|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
V Australia reminds Qantas how wrong it was about the 777
Quote:
... I thought it might be a good topic for debate on this forum..the whole 777 vs 787 vs Airbus etc.. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
It's hard to have a 777 vs 787 arguement as they are not comparable.
The 787 is a short-medium range airliner and the 777 is a medium to long haul airliner. They also have hugely different payload capabilities. I liked the blog story though. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I am not sure if at this point in the development cycle it would be wise to purchase the 777. Barring QF being the launch customer of a "next-gen" 77L/77W- in a few years time a lot of the major competition will presumably killing them on unit cost per ASK with A350s. This is not to say that a 777 will not generate them a positive return on investment, but without a certain immediacy on delivery- I think they have lost the competitive edge. Then again, QF is not one for selling their aircraft on and tends to use them until they cannot be used any more, so if we factor resale value out of the equation the 777 might actually be a good bet either way.
I would say that Boeing, however, will fight tooth and nail to not lose QF as a customer- if they do leave the 787 program I can't imagine Boeing giving them anything but favorable terms on other currently available aircraft. Part of me wonders if they've been trying to flog the 748i QF's way as well. The one thing I am unclear of is what variants could QF make good use of. At the moment, there isn't the market for a non-stop (one of the ways) SYD-LHR, but the LR would still be better for many routes ex. MEL. This is a truly fascinating rumor, I'd love to see some 777-338ERs around here. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I think their point to decide B787 but not B777 is that B787 is more flexible and efficient than B777s, where A380 will do the long haul, the B787 will suits mid-long haul and small size B787 will do the domestic routes. By all B787 comes to Qantas, they will be benefitted in smaller training costs and maintainance costs and higher profitability.
However, they didn't think of both NG aircrafts delayed, even the B787 is successful is now in question. That's I believe how they got into trouble and stranded with those old, inefficient B767s and B787s never come. I dobut whether Qantas will have enough funds to change their orders now as even the B737s needs to be delayed. Qantas is not the launch customer for B787s, and their 1st batch of B787s may now need to arrive in 2013 or later. 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. A330 & A350XWB will have a slightly higher capacity than B767 to run domestic routes, but it is more efficient, what's more is Qantas can try to fit a 2-3-2 Wide Economy Class & 1-2-1 Business Class to get the B763 capacity but substanially improve the cabin product and service quality. By this move, I believe all other airlines will get beated by Qantas. Last edited by Arthur T; 18th August 2009 at 08:41 PM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Arthur T,
The A350 hasn't flown yet either. I wouldn't be ripping up a contract for an aircraft that is so late that Boeing will be paying penalties, in favour of an aircraft that equally hasn't shown any sign of flying yet! Qantas is in the position of holding some of the early slots on an aircraft type that has proved to be rather popular with the airline orders. I'm sure those slots could be traded with other airlines later if necessary. The original article is one of the most poorly written documents I've ever read. There is nothing wrong with attacking Qantas for its fleet choice, but to say that V Aus is proving that is just crap. When V Aus show a profit, and show that it truely is the right aircraft (especially considering they still haven't explained how it will be more efficient to JNB given the route restrictions), then we'll have a bit of a fair comparison. The lastest route announcements from V Aus show how desperate they are becoming. They are very worried that their business plan just isn't working, and so they're targetting a market like MEL - HKT... which has to be thin at best given what will be cheaper alternatives to get there. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Where else EX MEL would you recommend that they fly to?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Secondly I don't think it's desperate at all - in-fact I think it's the opposite - it's smart business. These changes remove an amount of risk from the business - to date all of the companies resources have been tied up in one destination - if for any reason that route collapased then the business would be in jeapody - now the risk is shared between multiple routes & destinations which are unrelated and as such are all unlikely to collapase at once. I personally think it would have been a whole lot more desperate to press on with just LAX, just because it was the initial plan for aircraft four and flood an already flooded market with even more capacity just to try and make it work. The business plan is working too - the business plan wasn't to launch 13 777's to LAX, it was to more to launch a new international airline that would be able to stimulate new & existing markets & achieve high levels of customer satisfaction - it would appear this this is all being achieved. VB group management has a way of making what everyone else thinks are marginal routes work very well (look at BNE/DPS & BNE/NAN for example), I think you may well see the same happen here. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Honolulu
Phuket Fiji Not a high demand for J class product on these routes. |
|
|