V Australia reminds Qantas how wrong it was about the 777

[oz_mark]

V Australia reminds Qantas how wrong it was about the 777 - Plane Talking

Virgin Blue has really shown how it can punish Qantas for its absurd resistance to acquiring Boeing 777s.

The announced ‘phase two’ expansion of its V Australia fleet which rises to only four of these jets by December is going to be an enormous headache for Qantas.

(Not sure I agree that QF made a mistake not getting the 777, based on what they knew at the time....but easy to criticise when things don't come together. Interesting at the end about whispers that QF may swap some 787 orders for 777, but these rumours have bobbed up time and again over the years)

 

[Nigelinoz]

I agree with oz_mark,
I have wondered for some time why Qantas didn't go with the 777 but it's a bit over the top to use expressions like

"it p*ssed more than a billion dollars in excess fuel consumption into the wind by not having 777s in its fleet."

in my view that is unneccessarily vitriolic and rather than the article being a fair and balanced examination of the reasons why Qantas took the decision not to go with the 777 it reads like a press release from Virgin and a poor one at that.
Although I guess I should have realised that when I saw the picture of Brett Godfrey and the girls at the top of the page.!
I personally wish that Qantas had gone with the 777 but I would no more criticise Qantas in those terms than I would criticise Virgin for not going with Airbus aircraft when it ordered the 777.
I reckon Qantas will consign this particular piece of "journalism" to the bin.

 

[UP4014]

I think the 777 was the first (or one of the first) types of commcerical aircraft not to have to undergo the normal regime of airworthness testing as a result of getting an US FAA exemption, a few years back if I was an airline manager I would not likely have gone with them either because for a long haul a 4 engine proven product is a safer bet than a two engine untested (except on a computer) airliner.

Over the years the design has stood up to the real world so has proven to be good, in hindsight.

 

[harvyk]

Sorry NIGELINOZ, your saying this wasn't a virgin media release?

It certainly looked sounded and smelled like one...

As a pax I'm personally "meh" when it comes to the B777's. I'd certainly pick a B777 over a B737, but I'd probably go with the B747 or A380 if either option was available.

 

[moa999]

Being optimised for long haul, the 777s also have much better economy class amenity than shorter haul jets (despite Emirates going for 10 across seating).

Assume he actually meant VAus there.

Cabin Widths...
777 = 19ft 3in
747 = 20ft

Enough said re the article being a press release

 

[mannej]

I think that he was referring to EK, as they certainly do offer 10 across seating on their B777 fleet.
V-Australia offer 9 across.
However the standard of this article is very poor, and perhaps that is why it is on crikey...

 

[markis10]

What a load of rubbish in that article:

"In fact out of its better equipped major competitors, Emirates is the largest A380, 777 and A330 operator in the world, with Singapore Airlines also flying large numbers of all three types."

SQ is currently the largest operator of A380s, CX is the largest operator of A330's followed by northwest while with the 777 Emirates are the largest operator by a factor of one aircraft body, SQ coming in a close second. No mention of the benefits of single type ratings for A330/340 operators either which is also a significant factor for airlines.

 

[Nigelinoz]

It could very well be a Virgin media release and I was just not smart enough to see it,(I'm pretty thick sometimes ) but even if it was then using language like I quoted above is hardly professional and I would have expected better-even from Crikey.
To me it smacks of schoolyard taunting,("nah nah nah,we got 777's and you didn't so there !).
It could have been better .(Or could it?)

 

[crazydave98]

It could very well be a Virgin media release and I was just not smart enough to see it,(I'm pretty thick sometimes ) but even if it was then using language like I quoted above is hardly professional and I would have expected better-even from Crikey.
To me it smacks of schoolyard taunting,("nah nah nah,we got 777's and you didn't so there !).
It could have been better .(Or could it?)

I debated whether I should even bother given oxygen to the suggestion that we had anything to do with the article. But I'm taking the bait. I know the journalist and it is fair to say he is not a fan of Qantas and likes his colourful language. But I state categorically those are his views alone and the image is a file photo freely available. We don't need put-up jobs and are quite capable of doing (and enjoying!) our own taunting where the situation warrants.

Qantas has its fleet strategy and I'm sure they made the best choice for them at the time with the information available. Just because the B777 is the right aircraft for us doesn't necessarily mean it would have been the better choice for them than the A380/B787 combo.

cheers

CrazyDave98

 

[Flying Fox]

Silly comments like -

'And the Qantas answer to the 777, the slightly smaller 787, isn’t coming any day soon, maybe never.'

- don't give credibility to the article. I'm betting everything on the fact that the 787 will fly but also acknowledge that it’s very late.

 

[oz_mark]

It could very well be a Virgin media release and I was just not smart enough to see it,(I'm pretty thick sometimes ) but even if it was then using language like I quoted above is hardly professional and I would have expected better-even from Crikey.
To me it smacks of schoolyard taunting,("nah nah nah,we got 777's and you didn't so there !).
It could have been better .(Or could it?)

