Qantas Fleet

[anat0l]

Nope not even going to try and work that one out on excel.... Especially since I've got all the ages in days....

Just take the age and divide by 365.25, then use ROUND(). After that, do a COUNTIF on a range of answers from 1 - 10, or do a frequency plot.

I don't think the formula you gave works to find the middle number.

9.17 is the age of the aircraft in the middle. The youngest aircraft is 43 days old from first test flight.

In Excel, MEDIAN() will find it (but you probably knew that already).

If you really want to try and impress the inner statisticians, an age distribution histogram would be most useful (and if you can code / colour code them by aircraft type, even better :mrgreen

 

[ajw373]

I'm thinking that because I'm more inclined to allow an airline an older average age if they have a big fleet to maintain and rotate through and fly to some limiting ports like LDH. This would some what be the case for QF because they're flying 205 birds with 5 being old DH8Bs to serve LDH. As for airlines with really large fleets like AA or DL I'm even more inclined to ignore their fleet's age. (I never realised how big QF's fleet is until I saw how many DHC8s they operate)

Now when we remove the regional fleet QF's fleet drops down to SQ's level and a more direct comparison with our regional neighbour can be made. 9.26 v 6 years 8 months is a bit of a wide one, especially considering the 738s QF are flying are 12 years or younger with the average being pushed up by the poorly planned replacements of the 747s and 763s. Heck even the A333s are edging near 10 years and they're supposed to replace the 763s?

That was the reasoning I made that wildly subjective comment on, but after looking at other airlines like BA, IB, AF, AZ with similar fleet sizes 9.26 overall isn't bad and would place QF among the Europeans.

I get the methodology just don't get how 9.09 is good, but 9.26 is bad when the difference between the two is a mere .17 of a year, which works out to be two months. Fleet size matters not when talking about averages, as mentioned before that is the whole idea of an average.

PS as for your comment about poorly planned replacements for 747's and 767's, I take it you know the reason is because of delays in the A380 and 787 projects? So hardly poorly planned.

 

[maninblack]

PS as for your comment about poorly planned replacements for 747's and 767's, I take it you know the reason is because of delays in the A380 and 787 projects? So hardly poorly planned.

Hmm, through to the keeper on this? Plenty of forum discussion on this in the past. But, the 330's were something of a botch up as they were originally going to replace the 767's on MEL-SYD but couldn't be turned around fast enough. Assorted other botch ups and misjusdgements with fleet planning for sure as the very senior people seemed to have their eyes on other prizes. It's all ancient history now though perhaps :?:

 

[medhead]

Planespotters fleet lists might be a bit old. They have 167 aircraft between qantas, jetconnect and qantas link. Are there other airlines to include?

 

[elbarto]

Hmm, through to the keeper on this? Plenty of forum discussion on this in the past. But, the 330's were something of a botch up as they were originally going to replace the 767's on MEL-SYD but couldn't be turned around fast enough. Assorted other botch ups and misjusdgements with fleet planning for sure as the very senior people seemed to have their eyes on other prizes. It's all ancient history now though perhaps :?:

I wouldn't say the original plan to replace the 767s with A330s was botched up. At the time the order was placed the 787 wasn't available and the A330 was the only aircraft of similar size, unless they bought new 767s.

 

[Fruitcake]

I wouldn't say the original plan to replace the 767s with A330s was botched up. At the time the order was placed the 787 wasn't available and the A330 was the only aircraft of similar size, unless they bought new 767s.

If the 767 and the A330-200 are your choices, and you pick the one that is too slow to refuel, too slow to load/unload and too big to fit at your terminal - you might not have botched it but you've arguably made the non-optimal choice.

However, the A332 was a magnificent replacement for the 767 on medium-haul international flights (albeit oftentimes in orange rather than red.)

 

[ajw373]

Hmm, through to the keeper on this? Plenty of forum discussion on this in the past. But, the 330's were something of a botch up as they were originally going to replace the 767's on MEL-SYD but couldn't be turned around fast enough. Assorted other botch ups and misjusdgements with fleet planning for sure as the very senior people seemed to have their eyes on other prizes. It's all ancient history now though perhaps :?:

History does have a habit of being distorted, case in point above. The A330's were never ordered as 767 replacements, the orginal A330-200's were ordered along with the A380 and were intended as additional capacity rather than replacement for the 767 and offered a training path into Airbus aircraft for Qantas pilots. The A330's were to take on some 767 routes, and the displaced 767's taking over some 737 routes, but no 767 was to be retired as a result. Though in the end the extra capacity wasn't needed thanks to Virgin Blue growing faster than expected and of course the A330's were too slow to turn around on the golden triangle routes, hence they were transfered to Jetstar to start international ops.

The A330-300's orginally came about as a sweetner from Airbus for the delay in the A380 program and have been good on the routes they operate (though yes are at the age where a refresh is needed).

The first time 767 replacements were ever mentioned was in the context of the 787, which as we all know suffered extensive delays resulting in Qantas yet again adapting to changing market conditions (that they have no control over) and manufacturer delays, again which they have no control over.

So really don't see the botch up here at least. Lets not get started on 777's either though.

