|
Originally Posted by V-Jet
(Post 10357566)
Can I just say this?
Qantas need a new fleet. On a more personal note, I will add that Qantas need new management as well. Hopefully while there is still enough money/assets to provide a new fleet. Which is NOT a foregone conclusion. |
I don’t understand the frenzy over a new Qantas fleet, on an actual new fleet/route discussion.
Do you really think the market and management are not as aware of the fleet renewal requirements as the experts on PPRuNe are? Current fleet order/plan: 6 787s coming 38 787 options 8 380 orders 81 320/321 orders Sunrise 737 replacement actively looked at 330 replacement actively looked at The sky is falling |
Originally Posted by *Lancer*
(Post 10357641)
I don’t understand the frenzy over a new Qantas fleet, on an actual new fleet/route discussion.
Do you really think the market and management are not as aware of the fleet renewal requirements as the experts on PPRuNe are? Current fleet order/plan: 6 787s coming 38 787 options 8 380 orders 81 320/321 orders Sunrise 737 replacement actively looked at 330 replacement actively looked at The sky is falling |
Originally Posted by *Lancer*
(Post 10357641)
I don’t understand the frenzy over a new Qantas fleet, on an actual new fleet/route discussion.
Do you really think the market and management are not as aware of the fleet renewal requirements as the experts on PPRuNe are? Current fleet order/plan: 6 787s coming 38 787 options 8 380 orders 81 320/321 orders Sunrise 737 replacement actively looked at 330 replacement actively looked at The sky is falling Personally I think that they are reacting later than they should have. |
Originally Posted by PlasticFantastic
(Post 10357467)
Also, just because JAL and ANA use 787s for shorthaul routes, it doesn't mean they are great aircraft for those routes. The 787 is optimised for longhaul flying - QF would be carrying a huge amount of unnecessary structure and weight to use it on triangle routes. I'm sure it could still turn a profit; I'd be sceptical that it would be the best use of the aircraft, however.
Joyce has even stated that the A330 is not ideal for triangle or transcontinental flying, which is why QF is interested in the NMA proposal - better capacity than a 737/320, but optimised for shorter routes. |
Qantas always raved on about right aircraft, right route. When you look at what they are doing, I don’t think they have any idea! |
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom
(Post 10358573)
Qantas always raved on about right aircraft, right route. When you look at what they are doing, I don’t think they have any idea! The mob from TN who infested QF didn't waste much time getting their hands on 767s for domestic routes. They even bought a few from BA when Ansett collapsed. The 767 wasn't ideal for domestic but they sure made a lot of money. To make it more profitable, some 767s were certified to operate at two different MTOWs: the lower on domestic routes, the higher on long haul routes. The 787 might be 'just right' in the circumstances. |
Originally Posted by HOBAY 3
(Post 10358566)
Whilst you're point about the 787 not being optimal for the goldeng triangle is true, it is also true that scheduling 737s up to every ten minutes on a route averaging 87% load factor per month is not optimal either. Having the 787 operate domestically for QF would also allow their 737s to be redeployed to other growth markets.
Surely the better answer would be to buy larger capacity planes that are built for shorthaul flying, like the 737-10, A321 or 797 - which seems to be Qantas' plan. Or, if there are a stack of other unserved routes to just buy more 737s? (But, as has been said above, QF and VA's current profitability is largely the result of capacity restraint, so not sure that I'd want to dump a stack of extra planes into the shorthaul market just yet.) |
Plastic, the point was about yield and profit. How much more could the 787 make flying golden triangle in the same 14 hour period it goes to Bali and back on the low yield model? We'll never know cause the figures for the 11 787s are never published
|
The B787-9 is significantly larger than the B767 (virtually identical measurements to the A330-300) and is optimised for LR/ULR routes. The engines are significantly heavier than B767 engines and probably wouldn't handle the large number of cycles incurred with short range domestic flying. I can see the B787 gradually replacing the A330 on QF routes to Asia (probably the B787-10 model) but it would not be a good choice for domestic ops.
