17 are 59 or under as of today. Of those less than 10 are 57 or under and a few of them did take the VR offered.

Assuming of course, that there are positions available on those fleets. Depending upon the outcome of almost certain legal challenges, these Pilots may still be stood-down at that time.

As most of the A380 Captains haven't flown since mid to late March, I think they've had adequate time to sit on their hands and survey the 'emergency'. They also had a month to digest the VR figures if they requested them.

Anyway, that some chose to 'bat-on' didn't surprise me, the number that did surprised me but perhaps not others including you. So be it…...

Analysing those numbers it looks like most of the 747 Captains took the package, and about half the FOs (assuming the remainder of package takers were FOs).
About half of 380 Captains too, and about a third of FOs. That would mean that if the fleet is going to return by anything more than half then training slots will happen, and maybe even some promotions.
A quarter of 330 Captains and about a sixth of 787 Captains. If these fleets come back to full strength in a year or two, and if the extra 3 787s arrive, then there'll be some command slots required to fill them.
There is some light at the end of the tunnel suggesting room for promotional opportunities and command opportunities with those numbers when international flying returns.

Still a lot of the other ranks remaining, especially 4 engined second officers. A lack of front seat time will affect their opportunities for advancement.

Doc, you’re not suggesting that if the QF plan changes then they will be short? That a situation might develop that QF doesn’t have the pilot numbers to cover the number of hulls they presently store and re activate them?
Couldn't possibly happen!
Could it?

Without knowing the inner working of QF I reckon you might have hit the nail on the head. The trick to international flying is which companies are going to be ready to ramp up when able. Wether that is when there is a vaccine or no quarantine travel. The, I won't travel overseas brigade will soon forget that when they can go on holidays again! When it happens it will be boom time for sure.

My guess is that there are about 40 A380 captains remaining. With 6-7 jets returning there is a shortfall on that fleet of 25+ Captains. If all 12 come back there is a shortfall closer to 80! I wonder how junior it will go? Who will bid to a fleet that will be first to stop flying again in the next pandemic or other industry issue ‘beyond the control’ of the company, that still has pure seniority (so if you go now you’re likely staying junior), and that is likely to be gone anyway somewhere close to the end of the decade? Someone will no doubt but as I said, perhaps it will go junior!

787 was crewed for roughly 12 1/2 aeroplanes. They’re now stocked for probably 10. They could probably crew 12 if they all surged to 175 hours. We currently have 11 jets with a couple in Seattle ready to go. There are roughly 10 747 Captains left- about one aeroplane’s worth. This would seem to be their natural home and the place where the flying is likely to come back the quickest?

A330 is OK until we get to beyond about 75% of pre Covid flying... perhaps a bit less than that in pure stick hours if the alleged plans for that fleet coming out of Covid come true. Surge to 180 hours and they can likely cover 75% if it does start going ‘longer haul’ than currently, or 85% on the current network.

Having now pulled the trigger on VR the one surety in all of this is that we’ll be short of crew and training flat out when the time finally does come. The only question is whether that is mid next year, the year after, or the year after that. If we get the training wave correct it’ll be the first time I’ve seen it in 25+ years.

I would take your numbers a bit further Keg. I would suggest that in the medium term QF will want more 787’s because the 787 will do previous A380 sectors until demand comes back.
The A330 will come back to its original flying plus some of the previous shorter 787 work.
These two aircraft will cover the previous four aircraft network.
When.....is the question?

The A380 as a type, isn’t needed. It might return if operating it would be a cheaper option then obtaining more A330/B787s or possibly B777s.

I would be looking a getting onto another fleet ASAP, long haul might be a nice lifestyle for some, especially S/O but getting some hands on multi sector days is what counts when it comes to employability. Going forward B737 pilots will probably have the best job security and B787 pilots the best routes.

If a decision is made to not bring back the A380s then additional airframes are going to be needed. There simply isn’t enough airframes in the airline to cover the route structure once we start to move beyond ‘Covid recovery’. The most logical replacement is going to be the A350. There is no freaking way Qantas is going down the 777 route once they’ve locked in the A350 for SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK. There is no doubt that the A350 is still in forward plans for Qantas.

I hear that the A330-200s are presently undergoing an FM upgrade to allow expanded EROPS. The plan being to send them BNE - LAX and PER - JNB.

Is there any truth to this idle speculation and gossip?

The BNE-LAX route would not be viable with a commercial payload plus, the longer flight time (due to slower cruising speed) puts the flights at a disadvantage on Computer reservation systems as was shown when the A330-200's operated the AKL-LAX route - it killed a route that previously had very high loads on 412 seat B744's (2 class).

Perth to Capetown would be a good route for the A332's when international travel rebounds sufficiently.

I forgot to mention the gossip-mongers also reckon there is a concomitant increase in GW to allow for the extra payload.

Good point re schedule though. We will have to see which way it breaks.

I’ve heard that one too. I heard the thinking is they would like to make the absolute most out of the existing two engine fleets. That includes previously not contemplated routes in order to service a market. I even heard running the 330 to North America through HNL like the old days? That might not be optimal in the long term but ok just to get things up and running. I hear what GB stated about BN-LAX but it might be a situation where no other 787 hulls are available. Once US and UK open up I think the existing 787 hulls will be well utilised.
AJ won’t authorise additional spending in paper clips because of cash burn at the moment. He will not buy a new aircraft in the short term. He will squeeze everything out of the 787 and 330.

Yep. That about sums it up in the short to medium term I reckon.

Yes and no. Some A332s require an FM upgrade to meet something or other- can’t remember what exactly. As a result of this upgrade they will be able to undertake extended ETOPS. So they’re not being done specifically for these routes but the fact that they get the upgrade means that they can now do those routes.

I’ve heard those two routes along the grape vine. There are some others being looked at also. The increased GW is also rumoured.

As Wingspar alludes to, many of the A330 routes being considered I suspect are only for a short(ish) period of time- perhaps under a year- until demand returns and either more 787s come on board, the A380s get going again, or A350s turn up and change the plans again. I wouldn’t expect the long term plan would be for the A332 to operate BNE-LAX-BNE year after year.

Your assumption is that international flying returns to the same levels as pre Covid. I’d suggest that’s a flawed assumption. Qantas identified the 188 VR and 50 ER as a long term surplus issue. The number was higher but the budget only allowed for those. Qantas were so desperate for cash they sold bar carts and blankets, so looking after 60 plus year old Captains was not out of compassion.
At best 6 A380s come back, but given the high maintenance costs, the global trend will be to retire them just like Air France, Lufthansa and Singapore. Fuel and maintenance are the biggest costs for airlines and the 380 suffers from those. Great for gulf airlines but that’s it.
Joyce has said at the earliest late 2023 the A380 MAY return, however it’s extremely unlikely. COVID gives them the cover to get rid of what they don’t want.

For a long time you’d said Qantas would have 50 787s. Lots of people did so it’s not a dig just the factual data.
Qantas debt levels are very high now. At best you’ll see a one for one replacement of the A380 with the A350 which was always the plan. But I’d suggest the limited capital raised will go to Jetstar and domestic replacements. Same as it ever was.
But that’s 2024- 2025 most likely or international and bottom of the priority list. QF will want to move 380 crews to 350. CASA won’t be happy having flight crew 3-4 years without both meaningful line and simulator experience. A simulator take off and landing every 90 days won’t cut it with CASA I suspect.

Agree. A380 is gone.
There isn’t money to buy new airplanes for many many years. Billions spent buying back shares at the top of the market made this a certainty. Already billions in loans off the 787 fleet just to avoid being insolvent.
A330 and 787 will be flogged if required. I don’t think they will even be flogged. Will be a limited travel bubble even with a vaccine. Probably enough hulls for at least another 5 years.
There Will not be many retirements for a while either. The VR and ER has flushed out the majority that were thinking of going in the next 5 years anyway.
Not many people have realised this.

Yes, hence why I said “once we start moving beyond Covid recovery” and in a previous post said about the training “The only question is whether that is mid next year, the year after, or the year after that.” You’re suggesting that international travel will remain less than pre Covid? What’s your time frame? 3 years? 5 years? 10? Eventually air travel will increase beyond ‘pre Covid’ and when that time comes Qantas needs more airframes. Personally I reckon that’s under five years.

Perhaps we won’t get 50 787s anymore with the A350 coming down range and being slightly bigger and with slightly longer legs than the 787. We still need to replace international A330s eventually and the 787 or 350 will be the machine to do that. A 787 with a config of 290-300 pax (instead of the set up designed specifically for those ULH missions similar to PER-LHR) is still likely the natural successor to the A330 on SE Asian routes.

Really? Most people I’ve spoken to are all too aware that their seniority will take a massive jump next year and then will barely move for the next five years after that.

Do you have any supporting evidence for the claim that the wanted number of redundancies was higher? I doubt it. If management were so desperate for cash they would’ve not offered any VR at all and kept all those surplus pilots on stand down indefinitely.

As has been said previously the VR/ER numbers seemed to have taken care of the surplus of pilots in the Capt rank. So much so it’s probable that some FOs will be promoted to fill the gap when international flying returns. It’s the SOs who may be in a worrisome situation as there isn’t much of a need for new FOs for a long time.

At the end of the day nobody knows what the future holds. I specifically remember the CFO, in reference to future demand, stating that in a recent Townhall.
The 2023 timeline for the A380 is a very rough guesstimate. Nobody expects all twelve A380’s coming back on line on July 1st, 2023. What makes that date so special?
AJ had to come up with a plan. He knew that the demand for the A380 would not be there for a while. So he picked a date that they could base a recovery plan on. They picked that date so they could factor in the costs associated with that fleet not flying for a defined period. If the factors change, which they will, so too does the recovery plan.
They honestly don’t know what’s happening even next week! How can they plan anything.
What we do know is that they have decided to store the aircraft. We also know that if they bring them back after January they won’t have the crew to fly them!

I did hear this also. It was a webinar a while ago. Think it was Doug Alley saying the VR and ER would only address the surplus for the next financial year but there would be a surplus in the following years. But the numbers of VR and ER were the maximum Qantas could allocate but still didn’t address the surplus. The 250 of LWOP helps but he said still doesn’t address long term surplus.
Also heard it on an AIPA webinar from one of the executives that was a Captain. Can’t recall the name.

Certainly not the way I remember anything on the webinars that I’ve listened to.

The way I’ve heard it discussed is that VR is designed to deal with the longer term surplus (beyond about 2023) and the LWOP was designed to deal with the short term surplus.

Of course, in the short term we still have a surplus crew and likely will continue to do so until all current A330/787 crew are stood up and a decision has been made about the A380. That should start to decrease from early to mid next year as vaccines and travel bubbles start to come online.

With the numbers who were let go it does indicate they have removed the crew required for all the 747s, about a third of the 380s and at least some of the 330s.

They may be planning on different flying for the fleets, I wonder if they see the 380 being limited to shorter Asian routes of less than 10hours (Japan, China, Singapore) instead of London/LAX if it does comeback which would negate the need for a lot of the SOs on the 380?

A likelihood is that those who took LWOP would just extend it, as they would only be coming back to being stood down anyway.

QF postponed the A350 order indefinitely back in May.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhor...o-coronavirus/

Whilst the A350 may be the preferred type, B777s will be readily available for lease, or purchase secondhand at whatever age and mileage the company wants. The endorsement is similar to the B787 and the type is widely used with a proven history.

If finances are tight, the B777 could replace the A380 fairly easily, possibly on a temporary basis until conditions improve enough to make the A350 a solid business case.

Saving money and restructuring are the main concerns over the next few years. Grandiose prestige projects with expensive new aircraft take a back seat for a while.

Qantas will never operate the 777. I don’t think they’d even be flown if they got offered them for free.

The VR/ER covers the long term surplus with the retirement of the 747.

LWOP covers the short term surplus.

The only way there will be more redundancies is if there’s an announcement of a reduction in frames.

I fully believe there will be a post Covid economic/travel boom and there will be a scramble to get bums on seats.

Why would you lease a 777 to replace an A380 if there are A350-900s also available for lease and the A350-1000 features in your longer term plans? Similar crewing advantages to the 777/ 787 with both A330 and A380 crew able to do a conversion with a minimum of fuss.

They also have cemented in place a business case for the A350.

Don’t forget the A330neo business case that was beginning to be made late last year!

The A350 business case was made at a time when it was flying and the 777X programme was stalled with engine problems and Boeing having to divert resources into getting the 737Max re certified.

The A350 was chosen at the time because there were airframes available within the chosen timeline and an aircraft already flying carries far less risk of delay than one still under development. The choice was made despite the 777X having superior performance and mission capability.

Fast forward a year from that decision, if QF execs still have an appetite for ultra long haul operations (which I believe will have a lot of demand in a post covid world) then the decision is very different. The 777X has flown, engine problems mostly sorted, delivery dates less likely to blow out and many customers looking to cancel orders hence early delivery slots may open up for QF.

There were two factors that helped swung the decision in favour of the A350.

1. There’s a greater distance between doors 1 & 2 on the A350-1000 which enables a better premium configuration for the ULR routes, &

2. The basic weight of the A350-1000 is 10 tonnes lighter thus saving fuel over the life of the aircraft. Being so much lighter, I don’t expect them to be strong enough to remain in service as long as the B777-8 would.

