Qantas to Grow A380 Fleet and Launch Melbourne-London A380 Services

[anabolism]

Macca, if you takes the QF 11/QF 12 to/from LAX, that should give you the A380.
Assuming the QF 107/108 to/from LAX and JFK will remain as is.

Probably this has been discussed elsewhere, but I'm curious why QF chose SYD-LAX over SYD-LAX-JFK for the A380.

 

[djfuzz]

Probably this has been discussed elsewhere, but I'm curious why QF chose SYD-LAX over SYD-LAX-JFK for the A380.

Indeed - the theory (although some disagree) is that SYD-JFK loads are too light to support a daily 744 service, let alone a 388. If anything, it may be more likely that it may be serviced by a 330 or a 787 extension of QF25/26 in the future rather than a 744 on QF107/8.

On the other hand, some argue that Y loads are high at times on the 744, but I doubt many would say that about premium cabins. So it seems like the 744 service is unlikely to change in the near future.

 

[samh004]

If anything, it may be more likely that it may be serviced by a 330 or a 787 extension of QF25/26 in the future rather than a 744 on QF107/8.

For that to work they’d have to base a QF plane in either JFK or LAX though? I’m sure AA could service it at mates rates, but is that what would happen?

 

[aus_flyer]

Indeed - the theory (although some disagree) is that SYD-JFK loads are too light to support a daily 744 service, let alone a 388. If anything, it may be more likely that it may be serviced by a 330 or a 787 extension of QF25/26 in the future rather than a 744 on QF107/8.

On the other hand, some argue that Y loads are high at times on the 744, but I doubt many would say that about premium cabins. So it seems like the 744 service is unlikely to change in the near future.

Unlikely to change in the near future? That's probably true, but looking to the future...

Rumour has it that the LAX-JFK sector will be serviced by a 330 from late 2010.

 

[Flying Fox]

Probably this has been discussed elsewhere, but I'm curious why QF chose SYD-LAX over SYD-LAX-JFK for the A380.

I heard that the main $ earner on the LAX-JFK sector was freight and that the A380 can't lift as much cargo as B744. Hence the reason that the B744 is still be used.

I'm open to be corrected.

 

[aus_flyer]

I heard that the main $ earner on the LAX-JFK sector was freight and that the A380 can't lift as much cargo as B744. Hence the reason that the B744 is still be used.

I'm open to be corrected.

I've heard that also, but (as noted above) I've also heard from reliable sources that it might change to an A330.

I admit this seems contradictory as surely the A330 is not good for freight as a 744.

Personally I hope it doesn't change as I think it would be a shame for QF to drop First to New York

 

[straitman]

I heard that the main $ earner on the LAX-JFK sector was freight and that the A380 can't lift as much cargo as B744. Hence the reason that the B744 is still be used.

I'm open to be corrected.

I do not know about this route specifically but freight is often the bigger earner than passengers.

 

[oz_mark]

I've heard that also, but (as noted above) I've also heard from reliable sources that it might change to an A330.

Which might imply that something (e.g. AKL-LAX) else becomes an A330, as that would require an A330 from somewhere.

 

[samh004]

Which might imply that something (e.g. AKL-LAX) else becomes an A330, as that would require an A330 from somewhere.

So they can’t base an A330 at LAX?

 

[markis10]

So they can’t base an A330 at LAX?

It would be poor utilisation of an aircraft and crew, as it would require two crew and lengthy parking periods.

 

[straitman]

It would be poor utilisation of an aircraft and crew, as it would require two crew and lengthy parking periods.

Is that really any worse than tying up a 744 for that period :?: Personally I would think not.