Qantas mulls Airbus A350, Boeing 777X to replace Boeing 747s

Disagree. They should have gotten the A330-300 in even larger numbers for QFi.

The A330 definitely has its place for short to medium haul, but the 777 is more suited as a 747 replacement and has a better range with more passengers than the A330. The A330 can't fly Australia to USA so would be of little use to Qantas for those types of sectors, whereas the 777- 200ER and 300ER can do it easily.

The A330 doesn't have to. There are enough B747s in the fleet to have covered the JNB/SCL/DFW/LAX/FRA issue long enough to await the 787's delayed arrival.

I'm not disagreeing with you.. .but the 787 is hardly a 747 replacement. The 777 would have provided the best stop-gap solution with better performance for longer sectors. The 787 is better suited to replace the A330.

Again, we're ignoring the roles that the 744 plays in the QFi fleet. Firstly, we need to divide the two roles the 744 plays: 1) where it is the right plane for the job (SYD-JNB), and 2) where it is being used because that's all QFi can muster (e.g. BNE-SIN).

No, it's not a 744 replacement. Absolutely not. But what I'd like to see is the 789 used for both long-and-thin routes (e.g. reviving the SFO and/or FRA services) and also to swap out daily 744s for multi-daily 789s.

I believe in the power of frequency. It's all well and good to use a 744 once a day, but if we use more 789s (remember, options for up to fifty) then we can run services like BNE-SIN double-daily or more. This brings QFi more towards a CX model of more capacity using more flights, enhancing convenience, connectivity and competitiveness.

It's not a like-for-like replacement, but I don't believe it has to be. The only case where we need a true 744 replacement are for the long-hauls like JNB, and for that QFi has the nine post-1999 744(ER)s to cover that until it can snag a modern "game-changer".

Yes but they ARE Slowly Getting rid of the 747s. They are only keeping Freighters But not many

EXACTLY AusFlyer QANTAS MADE A MASSIVE MISTAKE NOT Getting the 777-200/300 (ER) It would have been so good for them plus they are agreat aircraft.

For the Asian network, how is it better than the A330-300, especially given QF already had domestic A330-200s?

Joyce would not be foolish enough to buy the 748. He wants to streamline the QFi ops by simplyfying the fleet, not replacing one 747 with another!

I'd keep the A330's in the fleet and utilize them as best he could then use the A350-1000 to replace the 747's. Then he'd have an all Airbus QFi fleet once the 747's are gone!!!

350s are twin engines, can't fly to South America or South Africa because they'll fly over areas more than 3 hours from a useable airport.

They can only send 380s (won't fill them) or 747s to those two continents. 

QF might be able to fill an A380 a day to Santiago if it didn't charge such gougey prices.

Searching for SYD-SCL on random days next month and I can't find tickets on actual QF metal for less than $3000, which is rather excessive for a sixteen-hour flight. Australians don't visit South America much, but that's largely because it's much more expensive to get there than any other destination.

A340 could be used too! Iknow its not good for effiecientcy but its possible!

A340 could be used too! Iknow its not good for effiecientcy but its possible!

A340 could be used too! Iknow its not good for effiecientcy but its possible!

A340 could be used too! Iknow its not good for effiecientcy but its possible!

A340 could be used too! Iknow its not good for effiecientcy but its possible!

With the extension of ETOPS that Airbus is pushing for the A350, it does seem that the South Africa flights just might be achievable on a twin. They are pushing 420 ETOPS "eventually" but are aiming for 350 ETOPS on EIS (as in a good marketing campaign "350 for a 350" perhaps?). 

What are the overwater legs on the South America and South Africa routes? What is the current time away from an airport?

Boeing already offers 777s with 330 min ETOPS which will allow direct SYD-JNB and -SCL. Air NZ was lead customer.

QF should've gone for the 777 10-15 years ago but having not done so, it's probably too late now.

However it could also have allowed ops on routes which have perhaps been marginal for the 744 eg. SYD-SFO (in and out since 2008), maybe YVR, some European routes (eg. CDG and FRA and HKG / BKK-LHR), perhaps also SEL and TPE? Maybe even direct MUM rather than having to drop into SIN (as the QF51/52 A330s had to)?

I for one wouldn't do the long southern routes in the plastic fantastic for some time, just don't trust 'em (and I'm not talking about the engines).

It doesn't matter if the aircraft can do a high level of ETOPS if CASA won't let QF/VA use it.

Assuming there is no change to ETOPS requirements

...and assuming QF don't ditch S. America and S. Africa...

So it's okay to bash fleet simplification when it involved introducing A330s, but it's also okay to hype about 777s?

because at the time the introduction of the original A330s involved a paradigm shift away from an essentially all Boeing QF maninline fleet (aside from the two A300)...the wedge being the A380...

That's a large wedge, but I see your point. Essentially, they were initially just a sweetener/compensation, but they've grown to become the heavy artillery of the domestic fleet, and light brigade for the international section.

I just believe that in light of their position of having a good number of A330s already that the A330 would have been the better choice for the Asian market, and that the remaining sectors of QFi would have been either able to support a daily A380 (LAX, LHR, even FRA) or 744ER (DFW, SCL, JNB) or survived on the newer 744s until they could be replaced (especially ex-BNE and ex-MEL).

I suppose my view is shaped most by my belief that QFi should focus on fat trunks on most of its longhaul network (Europe, Americas, etc.) and then have a smaller, more convenient frequency-oriented network for Asia. That's how I came to the slightly unusual A330/A380/B747 conclusion.

That's all fine...but the question is the 10 year plus plan, wherein access to newer marques with claims of better fuel efficiencies and lower maintenance costs are the order of the day...hence the A350 vs 777X dilemma, and similarly for the A320neo and 737MAX, etc...

Look at the airlines who are more advanced that QF (EK, SQ, etc) for clues...

Then factor in which routes can even be expected to nourish a QF service long term - I suspect SCL and JNB won't be there in 10 years.

And consider that QF currently is a minnow, even on Australian-Asian routes when your compare to the competition: is QF going to bite the bullet and aspire to being a significant player (with much higher capacity on Asian routes) or happy to tootle along resting on its ever diminishing claim to be the "Australian airline" with an international operation which can only be described as bonsai or boutique, using JQi to patch the routes it doesn't have the stomach for...hence my long held suspicion that these Asian routes will increasingly get turned over to JQi once the 787 fleet is delivered as the "this route isn't commercial for QF' excuse gets trotted out over and over again.

Hence the great incertainty over the fleet requirements...in truth Joyce hasn't got a clue what he wants to purchase fleet wise because the future of QFi is completely uncertain - its all options and clouded vision - hence the unresolvable debate we're having on long tem fleet.

And whilst Joyce ducks and weaves the competition is growing stronger with greater diversity (read Malaysia Airline's recent push), increasing services with brand new fleet (e.g. Qatar and Etihad and Malaysian A380s, even Air India with a 787!).

The new QF business seat is several years behind the competition along with the QF 787s...Joyce is several years behind the pack!

QF customers will continue to bleed to the competition, especially as the punters find out they are being taken to the cleaners both on price and the QF FF scheme (look at the decreasing value of QF points compared with say AA, or the redemption rates on MH), which has recently been severely undermined with the loss of any seat award online bookings and the new online system calculating point redemptions on total mileage flown across sectors.

I'm not convinced that the economics of an all-Boeing fleet (or an all-Airbus fleet) are worthwhile. Once you have multiple aircraft types it doesn't seem to matter that much whether they come from the same manufacturer or not. Otherwise, more airlines would have single-manufacturer fleets, but almost every major airline in the world (not counting short-haul LCCs) uses a mixed fleet.

I'm guessing that any small advantage which might come from having aircraft mechanics who can switch from type to type is completely wiped out when you're sitting at the bargaining table.

I'm not arguing for an all-anything fleet, Hugo. I'm only saying that you're better off having two dozen A330s rather than a dozen A330s and a dozen 777s.

Unlike PLATY, I don't hold a pessimistic view of QFi post-789. I am worried about it surviving to that point, though; but if it gets that far, I believe the 789 should allow it to push back into the fray.

I hope.

Perhaps...787-9 (and fleet/product renewal) and leadership team with customer connection...

The 777 still doesn't work for QFi.

It's too small for its biggest runs to Europe and America (HINT: A380). It's a twin, so it can't properly do the South Africa and South America runs (HINT: 744ER). It's too big for the Asian network which demands convenience, frequency and connectivity (HINT: A333).

...so... 

• why put an A333 on an Asian route instead of a 787?
• why is a A332 good enough for QF but not good enough for JQi over a 787?
• why dither around with A333s to Asia when the competition (SQ) can muster multiple daily flights with A380s (two 380s, a 772 and a 773 at least?), with other A380s to Asian ports to come shortly, many with a better product offering in premium?

I should probably emphasise that my comments are directed at the last couple of years. But I'll bite anyway.

• Why put an A333 on an Asian route instead of a 787?

In the 2009-2013 timeframe I'm looking at, the 787 wasn't available; but the A333 was. It works well for the Asian carriers serving Australia, particularly when we look at ports that aren't SYD.

• Why is a A332 good enough for QF but not good enough for JQi over a 787?

Costs. Simply put, JQi has lower fares and therefore lower revenue per passenger, so it needs a lower operating cost. QFi charges more so it can afford more expensive planes in the interim. It's a bit perverse, but I think it was you who said that QFi is still acting like a legacy carrier, and in this case it's true.

It's a crying shame - I'm with you all on that - but the 787-8 fleet is a paltry 14 planes and given my above reasoning I think sending them to JQi makes sense.

• Why dither around with A333s to Asia when the competition (SQ) can muster multiple daily flights with A380s (two 380s, a 772 and a 773 at least?), with other A380s to Asian ports to come shortly, many with a better product offering in premium?

There are a few reasons.

Firstly, I believe that SQ will always have the upper hand when it comes to Australia-SIN traffic. Remember, SYD-SIN is at best currently a 744 and a 333. In such a position, I find it unreasonable to expect that QFi could totally match its competition on double-daily A380s plus double-daily 777s.

However, I believe there was scope for additional frequency with additional A330s, e.g. enhancing SYD-SIN to triple-daily A333s, oreferably with the A380 Marc Newson product.

Secondly, CX has gone for this exact strategy with regards to the Australia-HKG market. It works. Essentially, they have stuck to the A333 with a good onboard product - more so now with the reverse-herringbone J and introduction of W - and grown using multi-daily flights. I believe in such an approach because it offers more choice to the customer while also growing capacity; if we simply aim to quickly upgauge to the A380, we are growing capacity but not improving convenience.

Thirdly, my view is with regard to the 2009-2013 timeframe where the 787 was supposed to have arrived, but was delayed. As such, I am viewing a scenario where the A380 is here but in limited supply, the 744s are aging, the 744ERs are able to soldier on for a while longer, and the 777 has not been acquired.

In this light, the only sectors of QFi that need a 787 stand-in are the Asian network and the long-and-thin sectors. The additional A333s I proposed would be leased to cover this timeframe (and then churned when the 789s come in, say in 2016), allowing a few things: 1) for the existing owned A333s to be refurbished; 2) for the 744s used in Asia to be transferred to SFO/DFW and other long-haul services; and 3) growth in Asia.

The 77E offers no advantage over the 333 in QFi's Asian network in this timeframe because we don't need the slight additional capacity and we don't need the additional range, so we don't need the additional weight and fleet complications. The 77W is indeed an excellent 744 replacement, but QFi has three post-1999 ones and then the 2002-2003 six ERs - enough, I believe, to cover the sections truly requiring 744s (e.g. JNB). Everything else can either be upgauged to an A380 (e.g. LAX) or swapped out for additional frequency with A330s (e.g. SIN); this negates the need for a true 744 replacement.

That's why I believe the 777 doesn't have a place in the QFi fleet.

Dam that was one informative post.

Yes, in my opinion you are right on many counts! As you say your rationale is based mainly on the legacy 2009-2013 position.

The main sticking point in the immediate time frame, as ever, is the allocation of the initial 787s to JQi rather than QF - perhaps a well explored debate, if it's OK to say so, with strong points to be made both for and against.

The question at hand is how this game play could develop over a 10 year plus plan!

Bridging the two, my main concern is how QF can compete seriously as it denies itself new aircraft that can form the basis of a strong competitive position, both in terms of product offering, frequency, and frequent flyer value paradigm. And its years behind on product to Asia (see more in my post above)!

No, you're right to question the sensibility of the immediate future gameplay. My rabbling has mainly been regarding how we could have avoided getting QFi into its current, rather unenviable position.

If we are to assume the current scenario, the outlook is (to be polite) a little bleak. Nevertheless, the crucial period is the 2013-2017 period whilst we await the 787-9, if the purchase options are exercised. If there are not, we can bid QFi adios.

I believe that this period will be the most painful. It will be QFi's darkest hour. But if it can survive until the 787-9s arrive and enter full service, it can use that weapon to make the very same push I believe the A330-300 was ripe for three years ago.

The survival of QFi hinges on lasting until the 787-9, and then using it to push back into the fray.

Yep. We must agree to...agree!

Despite the obvious and immediate challenges, QF continues to expend its energies on non core activities.

It could be viewed as ironic that you have the Loyalty CEO dithering around in NZ, with a domestic market where the mainline QF brand has been removed along with the AKL-LAX route, rather than directly address the competition (both domestic and international) with core innovation.

Mars rover ads and branded debit cards can't substitute for outdated product, loss of domestic feeder flights (read concentration of fleet away from regions to golden trinagle), dilution of FF value and the dwindling pool of frequent flyer options on QF metal (read upgardes) dictated by such a sparse international schedule of QF aircraft.

It's QF mainline who should be capitalising on the incessant 787 publicity!

QF are so lucky that VA didn't go Star Alliance (and stuffed up their online bookig engine)!

Bang on. Doubtless there are many QFFer's that would share you observations.

The 777 myth has been busted a few times. When the A380's were ordered, the pax counts and requirements were there. 

When the 787 was ordered, Boeing offered planes to be delivered much earlier.

When QF was looking at the 777, it did not have the distance, was too big or too small for the various routes.