Qantas Fleet

[markis10]

Very surprised being only around 13 years old. Maybe nearing one of it's major inspections?

Scott.

Probably, might have a good resale value versus scrap, left late:

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>
I gave him feedback on the Cafe Breakfast, which he said he would raise with the head of international catering. One can only hope this has some impact.
<snip>

Bravo! add more to go over 10 characters

 

[docjames]

Probably, might have a good resale value versus scrap, left late:

Going alright - direct to KVCV for the 763 is a nice performance - even despite light load is have though that was a stretch!

 

[markis10]

Going alright - direct to KVCV for the 763 is a nice performance - even despite light load is have though that was a stretch!

Not an issue with ferry tanks, the delivery flight was very similar even down to the flight number, which was the pairing of the final flight QF6026

 

[docjames]

Not an issue with ferry tanks, the delivery flight was very similar even down to the flight number, which was the pairing of the final flight QF6026

Ok I didn't realise they'd use ferry tanks.

You'd think it would be "easier" to just stop in hnl. But I guess 24hr of landing fees etc plus crew time etc comes into calculations as well.

 

[markis10]

Ok I didn't realise they'd use ferry tanks.

You'd think it would be "easier" to just stop in hnl. But I guess 24hr of landing fees etc plus crew time etc comes into calculations as well.

That is an option, however looking at the range charts I doubt they would be needed, 8000 nm is doable with a 90T payload at max fuel.

 

[maninblack]

I doubt there would have been any ferry tanks. I doubt Qantas have any for these aircraft nor would they specially fit them for just one flight? As was pointed out earlier they normally stop in HNL but I'm guessing this aircraft has had it's seats removed, that's about 4000kg. So I don't think 7500 miles in the 'right direction' with probably 4 crew and some sandwiches would be a problem! They would have known their fuel figures approching HNL if required. Remember B744 VH-OJA flew non stop London to Sydney with no extra tanks, thats 20 hours.

 

[markis10]

I doubt there would have been any ferry tanks. I doubt Qantas have any for these aircraft nor would they specially fit them for just one flight? As was pointed out earlier they normally stop in HNL but I'm guessing this aircraft has had it's seats removed, that's about 4000kg. So I don't think 7500 miles in the 'right direction' with probably 4 crew and some sandwiches would be a problem! Remember B744 VH-OJA flew non stop London to Sydney with no extra tanks, thats 20 hours.

All of the retirements to date have mostly been direct, I think it's only been some of the ZX aircraft that have stopped. On retirement the aircraft are flown with cabin intact.

 

[maninblack]

I think it's only been some of the ZX aircraft that have stopped. On retirement the aircraft are flown with cabin intact.

Would this be inferior performance of the RR engines or smaller tanks? Other reasons?

 

[markis10]

Would this be inferior performance of the RR engines or smaller tanks? Other reasons?

Not sure, they sure went to different destinations, couple to PVG, one to Kanas, two to Roswell, only ZXC went to VCV

 

[Mattg]

Would this be inferior performance of the RR engines or smaller tanks? Other reasons?

I thought perhaps the stop in HNL was a form of compensation to the crew for having to spend so much time flying in a -ZX aircraft

 

[VHOEJ]

All the GE powered 767s have done SYD-VCV direct. The ex BA aircraft don't have the range to do it direct.

 

[eastwest101]

Very surprised being only around 13 years old. Maybe nearing one of it's major inspections?

Scott.

Yes very strange - is that going to be the pattern? Spend the money on the interior refits and then retire them shortly after?

 

[maninblack]

Yes very strange - is that going to be the pattern? Spend the money on the interior refits and then retire them shortly after?

I really don't think that they spent much. But anyway, just to clarify, is it proposed that the A332's coming back from JQ will be back on the MEL-SYD run or is it to be all 738's once the 763's are gone?

 

[Standby]

I'd expect the retirement came down to either a big upcoming maintainance bill or as relatively young airframe vs other 767s something to do with depreciation benifits this financial year.
I have seen comments about + 20 years is the usual timeframe for Aust aircraft depreciation schedule, are there any accountants who can varify if QF can bring forward the benifits by early retirement?

 

[eastwest101]

I really don't think that they spent much. But anyway, just to clarify, is it proposed that the A332's coming back from JQ will be back on the MEL-SYD run or is it to be all 738's once the 763's are gone?

Others may know more but I remember a discussion about the B767 situation and replacement with A332s as being only enough domestic A332s to be able to handle coast to coast PER-MEL/SYD/BNE services. i.e. more B767 retirements than A332 replacements and with not enough A333s around then I think most people were predicting little to no A332 on east coast golden triangle routes - pretty much everything domestic will be B738's except for Perth.

 

[ajw373]

I really don't think that they spent much. But anyway, just to clarify, is it proposed that the A332's coming back from JQ will be back on the MEL-SYD run or is it to be all 738's once the 763's are gone?

No detailed proposal has been put in writing about what routes will be flown with what. Though I reckon you will see more 738's on routes between MEL-SYD-BNE, with the occasional A330 on these routes and A330's on the the other 767 routes. There just isn't enough of them coming from JQ to be a 1 for 1 replacement.

 

[flychrisfly]

No detailed proposal has been put in writing about what routes will be flown with what. Though I reckon you will see more 738's on routes between MEL-SYD-BNE, with the occasional A330 on these routes and A330's on the the other 767 routes. There just isn't enough of them coming from JQ to be a 1 for 1 replacement.

Interesting. Given the lower pax capacity of the 738s compared to a wide body this would imply more daily flights in the golden triangle. Maybe not a bad thing, unless you prefer flying in wide bodies...

 

[ajw373]

Interesting. Given the lower pax capacity of the 738s compared to a wide body this would imply more daily flights in the golden triangle. Maybe not a bad thing, unless you prefer flying in wide bodies...

They have slowly been increasing 738 flights on the golden triangle for a number of years actually, I reckon about 40-50% SYD-MEL are already 73H's, SYD-BNE is 3-4 763's max and BNE-MEL I don't think there are ANY regular 763 flights.

 

[anat0l]

Interesting. Given the lower pax capacity of the 738s compared to a wide body this would imply more daily flights in the golden triangle. Maybe not a bad thing, unless you prefer flying in wide bodies...

I'd probably go against the grain here, but I'm happy to have more flights in exchange for "downgauged" equipment.

One operational challenge of having higher frequencies of flights would probably be the increase in managing loads by the staff during "flow forward" periods, as well as a much more messier recovery when things go to the dogs (for whatever reason: late aircraft, ATC faffing around, weather).

Imagine... a flight almost every 15-20 minutes during peak.

The alternative is that QF accept the withdrawal of capacity on routes being downgauged and redeploy that capacity to possible other centres. For example, OOL, ADL, CNS, HBA or NTL (in decreasing order of likelihood).