QF 744 Temporary Storage

[Michael Morrison]

Originally Posted by Brad Myer

This is due to the 4th A380 being delayed.

.

Really? You would think given they are talking about sending 1 x 744 to AVV for storage and there is always one now that is at the SYD jetbase they would have enough 744's. The real reason is probably that they need to cut a bit of capacity.

[Fred C]

No spare 744's at SYD. Just the usual ones for maintenance. Not enough room at SYD to have a spare plane sitting around.

[Brad Myer]

Really? You would think given they are talking about sending 1 x 744 to AVV for storage and there is always one now that is at the SYD jetbase they would have enough 744's. The real reason is probably that they need to cut a bit of capacity.

The B744 storage prob wont start until the 5th and 6th A380 arrives, thus freeing up enough B744 capacity to have 1x aircraft in storage.

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by Adam.S

Has there been any official media releases about either the QF127 situation or the temporary storage of the 747s?

Why would they put out a media release for what are clearly operation reasons that really have no effect on customers?

[Adam.S]

Haha yes you're correct. This slight change does not really effect passengers, so a media release would be unjustified.

I was purely thinking this from a planespotters' perspective.
....nothng wrong with me today

[Adam.S]

Some unrelated 747 news:
Sunday night (12/7) saw VH-OJH replace the usual A330-200 on QF583, Sydney-Perth flight.
Rare these days to see a 747 on a domestic flight.

Also VH-OJG ferried down to Melbourne Sunday evening to work QF29, swapping with VH-OJQ which came in on QF30.

[Arthur Boy]

Daniel F, as anyone who works in financial transactions knows, there are many ways to pay for your repairs that are considered 'indirect'. A nose wheel strut through the first class cabin floor here, a bent hull there, and a couple of engine changes for 'maintenance reasons' here.

Reminds me of the classic accountant interview joke........employer to 1st applicant, 'how much does 1+1 equal?', applicant 1 answers, '2'.... employer to 2nd applicant, 'how much does 1+1 equal?', applicant 2 answers '2'.... employer to 3rd applicant, 'how much does 1+1 equal?', applicant 3 gets up from his seat, checks no-one is listening at the door, checks no-one is hiding behind the curtains, leans across the desk and says 'how much do you want it to equal?'.....Guess who got the job!
Same same.

[Owen H]

If it was cheaper to write it off, it would have been written off. The fact that second hand 747's are cheap now doesn't change the fact that it would have cost tens of millions more to replace than it cost to repair at the time.

That doesn't make a very interesting story though.

[Daniel F]

Originally Posted by Arthur Boy

Daniel F, as anyone who works in financial transactions knows, there are many ways to pay for your repairs that are considered 'indirect'.

Another ridiculous statement. Are you suggesting that Qantas some how managed to hide millions of dollars of repairs... even though they are a publicly listed company where their accounts are subject to the scrutiny of investors??

Where ever they put it in the accounts, it would have flowed through to the bottom line. You can't get away with hiding millions of dollars of expenses.

[Mike W]

Originally Posted by Owen H

If it was cheaper to write it off, it would have been written off. The fact that second hand 747's are cheap now doesn't change the fact that it would have cost tens of millions more to replace than it cost to repair at the time.

That doesn't make a very interesting story though.

I don't necessarily agree. Just how important is it for QF to have their unblemished 'no accident' record?

The way I understood it at the time was, by repairing the Aircraft that could have been written off, the mishap was officially an 'incident' rather than an accident and the extra 'costs' were entered as a 'marketing' expense.