|
Originally Posted by Snakecharma
(Post 10559165)
Ah, Morno, you do know how far the 777 can go don’t you? And know it went to J’Burg for years, and Haneda is just up the road? |
Originally Posted by morno
(Post 10559200)
I’m referring to the comment that they could kick off Sunrise with them. If the older 777’s can do those distances, why are QF waiting for Boeing (discounting Airbus at the moment) to get the 777X to do those distances? |
On a side note, could someone explain the reasoning behind parking the ATR fleet and then getting Alliance to operate the flying? I understand the ATR leases were overly expensive, but surely its better to fly the aircraft rather than pay the lease while it's backed against a fence and simultaneously pay Alliance for their services.....??
|
They are unable to crew them, no takers! You can’t blame the new guys, knowing you could be stuck on the fleet for a long time. They will only allow 10% of the ATR pilots to transition to B737 per year. It was MD’s answer to stabilise the fleet. I think it may have backfired. |
Originally Posted by hoss
(Post 10559569)
They are unable to crew them, no takers! You can’t blame the new guys, knowing you could be stuck on the fleet for a long time. They will only allow 10% of the ATR pilots to transition to B737 per year. It was MD’s answer to stabilise the fleet. I think it may have backfired. |
Originally Posted by morno
(Post 10559200)
I’m referring to the comment that they could kick off Sunrise with them. If the older 777’s can do those distances, why are QF waiting for Boeing (discounting Airbus at the moment) to get the 777X to do those distances? Right now the 787 is too small for Santiago, hasn’t got the etops for joburg (and is too small) and the Japanese don’t want the A380 in Haneda, |
Morno, reduce the pax load and the 777 will do east coast oz to New York or to London ok. it will do it at 28-35000 ft but it will do it! the pax load would be a fair bit lower than now and no freight, but it would be a way to dip the toe into the market I guess. the A330-200 can and has done Europe to Melbourne direct, and can do it with about 35-40 punters. Obviously not enough to make a quid. |
Originally Posted by Blueskymine
(Post 10558997)
It’d be interesting if someone got on the phone and offered the entire 777 fleet (and pilots during the establishment phase, and then seniority where it took them) to Qantas. They’d be able to cull the 747 operation early and use the VA 777s to get the sunrise operation up and running. The 777s would also be ideal for Haneda and Joberg. |
Industrial unrest and disengagement on even a grander scale.. |
Originally Posted by Berealgetreal
(Post 10559633)
Industrial unrest and disengagement on even a grander scale.. VA will probably offload their Longhaul jets. It’s just a question of when. Qantas is expanding in that space. With probably/possibly the equipment VA are using. Qantas has done this in the past. Ansett 767 Pilots worked in previous rank for a period in the Qantas uniform. They then had to apply for their jobs and join the company on the bottom of the list. I’d imagine with a 2-3 year contract for the EIS phase, and number on the bottom of the list, once they lost their 777 seat, they’d still find suitable seats with a reasonable income elsewhere in the fleet. Year 3 pay as an A380 SO would probably pay the same as a VA 777 FO. (With overtime). A QF 737 FO would be close if you’re working and chasing hours. At the end end of the day, if QF got the whole shebang cheap, it’d be a great way to kick it off. And help out a mate. If it were done sensibly, I’m sure the crews and unions would support it too. |
Originally Posted by Blueskymine
(Post 10559638)
Qantas is expanding in that space. With probably/possibly the equipment VA are using. |
Year 3 pay as an A380 SO would probably pay the same as a VA 777 FO. (With overtime). http://vipa.asn.au/wp-content/upload...-Agreement.pdf EXISTING FIRST OFFICERS Clause 54.1 Virgin Australia expects that all 38 existing First Officers will obtain a command position within the Virgin Australia Group by 30 June 2016. If this does not occur, Virgin Australia will pay each of the remaining 38 First Officers at that time the applicable Captain’s rates (starting at the entry level rate). For any relevant First Officers, these payments will be made from the first full pay period after 30 June 2016 until such time as they obtain a command. |
Qantas has done this in the past. Ansett 767 Pilots worked in previous rank for a period in the Qantas uniform. They then had to apply for their jobs and join the company on the bottom of the list. I’d imagine with a 2-3 year contract for the EIS phase, and number on the bottom of the list, once they lost their 777 seat, they’d still find suitable seats with a reasonable income elsewhere in the fleet. Year 3 pay as an A380 SO would probably pay the same as a VA 777 FO. (With overtime). A QF 737 FO would be close if you’re working and chasing hours. |
Originally Posted by Harbour Dweller
(Post 10559654)
Maybe not when you consider there are a large number of VAA B777 FO's being remunerated to Captain salaries.
