V Australia reminds Qantas how wrong it was about the 777

[oz_mark]

oz_mark,

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

I left out the bit about "domestic" on the missions it was being used for (i.e. it is hardly a replacement for 767 on domestic missions).

If people think that the 777 is a good substitute for the 767's domestically then so be it.

 

[dajop]

I And you can almost forget economy on a B777.

10 across is tight, and I can testify to that having done EK a couple of times (but I'll live with that for half the price of flying on the competitors 747's). However, on 3-3-3 configured 777's it just feels wider than in 3-4-3 on a 747. That's certainly the way it feels comparing flying whY on SQ on the two different aircraft, and indeed Seat Guru lists the SQ 777-300ER has having 19" seat width vs 17.5" on their 747 ... not to mention the enhanced IFE on the 77Ws. I know which I'd choose. But more than happy for you and many many others to stick with the 747, and leave empty seats on a 777.

 

[docjames]

JohnK,

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

+1

If the seating is the same (note: not long haul J vs regional seats etc) comapring like with like, what's the difference between A330 and 777?

I guess the only factor in Y is 2/4/2 vs 3/3/3 or 2/5/2 (rare). Imust say i prefer to be in the 2 of an A330/340 when with mrsdoc rahter than in a 3 on 744/777. But that doesnt explain the prefernce for 744 over 777?

 

[markis10]

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.

I am not agreeing with the article that the 777s would have avoided the 787 issue now, however I would like to point out that Cathay are quite happy as is BA with their 777 operations on routes that in a lot of cases were ideal for 767's in the past, mind you they are also happy with the A330s doing the same thing.

The 777 is not a replacement for the mission the 767 was designed for in the theory world, however in the real world of changing passenger loads and GFC's, the 777 and the A330 are proving to be good replacements for the 767 routes in use by airlines worldwide. The reason QF have 7 RR powered 767s is because they were replaced by 777's making them excess to requirements for their owner - BA.

 

[oz_mark]

10 across is tight, and I can testify to that having done EK a couple of times (but I'll live with that for half the price of flying on the competitors 747's). However, on 3-3-3 configured 777's it just feels wider than in 3-4-3 on a 747. That's certainly the way it feels comparing flying whY on SQ on the two different aircraft, and indeed Seat Guru lists the SQ 777-300ER has having 19" seat width vs 17.5" on their 747 ... not to mention the enhanced IFE on the 77Ws. I know which I'd choose. But more than happy for you and many many others to stick with the 747, and leave empty seats on a 777.

In a 9 abreast config on a 777, there is the ability to have slightly wider seats over a 10 abreast 747.

I have to say, though, as a passenger I have never really seen anything special about the 777. Wouldn't avoid it, but wouldn't go out of my way to choose it either.

 

[dajop]

If people think that the 777 is a good substitute for the 767's domestically then so be it.

The 777 would probably be adequate for the PER-SYD/MEL and SYD-AKL routes in place of the 767 (which seem to still make up the majority of PER-MEL flights). CX and SQ seem to use it effectively on their short haul routes (SIN-KUL/BKK/CGK, HKG-TPE/BKK etc). I guess though what you're really talking about is MEL-SYD, and your are probably right - not a good substitute for the 767 onthe high frequency, quick turnaround, short haul operations on this route.

 

[dajop]

I have to say, though, as a passenger I have never really seen anything special about the 777. Wouldn't avoid it, but wouldn't go out of my way to choose it either.

I guess my point is all about the way it's configured. On SQ (which is the 777 operator I am most familiar), in whY my order of preference puts 77W ahead of the 747/other 777s in turn ahead of EK's 777s. In J, it would be certainly be ahead of the 747, ie A380>77W>A330>747>777-200ER>777-300 .... but that's nothing to do with the aircraft type and all to do with the configuration.

 

[serfty]

... The reason QF have 7 RR powered 767s is because they were replaced by 777's making them excess to requirements for their owner - BA.

Who cares about the reason - I hate it when my operating aircraft is a ZX :evil::evil::evil: ...

... there is little doubt those particular $%&@#@%# aeroplanes would have been retired by now if the 787 was operational with QF.

 

[NM]

I am yet to read a balanced and accurate journalistic publication by the author of the article in question. I am far from a Qantas apologist, but when it comes to fleet decisions that article has missed one major point - fleet decisions are long-term decisions.

Until the 777-300ER and 777-200LR became available, the models of 777 available were minimal value to Qantas when considering their overall fleet make-up and missions. While the 777-300ER may be desirable now, the long-term expectation from Qantas is that in 5 years time they will be in a better position overall than if they had purchased the 777-300ER a few years ago and taken the short-term gain.

Qantas has a different fleet strategy to SQ, driven by one major difference - the taxation laws under which they each operate. I don't know about EK, but would not be surprised if they operate under similar conditions to SQ. The Singapore government (which also happens to be the major shareholder in SIA) permit accelerated depreciation of their aircraft. This policy was established for the purpose of encouraging the airline to turn over their fleet quickly and they have always held a young fleet as a result. Turning over teh aircraft quickly means fleet decisions can be short-term.

