The data on QF fleet/orders was from an investment bank analysis of Qantas, so there is some legal requirement for accuracy. The fleet composition did surprise me a bit, thus I posted it in full (remember that some may be owned by QF but not operated by QF -- the extent of QF's non-airline businesses surprised me). I haven't been able to find more recent info that is freely available (and am not interested enough to pay for it). I still can't believe the ordered fleet adds up to 17 billion, what am I missing? Or it is just that expensive (even with the rumoured 30% launch discount on the A380s, making them cost the same as the 744ERs that QF bought!).

Don't think so.... Someone else has 1st dibs
 

There was a tussle between Airbus, SQ and EK about who would be first to take delivery of the A380 and put it into commercial service. I think the compromise solution would be that one of the two airlines would be first to take delivery while the other would be first to put it in service. EK has some clout at it has ordered 22 with an option for a further 10. QF signed up relatively late and wasn't a customer back on launch day 3 or 4 years back.

The AUD was relatively weak vs. the USD back then, right, and also valuation at full list price? The AUD has strengthened considerably in the last 8-9 omnths which would reduce the cost in AUD at current exchange rates anyway.

At any rate, a more recent report puts the launch discount at 40%. For QF, it was essentially "buy a A380, get a A330 for free." Hard to resist.

Qantas does not, nor has it ever, operated the 737-700. Qantas does not, nor has it ever, owned a 737-700.

This is not to say though that it will not order some in the future, particularly as the -300's and -400's get older. It would slot in nicely between the two, and provide an option for slightly thinner routes than the -800 can servie profitably.

Dave

Lhr-syd
 

What QF (and BA) really need is an aircraft capable of flying LHR-SYD and LHR-MEL nonstop with relatively few seats all of which would be sold to full fare passengers. Could a B777-200LR with 200 seats make it? How about a 7E7 with 150 seats?

For the moment SQ have the longest non-stop passenger flight using the A340 from SIN to LAX. At 8770 miles and around 18-hours flying time. Internally the a/c has just 181 seats, 64 J and 117 in "executive economy"

SQ also plan to fly this model to JFK at 9500 miles.

SYD to LHR on a plane (where have I read that? :) ) would be 10500 miles. I'm not sure it could be done with any scale of profitability. PER to LHR is just on 9000 miles and could be done but again for what profit. For me personally, I just wouldn't want to sit that long on any aeroplane and I think for many the stoppover in SIN or BKK is a welcome relief.

Great circle SYD - LHR is 10,573 miles / 16,916 km. A little long for anything that flies today or in the near future. A340-500 with 313 pax range is 8,650 nm/16,000 km.

PER is largely a leisure destination, not a business destination, so it can't command high fares the way SYD and MEL can from LHR.

Certainly, some people welcome the stopover, but others would prefer a nonstop, especially those travelling on business for whom time is the main concern. These are the people willing to pay full fares.

Imagine a B777-200LR with 4 rows of 1-2-1 First suites between doors 1 and 2, 10 rows of 2-3-2 Business class sleeper seats between doors 2 and 3, and 11 rows (about 39" pitch) of 2-4-2 premium economy seats between doors 3 and 4, all with top-notch IFE. Charge only full fare F, C, and Y. No A, D, or other discounted fares and no upgrades. I think BA, VS, or QF could fill 174 seats like that and make money doing it. The flights would be about 20 hours, so four planes flying plus one in maintenance would allow daily service between LHR and both SYD and MEL.

The only route longer than these for which there is significant traffic is LHR-AKL, but that's 1) a lot longer, and 2) primarily a leisure market that won't support the fares needed for nonstop service. So, I don't expect to see anyone fly any routes longer than LHR-SYD within the next ten years at least.

To number_6, I do apologise if my words are a bit too harsh. But I found it interesting you obtain these info from an investment bank's analysis (how wrong were they! The info they provided here could be very misleading.... to an aviation enthusiast ;) ). Just like you, I am still puzzled on how many aircraft Qf did order.

To mikalee, I hvae to agree with you in that the turnaround time for an A330 is pretty long (303 seats vs 250 seats on B767-300), a 1 hour seems reasonable for an aircraft of this size (ie Perth to East Coasts will be ideal). I guess I will miss flying them domestically once they move to international.

Personally, I would not like to sit in a plane for more than 12 hours max, so I would rather take a break with a stopover (strech your legs, go for a walk, go to the QP :cool: etc.). So I would rather stop in BKK or SIN on my way to LHR.

From the Airbus Website dated 6 April
I would have thought the EK order of 43 would give them enormous clout in putting the A380 into service first.

EK must be planning some serious route expansion to fill all these planes and they must have some serious money in the bank to pay for them, despite what I am sure is a good 'buy-in-bulk' discount. ;)

Believe it or not, the increasd turn around times were not due to the higher numbers of SLC - it had more to do with refuelling times as well as the time it took to unload all of those containers and then reload the new ones on - 767's apparently take on fuel faster than the A330, and with the bigger freight capacity of the A330 over the 767, I can see how this would have slowed things down. Of course, they could have always carried less freight, but that would cost them money.

Dave