Qantas never operating the Boeing 777 is one of the most baffling decisions in aviation history
Posted by Twitter_2006@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 212 comments
They were one of the few airlines that Boeing asked for opinions on what kind of aircraft should be build by Boeing in the 1990's but they never ordered it afterwards.Its also confusing to me why they chose the Boeing 747 and later the Airbus A380 over the more fuel efficient Boeing 777.The operating costs are lower for the 777 over the aforementioned aircraft.
They can fly the Boeing 777 on both long, ultra long haul, medium and short haul flights on two engines and it will be cheaper than the B747 and A380.These same aircraft can also fly domestically quite easily and be profitable.
I will never understand why Qantas never operated the Boeing 777.
alb92@reddit
Australian authorities were relatively late adopters to etops, so twin engine airlines would be more restricted. That is one of the key reasons the 744ER beat out the 777.
Billgant@reddit
I was gonna say. SYD to LAX is nothing but water, with Fiji, Samoa, and Hawaii being the only practical diversion airports.
And yes, today one GE90 will get you home just fine, but when you think of that route being nothing but water, four engines sounds a lot better.
shniken@reddit
Yeah, and if its cyclone season many alternates could closed. I think PER alternatives are either too close, and probably affected by the same weather, or too small for a 777.
This flight was massively diverted because ADL was closed:
https://www.reddit.com/r/QantasAirways/comments/1argiof/would_anyone_know_what_could_be_going_on_with/
Polyphagous_person@reddit
More surprising that they didn't divert to DRW or CNS.
joe2105@reddit
Have flown that route twice....it's a weird feeling out in the middle of the pacific, at night, with storms, in a tube with 200 other people and you know your next divert is measured in hours.
is-this-a-nick@reddit
I was on that route too and at one point the flight map had nothing but water even in its lowest zoom. Way too long a flight for my taste, too.
RecordEnvironmental4@reddit
My friend did the Sydney to Santiago route recently and he said that he has never felt uncomfortable in a plane before but that it actually scared him since the next divert is probably the ice runways in Antarctica.
Billgant@reddit
I’ve never flown it, but my sister and her husband have a couple of times. It’s a grueling fight and they used to spend a day in LA before flying to SYD or after coming from SYD just to decompress before taking their next fight.
joe2105@reddit
14-15.5 hrs
Billgant@reddit
Yikes … brutal
zk-cessnaguy@reddit
Depending on the UPR route and weather on the day, EDTO enroute alternates could be any combination of YBBN NZAA NWWW NFFN NFTF NCRG NTAA NSFA PHNL PHTO PHOG.. It all depends how the range circles fall along the route.
fuel_altered@reddit
Virgin Australia used to fly Sydney to LA with 777's. Nice and roomy with the high ceilings and bar in Business Class.
747ER@reddit
Australia adopted ETOPS in the 80s-90s, the 747ER was ordered by Qantas in 2001.
kernpanic@reddit
But which etops? Etops 180 is very different to etops 240 for some of qantas' routes.
bp4850@reddit
We only got to ETOPS 330 with the arrival of the 787s into Qantas' fleet, as they wanted to operate them to South America. It was a significant hurdle to jump with CASA.
thatsvtguy@reddit
They thought the 777 was too big for regional routes and the a380 was more suitable for their super long flights, iirc their current ceo even said he wished they could go back and change their fleet decision
ShihabRiazCumilla@reddit
So the ceo is not happy w a380?
ScienceMechEng_Lover@reddit
I don't think anyone outside of Emirates and Qatar Airways is happy with the A380 lol. For those two, the A380 is a godsend because Heathrow is severely capacity limited and every plane they fly there is almost always fully booked.
Polyphagous_person@reddit
So is SYD, our second airport will only open this year.
unique_usemame@reddit
Doesn't QANTAS also operate A380 to Heathrow?
thomno@reddit
Don't think so. They do LHR-PER-SIN and CDG-PER-SYD on the B787.
cptalpdeniz@reddit
PER-SIN or PER-SYD?
61746162626f7474@reddit
The London Heathrow to Perth leg is non stop. But due to the war in the Middle East the Perth to Heathrow leg now needs to make a refuelling stop in Singapore.
the_silent_redditor@reddit
I made that flight in economy.
It was like 18 fucking hours.
Never, ever again.