Qantas, on the other hand, has to operate within the taxation and depreciation laws defined by the Australian Government and enforced by the ATO. Qantas has been lobbying for quite some time to be permitted accelerated depreciation of its aircraft fleet to better enable it to compete with foreign carriers whose governments provide them with such a competitive advantage. The term "level playing field" has been bandied around, especially when it comes to SQ operating trans-pacific ex-Australia.

So given the inability to accelerate the depreciation of new aircraft, Qantas has structured its fleet management around long-term ownership of aircraft, with most of the fleet planned for 20+ year operation. So 5 years of not having the most efficient aircraft on a route is not so bad when they consider that for the following 15 years they will be in a very good situation and not having to hold only a fleet of less optimal 777's that were "best of breed" when purchased, but not so "best of breed" when the next generation of aircraft is delivered.

If they were able to have a 5-7 year turn-over of aircraft, then the 777-300ER would have been a good fit. But with a 20+ year expected ownership, it may not be such a good strategy. The 5-7 year window of opportunity of the 777-300ER is ideal for SQ (and probably EK) and I applaud them for making wise decisions based on their requirements and operating conditions. I also believe both Qantas and V Australia have made wise decisions based on their own requirements and long-term operating conditions.

If the author of that article really wants to see Qantas change their fleet strategy, he would join the lobbying for the Australian government to allow accelerated depreciation of new aircraft.

 

[docjames]

As NM points out, SQ and EK have differing tax and regulatory regimes to QF.

I seem to recall EK dont have to formally account for aircraft in their balance sheet. I thought it worked something along the line of the fleet being purchased by government and EK only account for operating expenses (maintenence/fuel etc) Note this is comapred to SQ or QF which have to finance, carry the current value and depreciate over 5yrs/20yrs respectively.

Happy to be corrected if that's not correct.

 

[markis10]

For an interesting exercise have a read of the 777 pages on wikipedia then reread the Sandilands article to spot the common points, I would also suggest this article might have been the catalyst:

Qantas Quandary - GLG News


Interesting comments "Alan Joyce is lumbered with the legacy of Dixon’s mistakes. Had Qantas moved to replace its older 767 and 747-400 fleets with 777-300ER’s, for example, it would not have had to waste money keeping the likes of the even older 747-300 in its fleet up until just six months ago."

 

[codash1099]

For an interesting exercise have a read of the 777 pages on wikipedia then reread the Sandilands article to spot the common points, I would also suggest this article might have been the catalyst:

Qantas Quandary - GLG News


Interesting comments "Alan Joyce is lumbered with the legacy of Dixon’s mistakes. Had Qantas moved to replace its older 767 and 747-400 fleets with 777-300ER’s, for example, it would not have had to waste money keeping the likes of the even older 747-300 in its fleet up until just six months ago."

How marvellous to be blessed with such great hindsight. Where were these people when QF first announced its fleet renewal strategy? IIRC it was hailed as forward looking at the time.

 

[sr81]

Interesting comments "Alan Joyce is lumbered with the legacy of Dixon’s mistakes. Had Qantas moved to replace its older 767 and 747-400 fleets with 777-300ER’s, for example, it would not have had to waste money keeping the likes of the even older 747-300 in its fleet up until just six months ago."

As if QF wanted the 743's around as long as they did. That was forced with the delays to the 787 and A380 that, in turn, limited use of the A330's and stuck us with those horrible BA jobs.

QF looked very hard at the 777 and was involved in its development. The issue was that Boeing couldn't build it the aircraft it wanted hence the 747-400ER.

On a personal note, I like the 747/A330 more that than the 777. In J for the 333 and 744 you are quite someway forward of the engines and hence it is pretty quiet ride. In fact the nose of 747 is freakishly quiet.

 

[Keith009]

10 across is tight, and I can testify to that having done EK a couple of times (but I'll live with that for half the price of flying on the competitors 747's). However, on 3-3-3 configured 777's it just feels wider than in 3-4-3 on a 747. That's certainly the way it feels comparing flying whY on SQ on the two different aircraft, and indeed Seat Guru lists the SQ 777-300ER has having 19" seat width vs 17.5" on their 747 ... not to mention the enhanced IFE on the 77Ws. I know which I'd choose. But more than happy for you and many many others to stick with the 747, and leave empty seats on a 777.

I tend to like the smaller widebodies, as the cabin just feels more cozy and less crowded (with exception of the B747 upper deck). I prefer the 777 to the 747 generally in whY, but I'd also take the 767 or 330 in preference to the 777 as I generally feel more comfortable in smaller cabins. In F or J, I'd go for the 380 or 744 of course since airlines usually put their flagship products on these planes but i wouldn't hesitate going on 330s or 767s if the best products make their way there too.

Bring on the 787s I say - saw a whole lot of them at the Boeing factory freshly painted. Looked nice.

 

[JohnK]

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

From my experience I feel the economy seats on an A330 are more comfortable than B777. Also 2-4-2 configuration is much better than 3-3-3 configuration especially if you have a seat on the 2 side.

That's certainly the way it feels comparing flying whY on SQ on the two different aircraft, and indeed Seat Guru lists the SQ 777-300ER has having 19" seat width vs 17.5" on their 747 ... not to mention the enhanced IFE on the 77Ws. I know which I'd choose. But more than happy for you and many many others to stick with the 747, and leave empty seats on a 777.

I will get a chance to fly the SQ A380, B777-300ER and B777-300(?) in economy on the same trip in December/January....