That leaves the choice of A321 NEO or the Boeing NMA (available from 2025) as likely options for domestic flights that require a larger capacity than the B737-800. |
I guess it’s got to the point where they have left it so late to order any MAX replacements, that the ‘797’ slots will actually now be available sooner than they can get the first keys to any MAX. |
Airbus has them by the balls in regards to the outstanding A380 orders which are unfortunately not fee free cancel. The only way outta that one is write it off as a Management fail, or order more French aircraft! 737-10 is too logical for QF to order. That’s why Virgin ordered them nearly a decade ago. Why on earth would they order such economical machines! It would be very bizarre behaviour. |
The latest rumour I’m hearing and it has been said before is Jetstar 787s back to mainline and Jetstar use the 321 Neos. Actually makes some sense. |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10359142)
The latest rumour I’m hearing and it has been said before is Jetstar 787s back to mainline and Jetstar use the 321 Neos. Actually makes some sense. The 321s will not have the range for HNL, BKK, HKT, SGN nor NRT. PG |
A lot of people do not remember what it was like to get to London in the old days.
Days of travel, in terrible conditions, guaranteed to give you lung cancer. Blocked toilets, drunks, drunk to the point of insanity. Hours of delays. Perth to London non stop? no smoking? internet? movies? radio? planecam? BYO Maccas! geeze. Too soft some people. |
Why do people suddenly think a really long, narrow body is a good idea for domestic flying? No carrier locally operates the 737-900 and it already takes an eternity to offload a 737-800 at Qantas. The 737-10 still only has one FWD door I believe so it’s not going to have a quick turnaround. Good aircraft for some routes no doubt, short-haul international stuff probably, but I doubt you’d want it as your main domestic workhorse. |
Originally Posted by Popgun
(Post 10359154)
Unlikely. The dual-brand strategy is now permanently embedded in the QF Group consciousness. The 321s will not have the range for HNL, BKK, HKT, SGN nor NRT. PG The A321 NEO LR will take over all the Bali flights from the JQ B787-8 and it has the range for the other destinations that you mentioned (except HNL) from Northern ports (CNS & DRW). If you look at the the number of these aircraft ordered for JQ Intl, there is sufficient capacity to replace all the B787’s. Passenger preference on the HNL route is for full service airlines so it’s probable that JQ will cease to fly it and mainline will operate it on an efficient daily basis. Beer Baron, I totally agree with you about single aisle aircraft can be too long to be efficient. QF looked at the B737-900 some years ago and found that the extra time to disembark/embark pax would result in one less sector per day, thus less revenue. Using rear stairs can help a bit but not enough to get the required turn around time. |
The 737-10 still only has one FWD door I believe so it’s not going to have a quick turnaround. |
Try ABZ in Scotland - no jet -bridges or buses at all and they risk passengers dying from exposure and polar bears getting to the terminal in winter..........
I think steps are not a bad option in some circumstances But airlines want o fly long singled aisled aircraft because they can make more money on Short/medium haul than operating short single aisled aircraft or twin aisle aircraft and damn passenger convenience |
Who needs Aerobridges anyway! |
Dead weight cost and something else to go wrong and giving you AOG
Some Minimum Wage operative driving a set of steps is much cheaper, can be used 24/7 and on multiple aircraft |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10359142)
The latest rumour I’m hearing and it has been said before is Jetstar 787s back to mainline and Jetstar use the 321 Neos. Actually makes some sense. From what I’ve seen, JQ have no trouble filling the 787s to Bali once a day but there’s probably more money to be made sending 2 full 321s twice a day instead. |
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 10359260)
Occasionally I see Virgin disembark from the front via air-bridge and the rear via ramp and then up the stairs. I know this does not suit hot or wet weather and can run fowl of ICAO standards. If I recall Air Asia at KLIA2 wanted to continue with using roll up stairs and walking pax along the tarmac but the Malaysian DCA said no to that and made them include air-bridges in the new terminal. The resaon given at the time was the ICAO "requirement" for RPT pax to be "contained" and that walking across the tarmac for jet operations is not really compliant. I shudder to think how regional airports cope.
Gold Coast? Everyone (international included) does it at OOL. Scoot and Jetstar 787s included. |
Originally Posted by Transition Layer
(Post 10359340)
It also makes sense for JQ that the aircraft return to QF in time for their first major checks and the parent company foots the bill, while the little brother gets the new factory fresh jets with no maintenance costs. |
Originally Posted by Going Boeing
(Post 10359837)
We won’t mention that QF Engineering in Narita were ordered to buy a qantity of B787 spare parts - this was before QF had any B787’s and there are no intentions for QF to operate B787’s to Japan. Yet more subsidising of JQ International. |
The resaon given at the time was the ICAO "requirement" for RPT pax to be "contained" and that walking across the tarmac for jet operations is not really compliant. |
Originally Posted by PlasticFantastic
(Post 10358636)
I don't follow your reasoning. Why would Qantas go out and buy a less efficient and less profitable aircraft to fly one of its most profitable routes? It's one thing to use widebodies to fly tag flights that fill their schedule and help out at peak times; it's another to invest in dedicated planes that would be less profitable.