http://vipa.asn.au/wp-content/upload...-Agreement.pdf EXISTING FIRST OFFICERS Clause 54.1 Virgin Australia expects that all 38 existing First Officers will obtain a command position within the Virgin Australia Group by 30 June 2016. If this does not occur, Virgin Australia will pay each of the remaining 38 First Officers at that time the applicable Captain’s rates (starting at the entry level rate). For any relevant First Officers, these payments will be made from the first full pay period after 30 June 2016 until such time as they obtain a command. |
I love reading the comments on this thread. Here’s me thinking everyone on here was a pilot - clearly 90% of you are successful CFO’s who all hold an MBA from Harvard! |
Crikey! Sweet deal. |
Some time ago a few mates over at Virgin told me that the rear cargo door hinders Virgin Australia’s ability to release, sell or lease back their B-777.
Virgin's decision on ordering the aircraft from Boeing was apparently to opt for smaller rear cargo doors which means (or so I am told) that the 777s cannot take standard international freight pallets. I assume, if true, this makes them less appealing to other Airlines and Aircraft Leasing companies. Maybe not too suitable for what Qantas is looking to achieve in Project Sunrise? Certainly, freight features as a supplementary form of income to offset weak passenger loads on flights between Australia and International destinations by carrying large cargo. Is this true and another factor in Virgins current fiscal stress? |
Originally Posted by Bleve
(Post 10559648)
Qantas' Project Sunrise is about flying SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK direct (ie non-stop for about 20 hours). Are you sure VA's B777's can do that with a viable commercial load? If so why are QF going through the process of getting Airbus and Boeing to offer proposals on how to do it?
|
Originally Posted by donkey767
(Post 10559677)
I love reading the comments on this thread. Here’s me thinking everyone on here was a pilot - clearly 90% of you are successful CFO’s who all hold an MBA from Harvard! Some of the best ideas originate from the people who actually do the job, but operationally most employees are hamstrung by "cost leadership" management and over arching HR. |
Originally Posted by Blueskymine
(Post 10559839)
Never said it was for the project sunrise routes. I said it would be ideal to kick off the program. Put it onto existing 747 routes as they go. Gear up for when the long range ones come and establish the crewing with sims, crews etc etc |
just to clarify - the small cargo door is a pain in the arse, BUT the 777 still carries a lot of freight.
|
Originally Posted by morno
(Post 10559889)
Yeah I think you’re dreaming. I don’t think QF need some ****ty old 777’s with no provision for cargo to go onto some routes that would be very freight heavy I imagine (refer old comments about the amount of freight coming out of, or it might have been into, Jo’Burg). Operationally, I doubt they would gain any benefit out of training crews earlier than they need them. It’s just another aircraft. The 777 with no freight and the loads that QF fly on those routes would probably be ahead just on fuel burn. PS They can still carry a shedload of freight without the cargo door |
Originally Posted by Capt Colonial
(Post 10559798)
Some time ago a few mates over at Virgin told me that the rear cargo door hinders Virgin Australia’s ability to release, sell or lease back their B-777.
Virgin's decision on ordering the aircraft from Boeing was apparently to opt for smaller rear cargo doors which means (or so I am told) that the 777s cannot take standard international freight pallets. I assume, if true, this makes them less appealing to other Airlines and Aircraft Leasing companies. Maybe not too suitable for what Qantas is looking to achieve in Project Sunrise? Certainly, freight features as a supplementary form of income to offset weak passenger loads on flights between Australia and International destinations by carrying large cargo. Is this true and another factor in Virgins current fiscal stress? |
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10559873)
Putting a great deal of value on cookie cutter post graduate programs is, at least in part responsible for the problems many businesses face.
Some of the best ideas originate from the people who actually do the job, but operationally most employees are hamstrung by "cost leadership" management and over arching HR. |
Have heard a few 777 and 330 Skippers have left for Asia or are looking. One would think 1 fleet or the other is on the chopping block. Codeshare with Delta across to LA makes sense, but not if they can’t even flog the 777s off because of the cargo doors on a few. Pretty easy to lease 330s, the ex emirates ones not withstanding. |
Originally Posted by DUXNUTZ
(Post 10560418)
Pretty easy to lease 330s, the ex emirates ones not withstanding. |
It is true about the cargo doors... it's inconceivable that an experienced airline, as opposed to one where the decision were mainly made by people with no industry experience back then, would make such a dumb decision. It's almost like specifically ordering a 747 but asking them to put small doors on it. Stupid doesn't begin to explain it but lack of knowledge and/or incompetence does. Goodness knows what they do when they bring in a pallet from PER on an A330 going to LAX... must have to pay additional to have it unloaded and re-stowed in compatible ULDs. Dumb. I suspect this is going to change under the new management shake-up and restructure. |
Actually not that easy to lease A330's unless you discount the lease rental down to B737 NG numbers. Similar to what happened to the Emirates A330's in VA. Currently there is a glut of A330's on the secondary market. Most not worth the time to look at.
As for the small doors yes they were chosen so that they could get the paint scheme (which was apparently very expensive). No amount of argument could move the EGM involved they say. 2 of the 5 have the big doors and I think you will find them mostly on LAX-SYD to cover off the freight. The 3 with the small doors will not be worth much when they do get moved on. |
Originally Posted by non_state_actor
(Post 10560487)
Yes there is a storied history of being 'penny-wise but pound foolish'. You could write a business book on the number of projects/decisions that were done in the name of saving money that ended up costing a fortune or making the operations inefficient.
I suspect this is going to change under the new management shake-up and restructure. |
Originally Posted by coaldemon
(Post 10560502)
Actually not that easy to lease A330's unless you discount the lease rental down to B737 NG numbers. Similar to what happened to the Emirates A330's in VA. Currently there is a glut of A330's on the secondary market. Most not worth the time to look at.
As for the small doors yes they were chosen so that they could get the paint scheme (which was apparently very expensive). No amount of argument could move the EGM involved they say. 2 of the 5 have the big doors and I think you will find them mostly on LAX-SYD to cover off the freight. The 3 with the small doors will not be worth much when they do get moved on. |
Don’t forget when they launched the 777 the freight operation was essentially non existent across the entire company. They carried probably a tenth of what they carry today. Freight was never in mind when they ordered it. |
VA are celebrating their 19th birthday today. I wonder if they will reach 21.
|
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
(Post 10560524)
Don’t forget when they launched the 777 the freight operation was essentially non existent across the entire company. They carried probably a tenth of what they carry today. Freight was never in mind when they ordered it. |
I think the cargo door thing is being a little over blown. yes, in an ideal world they should all have the bigger door, but it isn’t the end of the world and it does not really, in a practical sense, limit the freight it can carry. It just makes handling more of a pain. the smaller cargo door is the standard fitting on the 777 and the bigger cargo door is the option. If it was such a huge deal there would be no choice. The decision to go with the standard door was a swift decision that had longer term implications, and was about a million bucks an airframe if I remember correctly. |
BG now has a job writing a plan for the proposed Tassie AFL team. Be interesting to see how that goes.
|
The Triple has long turnaround times at each end so loading in tight timeframes isn’t an issue. Melbourne is often weight restricted half the year also due length and heat. |
From memory some or all of the SQ B777's were fitted with the standard small rear door.
What is the weight schedule for the VA B777-300ER's ? |
The decision to go with the standard door was a swift decision |
I wondered if anyone would notice :) |
Originally Posted by B772
(Post 10560534)
VA are celebrating their 19th birthday today. I wonder if they will reach 21.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:27. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.