Good God.
colintbowers@reddit
Haha we did Sydney-Singapore-Heathrow in Economy nonstop. 24 hours total with 45 min stop at Singapore. We swore never again and even changed our flight home for that trip to stop overnight in Singapore.
sjp1980@reddit
Try doing it from NZ. For me it was either WLG-AKL-SIN-LHR/LGW or WLG-SYD-SIN-LHR or LGW. Honestly I stopped doing it in one go when I could barely tell which way was up by the end. Via Doha or Dubai was no better!
Tbh flying to Singapore via Sydney or Melbourne (rather than via AKL or CHC) is probably easier for me as it makes the flight to Singapore easier. But I have preferred to fly Air NZ on that route.
TheDolphinator8@reddit
I loved it, the Dreamliner is perfect for it.
commmingtonite@reddit
I did it and loved it, my "business class" is Two benzos and a beer tho
alepape@reddit
I did the Paris Perth Melbourne and back several times - with the family and loved it.
It’s not always about the flights. I tend to watch carefully the connecting airports and the international to domestic link in Perth is soooo easy it eases the extra 3h on the longest leg.
And as long as it’s A380 or 787, I’m happy. Love those planes.
commmingtonite@reddit
100% I absolutely hate the stop in Dubai, Perth was so chill
ghjm@reddit
If you do that 20 times, 19 times you'll sleep through the flight, but the 20th time you'll have a psychotic episode and wind up being hauled off by air marshals. Do not recommend.
commmingtonite@reddit
Must only be up to 15 at the moment, need to be careful on my next few flights
SocraticIgnoramus@reddit
19x or less feels like a reasonable constraint.
Awkward_Chard_5025@reddit
My partner did LAX > SYD on the A380 in November in economy, and she had the exact same response lol
shniken@reddit
I did it to Paris, it was great.
dohwhere@reddit
So they have it written the wrong way, it should be LHR-SIN-PER
thomno@reddit
it's an LHR-PER-SIN-LHR rotation, interestingly enough. QF10 & QF219, it looks like. in turn, from Paris the routing seems to be CDG-PER-SYD and back.
hutcho66@reddit
Only temporarily because of Iran flight diversions, they can't put enough fuel on to do Perth to London direct with all the diversions. On the way back they can because it has a better tailwind.
Before Iran they did Perth to London direct.
darkeyes13@reddit
QF1 and QF2 for SYD-SIN-LHR return.
I have to thank 2 CEOs before Alan Joyce for making that purchasing decision, because without QF1/QF2, I probably still wouldn't have been able to fly on an A380 (unless I forked out for a SQ flight on the SYD-SIN route, I suppose).
3-is-MELd@reddit
It helps when your government subsidizes your fuel to the point where even with the extra fuel burn, your economics are better than your competitors with significantly more efficient aircraft.
StartersOrders@reddit
BA love the A380 as it allows them to move huge numbers of people on and out of Heathrow.
They’ve about to stick a brand new cabin in each of them, so they’re clearly keeping them.
Ramenastern@reddit
The story is a bit more complicated. SQ certainly were happy enough to buy more of them, LH and Etihad both said they'd never bring most of their parked frames back... And then ended up doing just that. Don't think BA have been negative about them, either, same goes for Asiana and ANA.
But yeah, that leaves AF, Thai, China Southern, and Malaysian of course as former operators who really didn't have a great time with those planes. I don't count Global, as I don't take their operation seriously at all. There was Hi-Fly as well who tried their hand at being the first and only second hand operator, but that always seemed more like an experiment than anything else.
It's quite crazy, though, that the last example was delivered less than 5 years ago and here we are, with over 20 already scrapped, some 30 parked.
Great plane to fly on, but I doubt there'll be any left in operation by 2040.
DistributionHot2150@reddit
ANA is pissed they even have the a380 they really don’t want them but kinda was forced to take them
Ramenastern@reddit
Yeah, we're aware of how they got by them. They weren't forces to sign that contract, though, and they never said anything negative about them as far as I could find, and brought them back fairly quickly after Covid, contrary to AF for instance.
So saying they're pissed they eveb have them...sounds plausible but involves an amount of conjecture.
FewDescription3170@reddit
hawaii a380 loads are fairly full in the summer, but hnl routes are wide open from japan because of the weak yen, so your guess is good as mine
cuntbag0315@reddit
At least we get the turtles.
