific.

It is plausible that the use of Wifi is not widespread enough for Qantas to use the word 'game-changing.' When they finally roll it out will equate to the other carriers pioneering a new technology. :E

As with the 787 the first aircraft Qantas received had a LN 615. Fortunately the 'journalists' on their Seattle junket to pick the thing up from Boeing, were luckily given their press releases by Olivia and her darling husband, luckily no one checked! Soft corruption is a well used 'business expense' at Coward street!

Seriously though, all energy within the group under the tenure of the little Napoleon has been focused on JQ.

Growing from 36 aircraft it now has 122. Sadly although the parent has less aircraft JQ can only scrape in 25% of the revenue the Qantas 'brand' brings.

Qantas need a new fleet and a Board.

Rated De,


I would suggest that Qantas have a few extra aircraft than JQ but a much greater seating capacity to earn a higher revenue. (Would be interesting to know the total seats of both - think Q have some freighters on the books??)


JQ by all reports has lower staff costs and a much newer (fuel efficient) fleet. These two factors being biggest costs to companies.


So in some cases it is good to only get 25% of revenue - just depends how much marble you like in your cut of beef.

That said I doubt very many JQ flights into Canberra, but lots of revenue for Qantas.

We think you will find that the JQ fleet is bigger. Even bigger than when we last checked.

• JQ most certainly have a more fuel efficient fleet.

Fuel costs and labour costs count for 65% of an airline's operating cost.

That is an interesting position. JQ fly 48% of the ASK of Qantas aircraft yet can only generate 22% of the Operating Revenue. This is indicative that JQ is scale inefficient.
Given the Qantas refuse to dis-aggregate the JQ segment it is impossible to actually discern whether either segment is profitable. Further the use of associate entities, equity accounted is one thing, the capital structures of the offshore entities are opaque. Their actual 'value' is at best neutral. It is highly likely that their (JQ) 'international' segment is not profitable. Mr Buchanan argued against any further international expansion at JQ, he was sent on gardening leave.

The preparation of the aggregate (Consolidated) accounts make it impossible to actually see how many staff JQ have. It is entirely 'legal' for Qantas to lend staff (paid for by Qantas)/Services to JQ/ Headcount to JQ (Mr Joyce admitted this in a Senate inquiry, without detailing the frequency of this) that alters/reduces the unit labour cost. If an 'invoice' is ever generated its payment may or may not be reflected in intersegment accounts. They will be shown in the internal management accounts, but are lost when accounts are aggregated as it makes the presentation far simpler.

Therefore labour cost to JQ is likely to be lower than the parent as services and headcount are assigned to the Qantas cost centres but actually provide labour and service to JQ. We stress this is not illegal but is disingenuous.

What is surprising is that Mr Joyce wants to re-equip JQ which, as you correctly stated has the much newer fleet. It would be strategically sensible to ensure that management lower the fuel included CASK and improve the Operating Profit margin whilst the cost of capital is cheap and there remains a cash flow surplus. The Qantas RASK/CASK margin is far better than JQ, even allowing for lower labour unit cost over a given stage length. The A380 decision was not Mr Joyce's, every aircraft decision since then is. (Point: Not a single Qantas aircraft order)

Qantas need a new fleet.

I thought Qantas still had 2 x 787 on order?

Yes you seem to understand the slide of hand well.

What do Qantas "use JQ or JQ use Qantas" as in states for crew?

Who needs a window, PER-LHR is at night, nothing to look at.

I've heared from several sources that the oil price may never rise again due to the falling demand that will come from the mass adoption of electric vehicles.

Could this be the savior of the 747-8. Is there any possibility of a 4 row fuselage stretch. I know the PIP programmes for the engines are on their way, or maybe delivered, but is there anything left in terms of improvements in the future. How far behind in terms of SFC are they compared to the 777x engines.

Oil will always rise and fall, but extraction technology has sort of put a cap on OPEC's say in the oil price.


Currently $60 bucks and ever man and dog will flood the market, $50 keeps the reliable feed and $40 is the ones that must.


The Quads need to be twins in cruise, Far more easy to do with a Tri.