The article itself is a blog entry from a reporter that has never struck me as a particular fan of Qantas. I doubt it is a Virgin Blue media release. More a 'the 787 will never fly, you should have bought the 777' thing.

 

[anat0l]

So much for ethical journalism. How does this idiot still have a job let alone any integrity :evil::evil::evil::evil::evil:




Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and yes QF probably would have benefitted acquiring some 777s. Even some past QF honchos have conceded this. I wouldn't have minded cruising on a QF 777...that would have been cool.

Mind you, I think the arguments against QF are more of the age of their fleet rather than their choices of aircraft per se.

So I guess if QF is guilty of any capital crime (pun intended) right now, it would be sorely underestimating the business risks associated with its latest efforts to modernise its fleet.

 

[JohnK]

Perhaps QF made a mistake not getting any B777's but hindsight is a wonderful gift. Anyway QF is still doing extremely well as an airline so the mistake could have not been that disastrous.

As a passenger I don't think the B777 has anything special to offer. I would much rather travel on a B747 or even A330 before I will choose a B777....

 

[dajop]

I would much rather travel on a B747 or even A330 before I will choose a B777....

Now without needing to vehemently disagree with your opinion, me thinks you are missing the crucial words "All else being equal, I would much rather ...". Based on your JQ posts, I can't imagine you'd choose a JQ operated A330 over a QF operated 777 (if such a beast came into being). Or would you?

When all else is not equal it is a different matter, for example I would much rather travel on an SQ 777-300ER than an SQ 747, but they have different F, J and Y products, so all is not equal.

 

[JohnK]

Now without needing to vehemently disagree with your opinion, me thinks you are missing the crucial words "All else being equal, I would much rather ...". Based on your JQ posts, I can't imagine you'd choose a JQ operated A330 over a QF operated 777 (if such a beast came into being). Or would you?

I don't think that is likely to happen anytime soon. Perhaps I should have said where an airline has a B747, A330 and B777 I would prefer the B747, A330 over the B777 everytime. Now would I avoid the B777 altogether? If possible yes. And by the way I have travelled on the B777 numerous times in business class, premium economy and economy.

For example BA has the same WT+ product on B747 and B777 and I would much rather be on the B747 and CX replaced the B747 with B777 on the BKK-SIN legs and I would much rather have the upper deck on the old(ish) B747 than the new(ish) regional product on the B777. And you can almost forget economy on a B777. I shall get my chance to sample it again with SQ in the new year. I would hate to travel on airlines that decided 10 across seating on the B777 was a good idea....

 

[oz_mark]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and yes QF probably would have benefitted acquiring some 777s. Even some past QF honchos have conceded this. I wouldn't have minded cruising on a QF 777...that would have been cool.

Mind you, I think the arguments against QF are more of the age of their fleet rather than their choices of aircraft per se.

So I guess if QF is guilty of any capital crime (pun intended) right now, it would be sorely underestimating the business risks associated with its latest efforts to modernise its fleet.

This part is strange

Qantas made two incredibly inept decisions concerning its fleet needs in recent years, in choosing to buy a large fleet of Boeing 787 Dreamliners, and not buying Boeing 777s.

I don't recall that Qantas made a choice between 787 and 777.

They made a choice between 777 and A330, and later between 787 and A350.

Having made a decision to buy 777's in the past would have still left them with 20 year old 767's now.

 

[straitman]

JohnK,

Not sure if I missed it but I can't see why you favour the A330 and are so against the B777:?:

 

[markis10]

This part is strange



I don't recall that Qantas made a choice between 787 and 777.

They made a choice between 777 and A330, and later between 787 and A350.

Having made a decision to buy 777's in the past would have still left them with 20 year old 767's now.

QF have been loking at the 777 as a long haul hub buster since the 90's and where looking at it in conjunction with the 787 order, no doubt hoping for a buld deal on a 777/787 combo buy, versus a A340/A350 .

They did not make the choice between the A330 and the 777, Dixon clearly states the desire for four engines drove the decision not to purchase in the 90's in preference to the 747-400ER, which they became the launch customer for. The A330 purchases were not intended at any stage to be covered by 777s but were for domestic routes and regional international ops replacing the 767-200 fleet.

 

[oz_mark]

QF have been loking at the 777 as a long haul hub buster since the 90's and where looking at it in conjunction with the 787 order, no doubt hoping for a buld deal on a 777/787 combo buy, versus a A340/A350 .

They did not make the choice between the A330 and the 777, Dixon clearly states the desire for four engines drove the decision not to purchase in the 90's in preference to the 747-400ER, which they became the launch customer for. The A330 purchases were not intended at any stage to be covered by 777s but were for domestic routes and regional international ops replacing the 767-200 fleet.

Fair enough. But I still don't see the articles argument that buying 777's would have avoided the 787 problem now, and how it would have avoided the aged 767 problem now.

The 777 is hardly a replacement for the 767 on the missions the 767 is used on.

 

[straitman]

The 777 is hardly a replacement for the 767 on the missions the 767 is used on.

oz_mark,

Not disagreeing with you but just asking why you believe this:?: