Qantas fleet decisions

[serfty]

... remember that it was only in about 2000 that Qantas ripped all the old Dreamtimes out of the 744's and replaced them with new ones and a new IFE system. This must have cost a pretty penny and you would have assumed a 10 plus year life for them, ...

Actually, it was much earlier than that.

I flew in a Dreamtime Equipped Wunala Dreaming in October 1998 (QF2 LHR-BKK).

 

[og]

They do have an FAA-approved tape for such purposes. I assume CASA also permits its use under similar circumstances. In most cases its for temporary repairs and a proper repair must be completed withing a certain amount of time.

It would serve QF well if they told the staff who affix tape to put it on straight and neat - to make it look like it is meant to be there. Saves attracting attention.

 

[NM]

With all the well publicised delays in regards the 380 project, do you think that Qantas will take up it's options for Airbus’s new bit of metal ( 350, the 787 competitor)as it is even further away than the 380 or move lock stock to the new Boeing family i.e.
Next Gen 737 for smaller Trunk routes, 787 to eventually replace the 767 and the 747- 800to replace it's grandfather?

QF group does have about 20 options, 50 rights for the 787 on top of 45 orders, is this going to be the new “Australian Way?”:?:

Qantas does not have plans to be an all-Boeing or all-Airbus fleet airline. Their current plans include new A380s and new 787s. Neither of those are going to change unless one of the airlines pulls out of their products and that is not going to happen.

Yes, the A380 delays are annoying to Qantas and will hurt them. But even if there are further delays QF is not going to cancel their orders and buy the 747-8 in its place. But I would not be surprised to see QF order some 747-8s as 744 replacements sometime in the future. But any such 747-8 orders will not be due any delivery delays on the A380s, they will be ordered because they will be the most suitable replacement for a significant number of 744s when they get to the end of their life.

I do not expect to see the A350XWB in the QF fleet any time soon.

 

[Altair]

...747-8 orders will not be due any delivery delays on the A380s, they will be ordered because they will be the most suitable replacement for a significant number of 744s when they get to the end of their life.

I do not expect to see the A350XWB in the QF fleet any time soon.

I do not know if Qantas will ever order the 747-8 as they have seemed to stretched their capex. In fact if Boeing progresses on their Y3 (747 & 777 replacement project) Qantas may wait for that.
The A380 may be very hard to fill but it is a wonderful plane for the routes that have capacity constraints (LHR). Americans seem to think that frequency is king but look at the bulk of Qantas' LR ops and you see that those routes may have multiple flights but the time difference is not significant due to curfew restrictions.
The A350XWB, well only if the ULR can give Qantas what they want SYD-LHR non-stop year long with an economic payload, otherwise it is 787s to more destinations.

 

[NM]

I do not know if Qantas will ever order the 747-8 as they have seemed to stretched their capex. In fact if Boeing progresses on their Y3 (747 & 777 replacement project) Qantas may wait for that.

I agree the 747-8 for QF is unlikely in the short term. But looking 7-10 years down the track when some of the 744s will be needing to be sent to pasture, there will be a need for something in the capacity range between 787 and A380 in the QF fleet.

The A380 may be very hard to fill but it is a wonderful plane for the routes that have capacity constraints (LHR). Americans seem to think that frequency is king but look at the bulk of Qantas' LR ops and you see that those routes may have multiple flights but the time difference is not significant due to curfew restrictions.

Indeed. I think QF (and other A380 operators) will do very well with their new super-Jumbos. The Aus-USA and Aus-LHR routes are constrained by curfew windows so there are limited options that flights can be scheduled for departures and arrivals.

The A350XWB, well only if the ULR can give Qantas what they want SYD-LHR non-stop year long with an economic payload, otherwise it is 787s to more destinations.

I would be very surprised if QF takes on a new type just for its ability to operate one route. They did this in the past with the 747-SP, which they purchased in small numbers to operate SYD-LAX non-stop. Then along came the 747-400 and the -SP became a burden they had to carry on the books for many years afterwards.