With the post COVID business being completely different, the business case for the aircraft would have to be rerun if they were looking for additional capacity.

The remaining B787 options are approximately half the cost of the A350 so they would have to be considered for non ULR routes.

All bets are off regarding the next few years, and any previous strategies need to be re-examined. On the vaccine front, the news is extremely encouraging and it’s not unrealistic to expect borders to start opening up in the next 3 - 6 months.

There will be an initial surge of bookings because of pent up demand, after that the entire network and timetable needs a clean sheet of paper. Some routes will be unprofitable and some new routes will be considered.

Frequencies, and type of aircraft will need adjusting, the ME3 have been savaged by the pandemic and may not be able to offer cheaper airfares. Australian travellers may prefer to fly on their own airline rather than a foreign one when going overseas

CX have deferred the B777-X until at least 2025 and are introducing the A321 - NEO with a scaled back business class.

For the next few years air travel is likely to be more point to point using smaller more efficient aircraft with reduced size premium cabins. Safe regional destinations will be more popular than adventurous long haul ones.

The kangaroo route bounces back as the UK has always been a popular destination, and QF could benefit if pax prefer a less exotic destination flying an airline they trust, particularly if the fare is competitive.

Australians have been forced to hide in our little corner of the world during COVID, due to some of the harshest border restrictions anywhere in the world. Suppression somehow became
elimination along the way, for better or worse.

I believe this will make us the most reluctant to travel until we can be absolutely certain about the effectiveness of a vaccine and given it time to prove itself on a world scale. We have become scared of the big bad world out there, and that will have a hangover effect even once the vaccine is available. We are probably more likely to get an increase in inbound pax before outbound, as vaccinated Poms and Yanks visit the safe haven of Australia.

I hope I’m wrong, but so many Aussies are petrified of this virus that almost exclusively kills elderly people and/or those with co-morbidities. I don’t see International travel rapidly bouncing back.

QLD perfect example of being petrified and falling for the Queen P propaganda machine. Even the busiest tourist spots in QLD voted for her. Either way QLD can look after QLD as said by Queen P regarding the hospitals, I hope Aussies avoid QLD and prop up TAS, SA, VIC watch all QLD squirm into bankruptcy screaming for any tourist dollar.

Let’s hope your wrong, I reckon as soon as Aussies can travel they will travel. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if Bali opened tomorrow flights would be full. Aussies maybe scared of the Billy Ray but it won’t stop travellers. It may stop the cruise ship market! Sure not all sectors will bounce back fast but I for one reckon the tourist sector will.

I'm sure those in the tourism industry who've been shafted by the pre-election policies of Queen P will be delighted to hear of your subsequent support. :ouch:
Unfortunately (if you see it that way) it was the residents in those electorates, especially the older ones, who voted the government back in, in response to the policy of keeping the baddies out. Most of those electorates were the closest contests and it wasn't those reliant on the tourism industry that saw the Premier returned.

Sorry, do the elderly and people with co-morbidities (things like high BP that would affect a large amount of the public) have less right to life than others? Or do we lock them all inside until everyone else is vaccinated?

I don't know how many times this has to be repeated but this is a serious pandemic. Look at nations that haven't taken it seriously. A big portion of Australian international airline flying is to the USA, where their approach has lead to tens of thousands of airline employees being laid off and regional airlines going out of business. The situation is so dire Covid positive nurses are forced to work and refrigerated morgue trucks are being used to store bodies. Europe, which is taking the pandemic more seriously, is still seeing near capacity ICUs and record case numbers. And all of this before Northern Hemisphere winter. The upcoming season is being nicknamed "Dark Winter" for a reason.

Asian nations have done better. But I would say their populations are better behaved, and more compliant with health advice than westerners. It is probably for the best to keep large numbers of potential virus carriers out until successful vaccines are available and travelers widely vaccinated unless we want a repeat of what's happening in the Northern Hemisphere at the moment.

I won’t support anything QLD don’t care what it is. QLD gave Queen P their blessing they can deal with that aftermath.

…..even those of us that didn't……:rolleyes:
Avagoodweegend Mr. Rangor.

Hey QLD are that stupid they don’t even realise NSW is benefiting by them closing the border. Byron bay is the place to go now for families to reunite.

Exactly Ragnor, and I’ve been hearing VIC and WA residents are planning big catch ups in ADL to circumvent the ridiculous border issues.

It begs belief doesn’t it?