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

[chonetsao.co.uk]

I was going to ask this question in the thread discussing SYD-DFW exclusively but seems could not locate it. So here is my question, as per title, could A345 make the QF7/8 non-stop and profitable?

From my understanding by reading various discussions, B744ER has to reduce the load (correct me if I am wrong) to do SYD-DFW run. And it has to make a stop over in BNE on the way back due to its short legs.

We know TG/SQ did not like the A345 as they operated a more premium product on its non-stop North American routes. It became economically unattainable to maintain its operation after the oil price hiked to more than $120. Thus TG has tried to get rid of its A345 desperately and failed to sell them last year.

In the mean time EK, QF's partner, has some stored or running shorter haul, has indicated to retire them early.

So, QF potentially could pick up TG and EK's A345s and make it a small sub-fleet for SYD-DFW runs at a cheap price. Before QF is able to obtain newer and capable aircrafts, it can run the QF7/8 at a cheaper start-up price by using the unwanted A345.

After reconfiguration, A345 could have a capacity of 230 strong seats (rough figure by using A343 and A346 3-class layout without first). It could provide similar seat capacity comparing to B744ER after loading restrictions.

Although I'd love QF to have B777LR or B789 to fly QF7/8 non-stop. But in current QF's financial situation, I think that would be too difficult. However, if QF could obtain A345 cheaply, could Qantas make the non-stop QF7/8 work and be more profitable than the B744ER?

 

[cove]

Even if you bought the A345 for zero dollars that 4 engined bird uses way too much fuel to get to break even.

 

[TomVexille]

It could make the distance, but not a chance that it would make a profit.

 

[mannej]

As others have said, there is a reason why the likes of EK, SQ and TG are withdrawing these 345's from UHL routes.

FWIW, I do believe QF can fit more pax on the jumbos even with the weight restrictions.

 

[chonetsao.co.uk]

I would like to know why. B744ER and A345 are both 4 engines. Granted A345 may burn more fuel for a short sector. But for SYD-DFW, a maximum range, which A345 was designed to fly, it may yield a different result. If you simply blame the 4 engines, I think it is just perceptions. Don't forget many aircrafts still make money for airlines still have 4 engines, including A380, B747 and A340.

In case of EK, A345 worked for EK for a while, until B777LR comes along, and modified A388 was delivered, also oil price shot to the roof.

A345 did not work for SQ, is partly due to SQ only operating 100 business class seats on this aircraft in the later stage. And the flying range SIN-EWR really stretched the economics with such lay out.

TG has the yield problem (according to previous reports on Bangkok Post), it does not mean QF would suffer the same. At this moment QF7/8 is doing rather well, according to this forum.

No offense, but I would like to see some sensible discussion on numbers, not perceptions. Perceptions does not help me to understand this case, since what I have is perceptions.

 

[mannej]

Sensible discussion? There is enough information out there to suggest why the 340 family haven't been that successful and financial return is one of those reasons.

 

[zainman]

Have a look on airliners.net and there may have been similar discussions in the past, if not you can always start a new thread. You are likely to get a larger variety of armchair CEO's on there..

 

[markis10]

Not sure why you think an A345 would work, 230 seats is less than QF can fly now and the aircraft would use slightly more fuel than the 744.

 

[Isochronous]

Not sure why you think an A345 would work, 230 seats is less than QF can fly now and the aircraft would use slightly more fuel than the 744.

1) How many seats on the load-limited 744ER?
2) How many seats and how much fuel-saving on a 772?

 

[cove]

The SQ A340-500 was one of my previous favourites to go SIN-LAX in the 100 seater all business class version. I would use 2 seats as it was never too full.
The smallest passenger load was 33 and I was there on Kris miles.

 

[markis10]

1) How many seats on the load-limited 744ER?
2) How many seats and how much fuel-saving on a 772?

Current ops see a 744 dropping 50 seats and little/no cargo. 77W would be the aircraft to use.

 

[Himeno]

77W would be the aircraft to use.

Are there any available for lease?

 

[markis10]

Are there any available for lease?

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

 

[chonetsao.co.uk]

Thanks for the great info.

One thing I have in mind is the aircraft using cycle. A B744ER doing SYD-DFW-BNE-SYD will add one landing/taking-off cycle into the total. Whereas A345 would have one pair less for a return trip and reducing following costs: 1>, landing cost in BNE; 2>, Ground staff cost in BNE; 3>, Crew rotation; and 4>, other BNE associated ground cost including fuel and supply etc.

I love to see B777 in Qantas. But the new aircraft delivery slot would be long to wait, and Emirates is unlikely to spare few to Qantas as it is the work horse at this moment. Thus the question of A345 as it is easily accessible and any A380 crew could operate the aircraft so minimum pilot training cost. Whereas B777 would require a total re-training of pilot.

Also I think A345 could squeeze in 300 pax using EK's configuration (F12/C42/Y204 this can be changed to C42/Y+42/Y204)

 

[markis10]

Also I think A345 could squeeze in 300 pax using EK's configuration (F12/C42/Y204 this can be changed to C42/Y+42/Y204)

Still under the 744, what's the point?

 

[chonetsao.co.uk]

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

If you are talking about AA. I think they are using B777W for DFW-HKG and DFW-PVG(?can not remember exactly).

Still under the 744, what's the point?

As per post, savings on ground cost in BNE and possibly improved yield. Thus I am asking the question and hopefully someone here may come up with some detailed explanation why B744ER is better than A345 for this route.

 

[markis10]

If you are talking about AA. I think they are using B777W for DFW-HKG and DFW-PVG(?can not remember exactly).



As per post, savings on ground cost in BNE and possibly improved yield. Thus I am asking the question and hopefully someone here may come up with some detailed explanation why B744ER is better than A345 for this route.

I am talking about NZ and asking why a plane that carries less than a 744 but burns more fuel would make sense?

 

[Himeno]

and Emirates is unlikely to spare few to Qantas as it is the work horse at this moment.

If QF wanted some 2nd hand 777s, I'm sure EK would give them some of their older ones. EK doesn't keep aircraft for very long before replacing them. VA got their first 2 A330's from EK. They would likely have some 8-10 year old 777s to get rid of.

 

[maninblack]

VA got their first 2 A330's from EK. They would likely have some 8-10 year old 777s to get rid of.

And what wonderful aircraft they have been!

 

[zainman]

If QF wanted some 2nd hand 777s, I'm sure EK would give them some of their older ones. EK doesn't keep aircraft for very long before replacing them. VA got their first 2 A330's from EK. They would likely have some 8-10 year old 777s to get rid of.

I think you are right. EK like SQ keep planes for something like 12 years and I recall watching a Tim Clark interview on youtube saying that the first 77W will be 12 years old soon (he was responding to a question about why 150 777x).

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