V Australia reminds Qantas how wrong it was about the 777

[Ellis Taylor]

Originally Posted by Arthur T

Rather to suffer and waste time and money to run those inefficient B767s, I suggest Qantas to rip immediately the B787 contract (maybe more efficient to express its anger and urge to Boeing by ripping it off in front of media :P) and order A350XWB instead, with a lease contract of A332s and A333s atm and return to Airbus when A350XWB arrives. This would enable Qantas to retire some of its aging B767 fleet also as order A350XWB right now will deliver about the same time as B787s, such a decision seems more secure, as even A350XWBs delayed, Qantas will still end up with new A330s. I believe with the current delay requests by other airlines for the A330, Qantas can get them within 1 year, possibility 9 months, and have lowest cost (and particularly time) to train pilots and crew etc. That if it order now, we can take them next winter.

Arthur, the A330 line is still full, and it seems that those airlines who are delaying are having their slots handed over to other airlines or lessors taking them. Airbus has had a lot of free kicks from the 787 delays with many carrier taking A330s as interim machines. Potentially when the 787 comes out (if it's as good as they say it is - a big if), a number of those operators will start to dump A330s on the market and values would collapse, which is not good for anyone.

Also, I think airlines are really taking a second look at the A350 and seeing it as more of a longhaul specialist than an A330 replacement on medium/shorthaul routes. I did an interview with Azran Osman-Rani for the September issue of AA and he said that they plan to keep their A333s and use the A350s to expand to North America, Europe and New Zealand as the economics on shorter routes (eg to Australia and China) weren't that different. Given there are a number of customers ordering both the 787 and A350, I tend to think that the 787 will be the short/medium hauler while A350s will take on the 777, rather than replacing A330s at least in the short term. If so, I think we could see Qantas order the A350, but it will be as a 744 replacement, rather than a 767/A330 replacement.

[D Chan]

Originally Posted by Adam P.

Oh dear, now you've done it.... what next, Canon vs Nikon??

My thoughts on the Qantas fleet - the A380 is configured for the 'peaks' of the cycle - a big aeroplane with a LOT of premium seating. At the time the interior was designed, the cycle was indeed at its peak...

...but now it's not. Premium passengers have dried up. People are still travelling (cheap airfares will do that), but the operative word there is 'cheap'. On the Qantas A380 there are not enough cheap seats.

They've taken a big gamble on the untried 787, in the same way they took a gamble on the untried A380. The delays for both have severely disrupted the longer-term fleet plans (eg lengthening the career of the classic 743s). The 777 at least is proven and is a mature product, as well as being superbly efficient - and most importantly it's available now.

Interesting times ahead!

Premium passengers have dried up but they will come back as with all cycles. It's easy to get lost in the midst of the doom and gloom but even in recent months both Qantas and Virgin Blue shares have doubled in value from their lowest points.

Once airlines (ones that survive) emerge from the tunnel profitability will return and perhaps to levels unseen previously during the peak of the next cycle.

[James Smith]

Is Ben Sandilands related to Kyle?

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by Sarah C

Dixon publicly admitted that it was one of the biggest mistakes they made fleet planning wise. The fact Airbus threw in so many A330's for a cheap price to sweeten the deal was the ultimate decider. So it was really a A330 vs 777 decision.

Even if QF had the 777 in its fleet for the last 5-10 years, they still would have ordered the 787, just not the same numbers.

How do you work that one out? The 787's are to replace 767's and to expand JQ.

If Qantas had ordered 777's they would have been used more to downgrade/replace (in terms of pax numbers) 747 flights, not upgrade 767 flights to 777's.

As for the orginal post, I think the poster is having himself on. No one will know if Qantas made the wrong choice, indeed they are in profit in difficult times, so their choice could not be all that wrong.

Also interesting he mentions Asian carriers operating 777's, most of whom operate A330's too and of course V Aus flying to HKT. Doesn't Jetstar still do that on behalf parent Qantas, flying the A330?

Don't get me wrong, the 777 is clearly a great aircraft, I just don't think Qantas made that big a mistake going the way they did. The products they have IMO suits our low population density, hugh country and end of the world location with just a few compromises thrown in.

[Mike W]

Originally Posted by Ash W

Don't get me wrong, the 777 is clearly a great aircraft, I just don't think Qantas made that big a mistake going the way they did. The products they have IMO suits our low population density, hugh country and end of the world location with just a few compromises thrown in.

Hmmm, so NZ is not a "low population density, hugh country(?) and end of the world location with just a few compromises thrown in"? While it's not huge, it's major cities are generally remote from one another.

I believe Qantas' challenges pale in comparison to NZs yet NZ [wisely I believe] have gone for the 787/777 double act.

[Ash W]

Ash - Please refrain from quoting the entire post above, thank you - mod

Yeah and Qantas have gone with the A380/747/A330/767/787 as it better suits their needs.

Specificaly to destinations to the north west it is better for them to hub through Singapore. Ie they Fly large aircraft from the larger cities and smaller a/c from the smaller cities. The 777 would be too small for Sydney/Melbourne to Singapore but too big for say Adelaide.

Now to the US, the only three cities that can be served direct are Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. With the 777 it is only recently that a model capable of direct flights has come on the market. But again the idea of flying larger aircraft, and hubbing destinations futher west in Australia through (Sydney in particular) seems to be the best way.

As for the 787, that will be the game changer. It does have the range and has less seats than the 777 so will be ideal for the smaller cities. Also the cities outside Aust it will fly to will also be the smaller ones where before it hasn't been worth while flying to.

With NZ, the population of their major cities is smaller and of course they are closer to the US in particular. So of course the 777 then becomes more viable.

[StuartC]

Originally Posted by Ash W

Yeah and Qantas have gone with the A380/747/A330/767/787 as it better suits their needs.

Specificaly to destinations to the north west it is better for them to hub through Singapore. Ie they Fly large aircraft from the larger cities and smaller a/c from the smaller cities. The 777 would be too small for Sydney/Melbourne to Singapore but too big for say Adelaide.

MH and up until recently SQ operated the 777 on a daily basis to Adelaide, whilst SQ and CX now operate A330-300 on a daily basis. Qantas can only manage 3 international flights a week on the SYD-ADL-SIN run.

[Arthur T]

Alright, about A350 I actually do have a question as A350 is too big, they may not be able to replace A330 but only A340 and B777 at all. So I would understand the demand of B787 and hope Airbus can develop models such as A330NG to compete with B787.

Provided the B787 delay, can Qantas try to use Boeing 737-900ER or 737-800 to replace their B767s? It looks more efficient and flexible. For long haul B767 flights, I think Qantas can try to replace them with Boeing 737-700ER and operate in higher frequencies. Although B737-700ER can only carry about 110 - 120 passengers at a time (with flat bed business and A380 style Econ Class seats), freqencies on services such as ADL - SIN/BKK, SYD - MNL etc can boost up to 3x daily, then it could able to comepte against Singapore Airlines and Thai/Malaysia in terms of frequency. Think it might work? If it works, then I think the Boeing 737-700ER fleet can further expand to more services such as Hong Kong and launch Kuala Lumpur, Taipei, Seoul etc, provided its long range of 10000km?

[Jarden S]

Originally Posted by StuartC

MH and up until recently SQ operated the 777 on a daily basis to Adelaide, whilst SQ and CX now operate A330-300 on a daily basis. Qantas can only manage 3 international flights a week on the SYD-ADL-SIN run.

Its a shame ADL is always getting let down. Maybe the airport charges way to much in landing fees if they could address that problem they may get more airlines. Thai should be serving ADL with A330's. Also V Australia could start longhaul flights 1 a week to NRT and 1 a week to BKK

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by StuartC

MH and up until recently SQ operated the 777 on a daily basis to Adelaide, whilst SQ and CX now operate A330-300 on a daily basis. Qantas can only manage 3 international flights a week on the SYD-ADL-SIN run.

The difference is when Qantas gets to Singapore they only have a limited number of destinations to go to. So Qantas can only carry passengers bound for Singapore, London or Frankfurt.

With the other airlines you mention once you get to their home ports you have their whole network available. So using SQ as an example, once you get to Singapore you have access to their whole network, so clearly their flights will be better utilised, thus the justification of the slightly larger aircraft. If Qantas was part of Star it might be able to carry more passengers bound for points on the Thai or Singapore routes, but being One World it doesn't get this chance.

Indeed I think this is one of many reasons Qantas doesn't take on the likes of Emirates in Dubai.

Also the Asian airlines are able to offer higher frequency using smaller aircraft, Qantas as they need the larger capacity a/c to carry all the hub passengers need the extra capacity of the 747 or the A380. Read this months AA the interview with the boss of CX and see the reason why they are not going to larger a/c, it is a perfect example of what I am saying.

The other point I made before which is illustrated here is with Australia being at the END of the earth, we cannot be used as a hub point, except to NZ or the Pacific which are not high volume markets. Look at all the other carriers in Asia they are hub points, thus all the fights and differing equipment needs.

The 787 will be the true hub buster once Jetstar gets their hands on them, then we will see more destinations not suited to the mainline Qantas operation opening up.