Could A345 make QF7/8 non-stop and profitable?

[TomVexille]

Our friends across the ditch just added a couple more for delivery in under a year, maybe they are looking at DFW SYD?

Surely you meant AKL-IAH if you were talking about NZ

 

[markis10]

Surely you meant AKL-IAH if you were talking about NZ

Nothing to stop NZ competing directly by flying into Sydney.

 

[TomVexille]

Nothing to stop NZ competing directly by flying into Sydney.

Correct. But I think the lack of onward feed at the DFW end would mean that NZ would struggle.

 

[maninblack]

Buying a couple of clapped out 777's (or A345's for that matter) is not going to fix the problems at Qantas now. They have had every opportunity to get new 77W's for the past decade.When they first planned DFW knowing the distance limitations, they could have purchased them then and be flying them now. As nice as the 744's were many other airlines saw the writing on the wall with that one years earlier but QF just dozed on. Again not the fault of Joyce but he hasn't done much to act since becoming CEO either. Conclusion, airline is run by idiots.

 

[TomVexille]

Buying a couple of clapped out 777's (or A345's for that matter) is not going to fix the problems at Qantas now. They have had every opportunity to get new 77W's for the past decade.When they first planned DFW knowing the distance limitations, they could have purchased them then and be flying them now. As nice as the 744's were many other airlines saw the writing on the wall with that one years earlier but QF just dozed on. Again not the fault of Joyce but he hasn't done much to act since becoming CEO either. Conclusion, airline is run by idiots.

The point that markis10 has made several times recently (and I agree wholeheartedly with) is that NZ and AA have both managed to procure brand new 77W's at short notice as they have both understood that it's a profitable airframe.

 

[maninblack]

The point that markis10 has made several times recently (and I agree wholeheartedly with) is that NZ and AA have both managed to procure brand new 77W's at short notice as they have both understood that it's a profitable airframe.

Correct, new 77W's. Buying some old crates, especially when it will be a new aircraft type for the airline is not a smart move and won't save their bacon now. QF has had the opportunity and has looked at the option of new 77W's many times over the years but has chosen to shoot themselves in the foot instead. I stand by my previous conclusion

 

[TomVexille]

Correct, new 77W's. Buying some old crates, especially when it will be a new aircraft type for the airline is not a smart move and won't save their bacon now. QF has had the opportunity and has looked at the option of new 77W's many times over the years but has chosen to shoot themselves in the foot instead. I stand by my previous conclusion

Totally. As VA have proven, buying old clunkers is not a great idea. The only airline that seems to make it work is DL.

 

[medhead]

Why didn't QF originally order the 777? I wasn't following the aviation world closely back then and was not in Australia either...

Don't mention the war!

 

[harvyk]

Is 7 / 8 unprofitable? I thought that a large number of pax took 8 because it skipped the stopover in LAX, and that the stopover in BNE wasn't too bad. Yes it's nicknamed QFlate, but then again if you are already on 8 on the DFW-BNE sector, provided you still get into SYD on time, you really don't care about what time the BNE stopover happens.

There is no reason why a plane with restrictions on freight / pax can't still be profitable.

To use the SIN-EWR as an example, well for the last few years that was unprofitable, part of that was the all J config.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Why didn't QF originally order the 777? I wasn't following the aviation world closely back then and was not in Australia either...

Geoff Dixon was adamantly opposed to them. I think part of it was an argument that Australians wanted four engines across the Pacific, in particular.

Dixon has since admitted it was probably the worst mistake he made at QF.

 

[JohnPhelan]

I do wish all the SYD centric people would realise that not every QFi flight needs to depart from, or arrive into, SYD.

I, for one, love the direct DFW-BNE flight. Lots of other pax from other cities do as well, with lots of domestic connections being made ex BNE. Many people seem to prefer to enter Australia in BNE and transfer domestically to MEL/ADL/PER/CBR/CNS, etc, rather than have to put up with the scrum in SYD.

 

[moa999]

With open rumours on pprune about QF dropping MEL-DXB-LHR frequencies due to low loads/yields (is it any wonder QF favours SYD)

If QF had the ability to use an A380 on SYD-DFW would that make greater financial sense given the ability to get cargo uplift, or are there just not enough pax to support the larger aircraft.

 

[harvyk]

With open rumours on pprune about QF dropping MEL-DXB-LHR frequencies due to low loads/yields (is it any wonder QF favours SYD)

If QF had the ability to use an A380 on SYD-DFW would that make greater financial sense given the ability to get cargo uplift, or are there just not enough pax to support the larger aircraft.

I thought the reason why the A380 wasn't used on that route is it didn't have the range / capacity to make it profitable... Also an A380 whilst been big from a pax point of view, I'm pretty sure doesn't have the freight capability like some others.

 

[mannej]

I thought the reason why the A380 wasn't used on that route is it didn't have the range / capacity to make it profitable... Also an A380 whilst been big from a pax point of view, I'm pretty sure doesn't have the freight capability like some others.

I believe it has a greater range than the 747ER

 

[TomVexille]

I thought the reason why the A380 wasn't used on that route is it didn't have the range / capacity to make it profitable... Also an A380 whilst been big from a pax point of view, I'm pretty sure doesn't have the freight capability like some others.

Yes. The A380's QF have don't have the range to make it work. And you are dead on that the A380 doesn't carry as much cargo as a 744 or 77W.

 

[markis10]

Yes. The A380's QF have don't have the range to make it work. And you are dead on that the A380 doesn't carry as much cargo as a 744 or 77W.

Dont have the range to make what work? And an A380 does carry more cargo than a 744.

 

[TomVexille]

Dont have the range to make what work? And an A380 does carry more cargo than a 744.

I was under the impression that the QF A380's were early models pre-wingtwist and therefore hadn't quite reached their potential.

As for cargo, thanks for the correction, I did read some incorrect information somewhere. However, once you take passenger baggage into account, the freight capacity of the 744 starts to win out against a A380.

 

[markis10]

I was under the impression that the QF A380's were early models pre-wingtwist and therefore hadn't quite reached their potential.

As for cargo, thanks for the correction, I did read some incorrect information somewhere. However, once you take passenger baggage into account, the freight capacity of the 744 starts to win out against a A380.

JB747 has done the numbers re DFW - it comes up often:

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....ssion/ask-the-pilot-30478-336.html#post722843

. However, once you take passenger baggage into account, the freight capacity of the 744 starts to win out against a A380.

Actually, the A380 wins out against the 744ER regardless, having a 20T capability while the ERs have half the normal A380 capacity coming in at 10T. On the DFW route there is little to no freight capability because its a 744ER, as JB says if it was an A380 it would be 20T. The A380 could be considered equivalent to a 744 normally re freight with 2LD3/6LD7 + bulkhold on full load vs A380 3LD3/5LD7 + bulkhold.

 

[TomVexille]

Actually, the A380 wins out against the 744ER regardless, having a 20T capability while the ERs have half the normal A380 capacity coming in at 10T. On the DFW route there is little to no freight capability because its a 744ER, as JB says if it was an A380 it would be 20T. The A380 could be considered equivalent to a 744 normally re freight with 2LD3/6LD7 + bulkhold on full load vs A380 3LD3/5LD7 + bulkhold.

So what you're saying is that volume wise they are equivalent with a 10T weight advantage to the Airbus?

 

[markis10]

So what you're saying is that volume wise they are equivalent with a 10T weight advantage to the Airbus?

No, for the ER the volume is a lot lower, I dont have the figures to hand, thats where the A380 has the 10T advantage, non ER is much of a muchness.