 

[ajw373]

If the 767 and the A330-200 are your choices, and you pick the one that is too slow to refuel, too slow to load/unload and too big to fit at your terminal - you might not have botched it but you've arguably made the non-optimal choice.

See above, the A330 was not ordered as a replacement for the 767. It was ordered for additional capacity, capacity that was not needed in the end.

 

[eastwest101]

I wouldn't say the original plan to replace the 767s with A330s was botched up. At the time the order was placed the 787 wasn't available and the A330 was the only aircraft of similar size, unless they bought new 767s.

But the A330s were already in service with other operators, and /or the specs from Airbus would have shown the slow refueling/turnaround problem with the A330s ergo the order for replacement of B767s was botched by poor QF fleet planning, although in an indirect manner.

As others have said - the A330 was not such a great deal as the A380s were still too late and too big and are "hub-busters" that are only busting two "hubs" LAX and LHR (and can't even do LHR direct). And the A333s were too much capacity and forced QF's hand to launch loss making JQi services and the A332's were apparently too slow to refuel so useless for QF mainline in MEL/SYD/BNE golden triangle legs....

 

[ajw373]

But the A330s were already in service with other operators, and /or the specs from Airbus would have shown the slow refueling/turnaround problem with the A330s ergo the order for replacement of B767s was botched by poor QF fleet planning, although in an indirect manner.

As others have said - the A330 was not such a great deal as the A380s were still too late and too big and are "hub-busters" that are only busting two "hubs" LAX and LHR (and can't even do LHR direct). And the A333s were too much capacity and forced QF's hand to launch loss making JQi services and the A332's were apparently too slow to refuel so useless for QF mainline in MEL/SYD/BNE golden triangle legs....

The A330-300's were never domestic birds (where the turnaround issues came about), they were as mentioned above ordered later as a sweetner for the A380 delays and were international from day 1, though of course found their way on some east-west coast services and they never made it to Jetstar either. I think you are confused with the orginal A330-200's.

Also history has shown that the A330-200 and A330-300's were the right choice. In the case of the -200's the only problem orginaly was wrong choice of route, again as previously mentioned they were ordered for additional capacity which wasn't needed due to the growth of Virgin, but their later use on east-west coast to coast services is spot on. The A330's have also been a good choice for the routes they operate on, but again as mentioned before are due for a refurb to bring them up to current product specs.

 

[markis10]

The A330-300's were never domestic birds (where the turnaround issues came about), they were as mentioned above ordered later as a sweetner for the A380 delays and were international from day 1, though of course found their way on some east-west coast services and they never made it to Jetstar either. I think you are confused with the orginal A330-200's.

You mentioned history has a way of being distorted, the A333s were ordered as part of the original order in November 2001, at the time the A380 delay and compensation was discussed in 2006, Qantas had a fleet of 4 x A332s and 10 x A330s in operation and placed an order for 4 more:

2001 Results Extract:





By 2003 they had realised the A332s were not working:

In the case of the -200's the only problem orginaly was wrong choice of route, again as previously mentioned they were ordered for additional capacity which wasn't needed due to the growth of Virgin, but their later use on east-west coast to coast services is spot on.

They were not ordered primarily to add to capacity but also to replace retiring aircraft, additional capacity increase came via the 738 purchase and 767 BA leases, this is mentioned at the time they were ordered:

. Qantas said the A330s it is buying will be mostly used on domestic routes. The planes would come in two versions, one with 297 seats and one with 314. Qantas chose those planes over Boeing's 777 and 767-400 models. Qantas officials said the delivery schedule and other terms of the aircraft order allow for adjustment in case traffic growth varies from its projections. The airline plans to use the new planes to replace its 13 older-model B747 jets and seven B767-200s, but the spokesman said the retirement schedule will be left loose.

Qantas Plans to Order 31 Jetliners, Including 12 Airbus A3XX Jumbos - WSJ.com

 

[maninblack]

So really don't see the botch up here at least. Lets not get started on 777's either though.

They made a number of botch ups and of course the biggest was in relation the aircraft family that you don't want to get started on.

 

[moa999]

But the A330s were already in service with other operators, and /or the specs from Airbus would have shown the slow refueling/turnaround problem with the A330s ergo the order for replacement of B767s was botched by poor QF fleet planning, although in an indirect manner.

As stated above the 787-9s were the 767 replacement but the firm orders got dumped because of the plans, and because QF wanted the cash gained from releasing the order. While the A330s may not be perfect am sure QF will make them work.

As others have said - the A330 was not such a great deal as the A380s were still too late and too big and are "hub-busters" that are only busting two "hubs" LAX and LHR (and can't even do LHR direct). And the A333s were too much capacity and forced QF's hand to launch loss making JQi services and the A332's were apparently too slow to refuel so useless for QF mainline in MEL/SYD/BNE golden triangle legs....