The A350-800 has a planned full pax range of 8800nm, which is the same as the planned 787-9. Both these are significantly short of the 777-200LR at 9420nm, and this is a real aircraft with known operating and performance characteristics. Airbus in particular have a history of underestimating weight and overestimating range for new types (see the A340-300 as a classic example). But Boeing are not immune to performance problems, and although it was more an RR problem, QF received significant compensation from RR for their engines not meeting performance guarantees on the 744 fleet until they upgraded their RB211-524s with the Trent hot stage.

I can't see the 787 or the A350 being suitable for the SYD-LHR non-stop mission. The only thing on the horizon that may be a suitable platform would be a new 777 derivative that takes advantage of the 787 and 747-8 materials and manufacturing techniques. But I don't expect to see that happening for delivery any time before 2015. They really need a full pax range of almost 10,000nm to make non-stop SYD-LHR viable in both directions all year round, and that is a huge step for the 787 and A350 programs from their current targets of 8800nm.

 

[garyjohn951]

Qantas in the Age today, says 2008 earliest for A380. Confirmed another delay and may seek compensation. Interesting no expected month of start of delivery is specified. Leaves it open for further delays to stretch to Dec 2008 before they need to comment again.

 

[NM]

Qantas in the Age today, says 2008 earliest for A380. Confirmed another delay and may seek compensation. Interesting no expected month of start of delivery is specified. Leaves it open for further delays to stretch to Dec 2008 before they need to comment again.

Qantas just don't know when they will get their A380s because Airbus don't know yet either. The latest comment from Airbus is that the A380 project review being led by the new CEO is not due to report on the progress and status for another few weeks. After that report is in, they may be willing to put a target date on deliveries.

But Airbus has lost a great deal of credibility for delivery dates with the A380, so even when they specific a delivery date I am not sure just how much anyone is going to believe them.

 

[Altair]

I can't see the 787 or the A350 being suitable for the SYD-LHR non-stop mission. The only thing on the horizon that may be a suitable platform would be a new 777 derivative that takes advantage of the 787 and 747-8 materials and manufacturing techniques. But I don't expect to see that happening for delivery any time before 2015. They really need a full pax range of almost 10,000nm to make non-stop SYD-LHR viable in both directions all year round, and that is a huge step for the 787 and A350 programs from their current targets of 8800nm.

Well the 777-200LR was seriously considered for the SYD-LHR and SYD-DFW routes but it could not handle the SYD-LHR non-stop year round. Boeing is supposedly trying to reduce the weight to meet QF specifications but in all seriousness I do not think they should bother with the expense as the 777 is becoming a mature design and the market for ULH aircraft is a niche. Airbus announced that there will be an A350-900R model but I doubt it could meet the range requirements either.
I think the QF fleet in 10 years will be 737-800, 787-8, 787-9, 747-400 and A330-200, A330-300, A380-800. The older aircraft 737-300, 737-400, 767-300ER, 747-300 and some 747-400 will be retiring or converted to freighters.

 

[NM]

Well the 777-200LR was seriously considered for the SYD-LHR and SYD-DFW routes but it could not handle the SYD-LHR non-stop year round. Boeing is supposedly trying to reduce the weight to meet QF specifications but in all seriousness I do not think they should bother with the expense as the 777 is becoming a mature design and the market for ULH aircraft is a niche.

It will take more than adding some more under-the-floor fuel tanks and removing some cabin amenities to make the 777-200LR viable for SYD-LHR non-stop. It will be the materials and manufacturing techniques of the 787 and 747-8 that will be required to reduce the weight of the 777 to a viable ULH contender for SYD-LHR. But as I noted previous, Boeing have said they are considering that move, but its not going to be soon.

Airbus announced that there will be an A350-900R model but I doubt it could meet the range requirements either.

The A350-900R tout was before they went back to the drawing board and came up with the A350XWB. I have not seen any discussion from Airbus on an ultra-long-range version of the A350 that could take on the 10,000nm range requirement for reliable SYD-LHR non-stop operations.