Surely the better answer would be to buy larger capacity planes that are built for shorthaul flying, like the 737-10, A321 or 797 - which seems to be Qantas' plan. Or, if there are a stack of other unserved routes to just buy more 737s? (But, as has been said above, QF and VA's current profitability is largely the result of capacity restraint, so not sure that I'd want to dump a stack of extra planes into the shorthaul market just yet.) Remember MEL-SYD is either the second or third busiest route in the world; we're not talking about your average sector here with only several flights per day - it needs bigger aircraft! Using your logic, ANA should sell up all those 777s and buy more 737s for HND-CTS. More 737s isn't the answer anyway as pilots are coming up short, so in the meantime, why not redeploy the existing JQ 787s? |
Originally Posted by HOBAY 3
(Post 10360013)
By the time 737-10, A321, or 797 is in the fleet, how full will MEL-SYD be based an annual growth and no potential to schedule extra flights because they're already going every 10 minutes in peak? The sweet spot is 80% load factor because you need some wiggle-room for delayed passengers and seasonal variation (I hazard a guess Friday, being the busiest day of the week, would be operating low to mid 90 percentile).
Remember MEL-SYD is either the second or third busiest route in the world; we're not talking about your average sector here with only several flights per day - it needs bigger aircraft! Using your logic, ANA should sell up all those 777s and buy more 737s for HND-CTS. More 737s isn't the answer anyway as pilots are coming up short, so in the meantime, why not redeploy the existing JQ 787s?
As for QF's own shortage of 737 pilots, are you suggesting that JQ's current 788 crew walk straight into the same roles at QF? If not, it'd just result in more retraining inside QF, which is a fair chunk of the cause of the current shortage... |
Originally Posted by ebt
(Post 10359973)
You're assuming that doesn't get re-charged onto Jetstar, minus adjustments for inter-company transactions. If you can prove that, I'd be interested to see it. And surely any other provider would also have some spares on-hand for one if their customer has an AOG, even if it comes from a pool?
When you take into account the previous history, such as the promise (when they were operating A330’s) that JQ would pay for their A330 simulator time which was total BS. The then head of QF Flight Training repeatedly tried to get payment from JQ but after a while he was told that no money would be forthcoming and if he didn’t stop his submissions he would lose his job. Also, all the fuel uplifted by Qantas Group aircraft in HNL is paid for by QF International, yet JQ International still doesn’t make a profit despite many subsidies. If they were making a profit, Joyce would show it on the books but he keeps all those figures hidden. |
Just read that recently Sir Richard Branson Virgin Atlantic UK wants ASAP to operate LHR-PER non stop with 787-9 and eventually with the A350ULR to SYD if Airbus can tweak the range.
Virgin says our current 787-9 fleet doesn't currently have the right cabin configuration for this PER route, we are always evaluating new destinations for our customers - and Perth is a great city." |
I did say at the start of this Perth-London experiment that if it becomes the "game changer" that Joyce touts then the European airlines will jump on it pretty quickly. Advantage lost, back to competing on service and price.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-a8606376.html https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation...ng-b881000561z The only caveat would be that Branson has a long history of saying things for his own reasons but nothing happening. A little like Joyce and the business class Malaysian venture, Jetstar Hong Kong... |
The advantage Qantas has this time is that only Australian and UK carriers can fly it, no 5th or 6th freedom rights to middle eastern or Asian carriers so competition is limited. |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10360231)
The advantage Qantas has this time is that only Australian and UK carriers can fly it, no 5th or 6th freedom rights to middle eastern or Asian carriers so competition is limited. |
Originally Posted by maggot
(Post 10360245)
Well that's just a matter of time and more lobbying
|
The MEL/SYD airport infrastructure is creaking at the knees with 737's every 10 minutes. How do you reckon they'd go with B797 or A330 loads cycling at that frequency?
|
How do you reckon they'd go with B797 or A330 loads cycling at that frequency |
Originally Posted by Ken Borough
(Post 10360912)
Wide bodies woukd see a significant frequency reduction. An A330 every ten minutes? :ugh: |
By the time demand has grown enough to require wide-bodies every 15 minutes, SWZ will be open which will relieve the pressure for some time. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:40. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.