|
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! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:33. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.