 

[Altair]

It will take more than adding some more under-the-floor fuel tanks and removing some cabin amenities to make the 777-200LR viable for SYD-LHR non-stop. It will be the materials and manufacturing techniques of the 787 and 747-8 that will be required to reduce the weight of the 777 to a viable ULH contender for SYD-LHR. But as I noted previous, Boeing have said they are considering that move, but its not going to be soon.

You are right that it will take more, the ULR version has (6?) auxillary tanks, which I do not think any airline has taken the option for, reducing available revenue weight. Boeing was lookng at how much over engineering there was in the airframe and with light weight cabin fittings thought they could reduce it by several tons. I actually think thye will look into the airframe weight reduction programme but more for their 777 Freighter which is based on the 777-200LR as that appears to be where the interest lies. Airbus appears to be doing this as well with the A350XWB or A350 v7.?

The A350-900R tout was before they went back to the drawing board and came up with the A350XWB. I have not seen any discussion from Airbus on an ultra-long-range version of the A350 that could take on the 10,000nm range requirement for reliable SYD-LHR non-stop operations.

I thought it was in their announcement at Farnborough that included it,
index press kits
"An ultra long range version, the –900R, and a freighter –900F complete the family. Each basic model will have a range of 8,500 nm/15,800 km, the longest of any aircraft in this size category."
Of course with all the issues that they have been going through and the fact that the design has not been finalized I am pretty sure that this proposed model will not been seen until 2020....
For me with the cost of fuel so high and in reality fuel will be at a similar price point in the future, I do not think that ULH flights will be adopted, they simply carry too much fuel, as SIA recently stated that using hindsight they would not have started the non-stop SIN to US services using the A340-500.

 

[NM]

You are right that it will take more, the ULR version has (6?) auxillary tanks, which I do not think any airline has taken the option for, reducing available revenue weight. Boeing was lookng at how much over engineering there was in the airframe and with light weight cabin fittings thought they could reduce it by several tons. I actually think thye will look into the airframe weight reduction programme but more for their 777 Freighter which is based on the 777-200LR as that appears to be where the interest lies. Airbus appears to be doing this as well with the A350XWB or A350 v7.?

Yes indeed. The freighter will certainly make most use of the reduced weight, but of course lighter cabin fixtures won't help the freighter version .

I thought it was in their announcement at Farnborough that included it,
index press kits
"An ultra long range version, the –900R, and a freighter –900F complete the family. Each basic model will have a range of 8,500 nm/15,800 km, the longest of any aircraft in this size category."

Thank for the quote. I had missed that part. But unfortunately 8500nm is not going to be enough. They need to reach the 10,000nm range to enable reliable viable loads for SYD-LHR.

Of course with all the issues that they have been going through and the fact that the design has not been finalized I am pretty sure that this proposed model will not been seen until 2020....
For me with the cost of fuel so high and in reality fuel will be at a similar price point in the future, I do not think that ULH flights will be adopted, they simply carry too much fuel, as SIA recently stated that using hindsight they would not have started the non-stop SIN to US services using the A340-500.

Yes, I totally agree. Tankering fuel just costs money, and I don't think there is enough demand for people willing to pay higher premium fares to cut a few hours of a 20 hour trip.

 

[simongr]

Yes, I totally agree. Tankering fuel just costs money, and I don't think there is enough demand for people willing to pay higher premium fares to cut a few hours of a 20 hour trip.

There is probably a demand for these single journey trips in the business segment - as long as it was coupled with better facilities - sort of like a flying luxury liner - but I dont think that it will be economically viable. I personally wouldnt mind a 20 hour rather than 28 hour flight time with reduced risk of lost luggage.

 

[NM]

There is probably a demand for these single journey trips in the business segment - as long as it was coupled with better facilities - sort of like a flying luxury liner - but I dont think that it will be economically viable. I personally wouldnt mind a 20 hour rather than 28 hour flight time with reduced risk of lost luggage.