Unfortunately I dont think any makers will ever launch a LHR direct hub buster - there would be too few customers, and it would not benefit A/Bs biggest customers in the Mid East


As for the 777s, I think AJoyce has previously said they are great aircraft, but not ideal for Qantas at the time, and would have added more types to the fleet - A380 better for flights to LHR and LAX due to slot constriction and passenger numbers, and 777 to big for most of Aus direct to Asia - I mean QF can't even make places work with 330s, and unworkable for JNB (as VA found out) and South America.
I suspect if it could overcome the issues with JNB and SCL on 2-engine ETOPS, then a 777-subfleet would be great for DFW, JNB and SCL

I still think QF will struggle into Asia with whatever aircraft it has, but this is more driven by the cost bases of the Asian airlines (I include airport charges as well as wages in this)

 

[Fruitcake]

You mentioned history has a way of being distorted...

Unsurprisingly markis you found all the sources I was chasing up, and posted it faster, but the Dec 2002 press release announcing the delivery adds even more clarity:

About Qantas | News Room | Media Releases | Qantas Enters New Era with Delivery of First Airbus A330

The two-class 300-seat A330-200 will be used on key Cityflyer routes between Sydney and Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth. The A330-300 aircraft that will be delivered late next year will provide for growth on regional international routes.

 

[ajw373]

The discussion re the 767's is about the 'aging' 767-300's not the -200's. I stand by my comment that the A330's (in all forms) were never intended as a replacement for these (767-300) aircraft and that the 787 is the only aicraft that has ever been discussed as their replacement.

But do stand corrected re the order for A330's including the orginal 7 A330-300's for international use which would have seen the end of the 767-200's with displaced 767-300's coming back to domestic.

 

[markis10]

Unsurprisingly markis you found all the sources I was chasing up, and posted it faster, but the Dec 2002 press release announcing the delivery adds even more clarity:

About Qantas | News Room | Media Releases | Qantas Enters New Era with Delivery of First Airbus A330

Somewhere between Nov 2000 and Dec 2002 the A330s went from domestic to international, I suspect Australian Airlines probably helped in that regard!

 

[eastwest101]

As stated above the 787-9s were the 767 replacement but the firm orders got dumped because of the plans, and because QF wanted the cash gained from releasing the order. While the A330s may not be perfect am sure QF will make them work.

Agree there - which makes the cancellation of the B787-9s even more puzzling, what are QF waiting for? QFi to magically somehow become more profitable or are they waiting for the exchange rates to go against them so that future purchases are even more expensive?

EDIT: Correction to that - they are freeing up the B787-9 delivery slots so that Singapore/Scoot can use the B787-9s to deliver the death blow to QFi and JQi in Asia....

Unfortunately I dont think any makers will ever launch a LHR direct hub buster - there would be too few customers, and it would not benefit A/Bs biggest customers in the Mid East

Probably correct there - A380 is a good hub-buster for everyone in the world except for Australian and NZ based carriers - where the refueling stops and various curfews make them a losing proposition due to distances and low utilization aka owning idle aircraft/assets.

 

[ajw373]

As stated above the 787-9s were the 767 replacement but the firm orders got dumped because of the plans, and because QF wanted the cash gained from releasing the order. While the A330s may not be perfect am sure QF will make them work.

Actually it was the 787-8's that were intended as 767-300 replacements. Remember the first plan was 787-8's to Jetstar, then when 787-9's started to come they would go to Jetstar with the 787-8's coming to Qantas to replace 767-300's.

As for the A330's Qantas is making them work, they are perfect for the coast to coast services.

 

[maninblack]

As for the 777s, I think AJoyce has previously said they are great aircraft, but not ideal for Qantas at the time, and would have added more planes to the fleet - A380 better for flights to LHR and LAX due to slot constriction and passenger numbers, and 777 to big for most of Aus direct to Asia - I mean QF can't even make places work with 330s, and unworkable for JNB (as VA found out) and South America.
I suspect if it could overcome the issues with JNB and SCL on 2-engine ETOPS, then a 777-subfleet would be great for DFW, JNB and SCL

I am sure A Joyce thinks they are a great aircraft and I'm sure he would not have minded ineriting a pure 777 family fleet. He's a smart cookie and I think he could have made it all work quite nicely.

 

[CaviAck]

Just take the age and divide by 365.25, then use ROUND(). After that, do a COUNTIF on a range of answers from 1 - 10, or do a frequency plot.



In Excel, MEDIAN() will find it (but you probably knew that already).

If you really want to try and impress the inner statisticians, an age distribution histogram would be most useful (and if you can code / colour code them by aircraft type, even better :mrgreen

Will definitely take a tinker at this in about 2 weeks time when my exams are all done!

I get the methodology just don't get how 9.09 is good, but 9.26 is bad when the difference between the two is a mere .17 of a year, which works out to be two months. Fleet size matters not when talking about averages, as mentioned before that is the whole idea of an average.

PS as for your comment about poorly planned replacements for 747's and 767's, I take it you know the reason is because of delays in the A380 and 787 projects? So hardly poorly planned.

I can understand the 767s but what about the 744s and 734s? I won't even mentioned another Boeing family member for the sake of everyone's sanity.

Planespotters fleet lists might be a bit old. They have 167 aircraft between qantas, jetconnect and qantas link. Are there other airlines to include?

Have you tried Eastern, Sunstate and Cobham?