For most through connections, such as QF1 operating SYD-BKK-LHR, or QF31 SYD-SIN-LHR, the ground time for the transit is around 90 mins, and with taxi and climb out times generally adds about 2 hours to what could be achieved for non-stop. This is also assuming that to make a SYD-LHR non-stop viable the airline will need to operate the most efficient cruise speed which may be slightly slower than they would chose to operate on a segment that is not range constrained (such as SYD-SIN).

So I would not be expecting an 8 hour travel time saving from a non-stop SYD-LHR flight. I would be expecting something around 2 hours to a maximum of 3 hours when comparing with a one-stop direct service such as QF1 or QF31.

And when using a through service such as those noted above, the through baggage generally remains on board and I have never had a bag go missing at such an intermediate transit point when using the same aircraft. So I would not rate a non-stop service as any different risk for lost baggage than a same-aircraft one-stop transit service.

 

[duffshot]

There is a simple solution to the ULH problem which the RAAF will be able to assist QF with when the MRTT's arrive. There is a nice A330 modification the RAAF have which solves all. Not sure it will happen though.

 

[Altair]

There is a simple solution to the ULH problem which the RAAF will be able to assist QF with when the MRTT's arrive. There is a nice A330 modification the RAAF have which solves all. Not sure it will happen though.

Hmmm could the Feds consider corporatizing the RAAF? What about RAAF airlines where you will have to jump out over the airport and the check-in baggage delivery involves LAPES....:shock:
The military not only uses air to air to increase range but also to allow greater payloads for package delivery.
I bet you the insurance companies would not cover you as well

 

[NM]

There is a simple solution to the ULH problem which the RAAF will be able to assist QF with when the MRTT's arrive. There is a nice A330 modification the RAAF have which solves all. Not sure it will happen though.

Yeah, but the C130's that actually carry the pax between the MRTT "splash and dash" points are a little slow and noisy for a trip to Eggland :shock: .

 

[duffshot]

Yeah, but the C130's that actually carry the pax between the MRTT "splash and dash" points are a little slow and noisy for a trip to Eggland :shock: .

Aagh yes but dont forget they'll also be able to do MRTT to MRTT / Wedgetail / C-17 all of which are all much nicer to travel in.

MRTT = A330
Wedgetail = B737 / BBJ

Also how about F111 or F/A-18? They fast enough?

 

[maninblack]

Actually, it was much earlier than that.

I flew in a Dreamtime Equipped Wunala Dreaming in October 1998 (QF2 LHR-BKK).

I think that you missed my point. QF indeed started fitting the Dreamtime mk1 seat in about 1996 and replaced all the old J seats. They then replaced all of the Dreamtime mk1's with a newer version with better IFE, bigger screen etc and a new fabric trim between about 1999-2002. I believe that this plane you speak of entered service in 1989 and is now on its 4th style of J class seat.

 

[Altair]

Aagh yes but dont forget they'll also be able to do MRTT to MRTT / Wedgetail / C-17 all of which are all much nicer to travel in.

MRTT = A330
Wedgetail = B737 / BBJ

Also how about F111 or F/A-18? They fast enough?

Is the BBJ equipped for air to air? If so when flying first does that mean you get the PM's chair?
F111 is my personal favourite but with both they better be short hops as they could not serve mre than a "refreshment/snack" and there are no bathrooms on board.
I have been on a C130 and they provided me with a boxed lunch and noise isolating earplugs. The seats though are worse the FR!!!!:shock:
With the Wedgetail you probably get the best moving map display and imagine the games you can play!

 

[NM]

Aagh yes but dont forget they'll also be able to do MRTT to MRTT / Wedgetail / C-17 all of which are all much nicer to travel in.

Wedgetail is not going to be in service for a few year yet. I am not sure I want to spend too much time flying inside one of them unless I am issued with a lead suit!

C17s also not due for a while. But would make loading and off-loading of pax a bit quicker than a 744 .

Also how about F111 or F/A-18? They fast enough?

Now you talkin'.

Just not sure they are fast enough to overcome the lack of lavs on a SYD-LHR run :shock: .