Flightwise@reddit
I once spoke with a QF Duty Manager about the A380 fleet, and with some of their pilots too. The latter liked them even after QF32, and pax adored them. But others? Nope, lots of early teething issues, and less than stellar reliability and of course poor economics compared with 787 other airlines decided to go with. It too had initial teething issues, esp -8, but -9 and -10 are looked on favourably. Jetstar is refurbishing a number of their -8s.
nixhomunculus@reddit
I would argue that Singapore Airlines also loved the idea of the A380 initially having been the launch customer and key partner of the project. But it quickly found out that other than the slot constrainted trunk routes like the SYD, SIN and LHR cash cow it operates from, it's business model was better served by other efficient planes like the A350-900s or the 787-10s.
engapol123@reddit
The previous Qatar CEO hated the A380, and it’s clearly been an afterthought for the airline for a while now, it hasn’t received their current gen business class seat nor have they got Starlink.
Golgen_boy@reddit
Not Qatar, maybe you meant British Airways?
Twitter_2006@reddit (OP)
Qatar moved away from the A380 and former CEO Akbar Al Bakr said it was a huge mistake to order the A380 in hindsight.
baronmunchausen2000@reddit
Wasn’t that over the A350 fracas?
PozhanPop@reddit
Peeling paint ? I saw one of them : ) Looked pretty sad.
THR@reddit
Qatar isn’t happy with it and they don’t have that many.
Only Emirates.
Every-Progress-1117@reddit
Qatar isn't happy with anyone...they have a history of that.
1966TEX@reddit
The A380 is a great airplane, unfortunately it’s just too thirsty to be viable.
t-poke@reddit
Could the A380 have been a twin jet or is it just too big for two?
Captain_Alaska@reddit
Too big. Even with the 747 the biggest engines in the world don’t have enough thrust for it to do a single engine takeoff (a requirement for a twin).
absolutely_not_spock@reddit
That would look ugly as fuck. An A380 Trijet might be my next nightmare
ad3z10@reddit
MTW of a 777x isn't much off a 747-4 so you could probably make it work with a bunch of weight saving measures and a redesign of the wings.
If there was drive for it, doing a clean sheet version of a 747-8 using composites and a specially designed engine could maybe even be possible with today's tech though you'd probably be limited on range.
OTBT-@reddit
You’d probably have to make so many design compromises you’d end up with a plane that looks nothing like the a380.
You’d need bigger, heavier and more powerful engines to move that much weight. Then that would affect the wing etc etc.
donkeykink420@reddit
i'd wager with today's composite and engine tech(i think two GE9Xs aren't far off the four trents on the A380s in terms of thrust?) you could make a very large double decker a twin engine and it not being more expensive per seat than the usual widebodies, it's just that they don't have any place in aviation anymore. and frankly, the yet to come 777x or a350 can still load tons of passengers. it also isn't about sheer number of passengers anymore as much as it used to be, long haul is more and more premium seats instead of tons of crammed economy.
as much as i'd love the a380 flying and evolving with a neo variant for decades to come, travel's evolved
Captain_Alaska@reddit
GE9X’s are well behind the thrust of 2x Trent engines (110k lbf vs 140k lbf).
And that’s not even the biggest issue, the plane has to be able to take off with an engine failure, and one GE9X is well behind what 3x Trent engines are capable of (225k lbf).
InternationalBug9641@reddit
How does that make GE9x behind? GE9x single engine downrated thrust is 110K lbf they achieved a record of 134,300 lbf.
Captain_Alaska@reddit
Right. 2x 110 is 220k lbf. The A380 has 4 Trent engines so it has 300k lbf-f. That’s an entire Trent engine shortfall of power.
InternationalBug9641@reddit
Ahh got it, my bad.
well-that-was-fast@reddit
Too big for any existing engines or modestly-modified existing engines.
You could build a completely new engine that would work, but the 380 would have never have had enough sales to justify designing an entire supply line for a 100% new engine. Engine design and manufacturing is massively expensive. GE / RR only want to commit to engine families that will sell in the many thousands.
cuntbag0315@reddit
And it was cucked because GE and RR said nothing was coming down the pipe in engine tech improvements so they went with available engines only for them to bust out the Trent 1K and the GenX a year after (IIRC) the lines started moving.
Ninjroid@reddit
That sort of makes it not a great plane it seems.
joe2105@reddit
Great for an operator and great for a passenger are two different things.
RecordEnvironmental4@reddit
Not as flexible, you can run a 777 economically on a lot more routes
PointOfFingers@reddit
He said it would have been cheaper to fly two smaller planes over one 380.
idkblk@reddit
Somehow I find that hard to believe... because on those 2 787s, you'd still carry 4 engines + 2 whole times the deadweight of a 787. That must be more than a full A380?!
BGSO@reddit
Cargo?
bp4850@reddit
A380 is a terrible freight hauler so that would definitely factor in. The hold space is relatively small due to the massive wing box/gear wells, and it carries a lot of passengers which take up lots of space with baggage
bears-eat-beets@reddit
It is not. Not only is it less weight, but the 2 GEnx (or RRT1000) are more fuel efficient than a RRT800.
This doesn't even consider the logistics of the fact that the maintenance facilities to service a 787 are available all over the world vs a small handful that can deal with an A380. Not to mention the additional problems associated with running an A380 at less than 100%, or what happens when you have to cancel or delay an A380.
And a single 787 carries about the same cargo capacity as an A380, slightly more in some configurations. So they doing 2 787s you actually gain twice the cargo, while consuming less overall fuel, and way more flexibility.
The economics of an a380 are terrible. The only place where they shine is in slot controlled airports.
thatsvtguy@reddit
787 is a lot more efficient, and has cheaper/easier maintenance, I can imagine how that would stack up. The a380 isn't exactly cheap to operate.
madmike99@reddit
TIL Dreamliners can fly backwards
bynapkinart@reddit
That Thrust Reverse blows hard
SomeRandomSomeWhere@reddit
Or account for the availability of landing slots on some airports.
Prof_Slappopotamus@reddit
Slop will solve that. Landings might be exciting, though.
bp4850@reddit
Alan Joyce is on record saying it's less costly to send two 787s following each other from Melbourne/Sydney to LAX than one A380, but they have the aircraft, they're fully paid for, so they use them where the capacity is needed.
No-Preparation4073@reddit
of course the aren't happy. Qantas is in the word possible position with those aircraft, with only a handful to fly and not enough demand since they got them to justify more. They tried really, really hard to get rid of them but nothing was available to replace them and they were forced to put them back in service. I suspect they would be much happier with a bunch of A350-900 / 1000 variants if they could actually get them.
Part of the reason they didn't get to 777 is because they ran the 747s for a long time, I think trying to bridge the gap to what was next, and when it was next time, the A380 was all the rage. If they knew then what they know now, they would never have touched them.
MortimerDongle@reddit
The A380 was designed for market conditions that mostly don't exist anymore, so not many airlines are happy with it
bandley3@reddit
Or more precisely, it’s designed for the kind of routes (hub to hub) that the self-loading cargo doesn’t care for. They voted with their cash and said that they prefer point-to-point flights.
Redsoxdragon@reddit
They're having one of those hindsight moments.
Kinda sucks because i adore the a380, but if you're saving 15% (i forgot the actual quoted number) of fuel at the loss of 100 or so passenger capacity since 2005, that's a metric fuck ton of profit poss after 20 years
PozhanPop@reddit
Metric fuck ton is spot on. The ME3 get money pumped in through the bottom by their respective governments, so they keep flying to keep their prime slots. I once flew JFK-DXB in the 2010 and there were probably 60 people in total in that Emirates 380.
ywgflyer@reddit
They're too expensive to run and are too much airplane for some of the routes they'd like to operate. Until the A350s show up, Qantas has a huge capacity gap in its fleet between the 787 and 370 and I'm sure they'd love to have an extra 80 seats plus 10 tons of cargo on some of the long haul 787 routes they currently operate, but putting a 380 on those same routes would be way overkill.
SomeRandomSomeWhere@reddit
The problem is, you have to predict travel trends 20,30 years in the future to decide what aircraft to order now. If I recall correctly, both Boeing and Airbus have wait times of over 10 years(at least for the more popular models) if you order an aircraft now.
If you predict wrongly, or something changes, you are going to be stuck with the wrong type of aircraft for a very long time. And it can be pretty costly as well.
GlitteringYak2207@reddit
But don’t you think the writing was on the wall when the 380 was being conceived that the demand wasn’t there for the plane?
IkkeKr@reddit
Nah, the A380 design started mid-90s, the 747 was still very much the long haul workhorse - and everyone knew they were getting older.
Boeing bet smaller for the replacement, but Airbus effectively already had the A340 as 777 competition, so they noticed a future gap when the 747s would retire.
It's only with the 777-300ER in the 2000s that it became a real 747 replacement. And by that time the first A380s were already being built.
metageeek@reddit
No, or it wouldn't have went into production. Airbus aren't complete morons, you know?
GlitteringYak2207@reddit
Yes, not complete. But IIRC weren’t sales starting to dry up for 747s at around that time?
DistributionHot2150@reddit
747-400s was still going strong on the deliveries front
GlitteringYak2207@reddit
WTF Is with you people downvoting for asking for an opinion?
RevolutionaryAge47@reddit
Boeing got it right. Probably the last right decision they made for 20 years.
3000doorsofportugal@reddit
To be fair the 787 was also a good decision! Until the whole Quality control stuff started to become an Issue....
ma33a@reddit
Joyce was a prick. If i could go back in time....
That man deserves all the hate he gets.
Quarterwit_85@reddit
Pardon my ignorance, but what’s people’s problem with him?
Brave-Square-3856@reddit
Didn’t invest in the fleet much at all (average age of fleet increased hugely during his tenure - effectively increasing shorter term earnings at the expense of the longer term). During Covid they knowingly booked people on cancelled flights and made it super hard for anyone with a cancelled booking to get refunds in cash (required by law) instead refunding them via flight credits which were very hard to use. Earned massive bonuses, while also overseeing big layoffs and massive drops in service reliability and quality. Etc.
4x4_LUMENS@reddit
Maybe because he's a bum pirate? I dunno.
aviation-ModTeam@reddit
Your post has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
It is expected that all members follow reddiquette, as is current here: https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
ComedianDesigner307@reddit
Spot on, the QF board was just as bad for keeping him for so long, including that unshaven smug one in his edgy t-shirt.Could not even be bothered to wear a collared shirt at the AGM, at the same time pleading for shareholders , many retirees ,to give them more renumeration. That chairmans lounge access, F and even struggle st J class flights are not enough. Full of innovative business ideas, such as sacking baggage handlers and making pilots wear white hats. Have they paid back the millions the Fed Government gave them during Covid? Heritage brand that is now a joke, the story of Australia.
LandBarge@reddit
Alan Joyce's one and only regret about his time at QANTAS hey? :)
Twitter_2006@reddit (OP)
They operated the 747 domestically but thought the 777 was too big? Lmao.
sloppyrock@reddit
It could only fit on one bay at SYD domestic and only flew from there to PER (or special flights like antarctic iirc) for a period of time. It was a shit fight and always late. Stop gap measure only.
Most domestic bays in SYD are too narrow for big wide bodies.
SuperZapp@reddit
It really wasn’t used much on domestic routes. There was the time that they were regularly used on Sydney-Perth flights in 2011 and 2018 or the odd charter/event but that was it.
The other times it was the continuation of an international flight that allowed domestic and international pax on the flights. You had to catch the flight at the international terminal and you got an orange D sticker on your boarding pass to skip customs and immigration at the arrival airport.
CommandoRoll@reddit
International 747 services taking on domestic in Perth was excellent.
SuperZapp@reddit
Never got to try it. I usually got a 737 or A320. But did one A332. But I was able to do the BNE-SYD, MEL-SYD and MEL-ADL on B744 or B743s
CommandoRoll@reddit
I'm a lucky Qantas brat. Dad started as cabin crew in 1974 and worked international until his retirement.
International crews operated the 747s. Privileged that this meant crew generally knew him, and I'd be well looked after as a result. That was really just the bonus though, more time in a 747 is what I really loved
Odd_Analysis6454@reddit
Sydney to Perth is longer than say London to Moscow so I guess if you have the demand it’s a good candidate for a big plane.
SuperZapp@reddit
Demand and also defending against Virgin Australia.
Square-Ad-6721@reddit
If 19 of their large birds are just going to sit there for 13 hours every other day, then they have 5 planes every day just sitting around between international flights. That could be sent on domestic flights. To bring in lots of extra revenue, and make the planes more profitable.
Which is why you often see large international focused planes doing short hub to hub flights.
But the same l could’ve been done also with 777s.
GimpiesAtty@reddit
I did not consider using them on a short hub to hub to run some extra passengers. That makes sense
Historical_Elk_1297@reddit
Not really, the 747 was mostly for international.
They would fly domestically for relief for high capacity periods, particularly SYD/MEL to PER.
Sometimes also used for positioning for international flights, particularly SYD-MEL before MEL-LAX or similar.
icanucan@reddit
I flew a 747 from Melbourne to Sydney once. I assume it was repositioning. I think it was Ansett, not Qantas though...
DifferentBus6105@reddit
I flew a 747 from Canberra to Sydney with Ansett. I recall sitting up in first looking right down to a completely empty plane.
imperialmeerkat@reddit
I flew a 747 per-syd as a kid! I remember wanting to go up the stairs and being told no bu my parents. 😂
Historical_Elk_1297@reddit
Jealous - nothing wrong with the 737, but it’s definitely no 747 🤣
the_silent_redditor@reddit
I’ve flown on a 330 a bunch of times between Syd-Mel, presumably positioning flights.
It’s pretty great, as they are never full and the 2 aisle seating set-up is my fav.
TitanicJedi@reddit
Mon-fri mel-syd have 9am and 5pm services for business flights.
Heater79@reddit
Definitely try to target the 330 for the Friday afternoon trip home!
Historical_Elk_1297@reddit
Nah, your flight may well have been relief, but the 330 is used for regular domestic services.
flights between SYD, MEL and PER all use the 330.
tronixlabs@reddit
From memory the last 747 domestic flights were a tool to beat Virgin Australia in the capacity war back in 2012/3, when VA had those nice A330s.
im_the_natman@reddit
It's easy to say that with the benefit of hindsight. They flew the routes they had with the planes they had, and we're trying to avoid making the same mistake with the next generation of hulls.
Case in point: I took a flight not long ago from Miami to Atlanta...in a 757-300. And I was curious and looked it up later. It's not a repo, that's just the metal assigned to the line.
chicknsnotavegetabl@reddit
That was a bit of a stop gap measure
thatsvtguy@reddit
yeah it doesn't make a lot of sense
SatanicBiscuit@reddit
ask him on which plane he would wanted qf 32 to happen
thatsvtguy@reddit
The 777 is no stranger to uncontained engine failure. Think ua238.
Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit
777 is basically as good as an airliner gets in its current form, unless we figure out anti suicide or anti missile systems we already achieved peak safety.
LowPomegranate225@reddit
China airlines made a similar mistake going with 747 instead of the 77w like EVA did. Result is a much older fleet compared to EVA and overall less comfort.
I believe China Airlines got their 77w around 2014 compared to 2005 with EVA and it is now a major major workhorse for them as it is with other airlines.
ravenous_bugblatter@reddit
Just dropping in to say that that CEO (Alan Joyce) was an incompetent arsehole. That is all, thankyou.
sloppyrock@reddit
The vast majority of bays at say QF SYD domestic cannot accommodate a 777 without intruding on the bay adjacent. Too wide. Even 330s can only park at a few of them. Fine for 737 767 320 etc.
bp4850@reddit
Retiring the 767s when they did was a massive error. They haven't got enough A330s to cover all the international flights, and their domestic use is at its lowest for a very long time. Qantas just doesn't have enough aircraft to do everything they're trying to.
ballimi@reddit
That CEO also focused on short term actions to pump the stock price thereby creating long term problems.
laparotomyenjoyer@reddit
Qantas is the reason I was able to fly on an A380 and 747 so frequently. I’m glad they had them.
THR@reddit
Their current CEO is a she
JimmyRussellsApe@reddit
It's Australia so it's a Sheila
Mysterious_Panorama@reddit
That’s pronounced “she-e-o”
thatsvtguy@reddit
must be an old one then
Cautious_Use_7442@reddit
That's with the benefit of hindsight. Qantas ordered their A380 right in March 2001. I don't think that anyone could have expected the major events that would follow that would significantly impact air travel (9/11 mere months later, the anthrax attacks, SARS outbreak, major bombings in London and Madrid, the GFC, the increasingly availability of cheap and fast internet).
Suspicious-Gur-8453@reddit
I think a lot of the reason they selected the A380 was to keep up with the luxurious "mystique" that was being touted by the likes of EK and SQ for the aircraft. Unfortunately they have done nothing but fight headwinds (no pun intended) since it was brought into the fleet both due to direct operational costs and company wide issues.
National-Possession@reddit
Saving money has never been an option for Qantas as they know the Australian taxpayer will just bail them out in a crisis, time and time again.
Sacto1654@reddit
I think it came down to a time in the 1990’s when Qantas were flying very long overwater routes with very few diversionary airports along the way, especially Sydney to Los Angeles, Santiago (Chile) and Johannesburg. That’s why they held on to the 747-400 and 747-400ER for so long.
Ok_Stick_3070@reddit
Slot restrictions at Sydney?
Vintage_Alien@reddit
There are no slot restrictions at Sydney. It’s nowhere near max capacity despite media reporting.
XM02A@reddit
Lol try getting a bay at T1 in the morning. Also refer to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 which limits movements to 80 an hour. That by definition is a slot restriction.
Vintage_Alien@reddit
Except ATC can’t process much more than 80 per hour anyway even in perfect VMC.
I worked on the Sydney Airport Demand Management Bill 2024 that came into force last year. I am weirdly close to this topic. Terminal and runway capacity are only a pain during a couple hours in the morning and evening peaks, and even then not all the slots are used.
XM02A@reddit
Fair enough. That's mainly due to ASA staff shortages though, no? Or is it a physical infrastructure issue with taxiways, etc? You're obviously well versed on it, I thought the gist of that amendment was that the 'recovery' periods just bumped it up to 85 vs 80 movements an hour.
Vintage_Alien@reddit
ASA does having staffing issues but even when they were fully staffed pre-COVID it was rare to hit 80. The estimate is that even with stars aligning, the parallel runways could maybe manage 87 movements/hour at best.
It’s funny how the recovery period was the headline takeaway from the reforms… I won’t express my views on that since public servants shouldn’t say certain things on social media.
I’d say the main things the reforms achieved was redoing the compliance framework so slot misuse can actually be penalised as well as fixing a whole bunch of technical inefficiencies and creating data transparency. You can go on the slot manager’s website (ACL APAC) and they publish a boatload of data on how the slots are allocated and used now. Doesn’t stop airlines claiming they can’t get slots at the airport tho (they can).
XM02A@reddit
Yeah I suppose those numbers are pretty typical for a two parallel runway operation. (F to 25 operations though)
Interesting info, thanks for the input. Learnt something today. Funny going through that website and seeing the % of slots used vs held for certain airlines.
ballimi@reddit
Aren't there slot restrictions at certain times (eg early morning right after opening)?
Vintage_Alien@reddit
Depends what type of slots you mean - ATFM slots, bilateral air service agreement slots, or airport slots? Capacity wise the only strict limitation is during curfew hours.
WesternBlueRanger@reddit
I would say more so much of distance and time restrictions; with the sheer distances involved from flying Australia to their major markets, you really can't bank on frequency because there is a narrow window of when the flight needs to depart and arrive at for operations to make sense and for any restrictions on the other end.
ScienceMechEng_Lover@reddit
Would Qantas face the same restrictions as other airlines though? I was inder the impression that Australian airlines didn't face the same restrictions as foreign airlines.
THR@reddit
Hardly given they operate A330s, 787s and will operate A350s
Will_sue_when_angry@reddit
James Strong shot the 777 down and went all in on the A360 until they realised they had made a huge mistake with the fleet design and he departed. It set QANTAS back a decade or more. Strong never copped any criticism for such a foolish move.
Limp-Habit1370@reddit
Respectfully if you ever been on A380 during bad weather you would know exactly why they didn’t order the 777
xyeahtony@reddit
They thought air travel would gravitate towards bigger planes (hence the a380), and they thought the 777 was too big for their domestic SYD-MEL and SYD-PER runs. Also Airbus bullied Qantas into buying their planes, threatening if they didn't they would never get discounts in the future.
Apuonbus@reddit
What airlines fly is a decision made with what they know, expect and economics at that point in time.
The A380 is a good plane when you're going to airports with limited slots and have high loads.
Some airlines don't fly Airbus, some don't fly Boeing, some have both.
From my experience economics is a huge part. If I run an airline with a few airbus types, I'm more likely to buy an airbus, because of fleet commonality, ease of transferring pilots around and I already have a relationship with the manufacturer.
Conversely if I have a Boeing fleet I'd do the same for the same reasons.
What aircraft is chosen is obviously based on the requirements, time to delivery, efficiency, maintenance and price.
Alot of things which go on in the aviation industry are political too, sometimes aircraft are bought for other reasons, those which mere mortals may not be privy to.
Airbus make aircraft to compete with Boeing and vice versa. You need to have a mix to prevent a monopoly
Vast-Charge-4256@reddit
Do they still have zero crashes?
sloppyrock@reddit
No deaths in incidents or a hull loss in the jet age.
Aggravating-Fix-757@reddit
Joyce was controversial a CEO but I do agree with his international market insights. - Australia is a place where travel starts and ends. Australians fly overseas to connect elsewhere so he remade the network to focus on 1-stop connections at major hubs - Australia has one of the highest operating costs in the world. Getting unit economics low through high density aircraft like the A380 is sensible - I do think Joyce was quite visionary in thinking of ultra long haul point to point flights. You don’t need a lot of work to fill the plane and until the 789 no other aircraft had quite the same range and capacity. The 77L may have been too big.
Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit
Is it delusional to think 777X could still be on the cards? It is similar to 787 from avionics to engines and the top 777X customers are all the biggest A350-1000 operators.
Boring-Tomatillo-209@reddit
Nag stick with the new narrow body long haulers mot
MGreymanN@reddit
They were already committed to the 747-400ER in the 90s. The decision to go with the A380 was just a mistake and the A350-1000 was going to correct that mistake a lot sooner than the 777X.
CynGuy@reddit
Well, it’s really more than correct a “mistake” with the A350-1000. Project Sunrise is Qantas’ “moonshot” to fly nonstop between Sydney and New York / London.
Those will become Qantas’ marque flights at a significant cost premium. They’ll still be flying A380s and 787s on their current routings as a lower cost more mass-market positioning.
It will be interesting to see what they replace the A380 capacity within the decade - will they go smaller and more agile with more 787s or switch their main long haul jet to more A350s. My money would be on the A350s as a means to gain more flight commonality for their pilots.
RecordEnvironmental4@reddit
On top of the A350-1000ULR’s that they ordered they also ordered base model A350-1000 to replace the A380
MGreymanN@reddit
The A350-1000 is still the lower seat count replacement for the A380, this is a direct replacement for A380 routes.
Project Sunrise is centered around their A350-1000ULR orders.
XM02A@reddit
There are 24 of them coming. The 12 Sunrise machines are for expansion, the 12 regular A35Ks for 380 replacement. I suspect a follow up order of 787s will entail the last of the A330 retirements.
bp4850@reddit
Correct on the 787s, they've ordered -10s for the A330-300 replacement for the Asian routes. The non sunrise A35Ks will also be doing some of that work, plus all the kangaroo route and southern cross route work currently operated by the A380s.
XM02A@reddit
I still think that there will be a follow up order, but nothing is confirmed. Run the numbers and it only totals 26 787s, 24 A350s, which if we assume 12 of those A350s are for expansion, doesn't cover all of the A330 replacements.
bp4850@reddit
From their actual statements to shareholders, the 12 non-sunrise A350s and the 787-10s are for A330 replacement. The A380 replacements haven't yet been ordered. Reality will probably be different, but that's what they've announced
XM02A@reddit
The original 2023 statement indicated as such but I'll make a bet that the goal posts move.
bp4850@reddit
Likewise, I'd imagine the cost of operating the A380s is wearing thin, especially with fuel prices currently.
ballimi@reddit
They already ordered A350-1000 to replace the A380s
Ramenastern@reddit
Captain hindsight to the rescue. Neither the 777X nor the A350, and not even the 787, existed when Qantas and pretty much all the other customers placed their initial A380 orders. 787 programme launch was over four years after Qantas' A380 order, A350 XWB six years, 777X over twelve years...
MGreymanN@reddit
I don’t think James Strong placed the initial order expecting it to be a mistake, but Alan Joyce was always clear in his view that it should never have been made. The obvious choice, one most major long-haul carriers opted for, was the 777-300ER. Nearly all A380 operators now realize they would have been better off with more 777-300ERs, and Qantas was in the worst position since they never operated the type at all.
bp4850@reddit
Qantas also took the deliberate decision to go to the 747-400ER instead of the 777, despite them getting into service at a similar time. This was a fleet commonality decision but arguably it was also a mistake. 777s could have properly replaced the 747s.
Twitter_2006@reddit (OP)
I hope they operate the 777x one day, even though I know they chose the A350 over it.
legardeur2@reddit
I guess Aussies just liked it better that way.
ScienceMechEng_Lover@reddit
I remember reading somewhere that Airbus effectively bullied Qantas into buying A380s but I'm not sure how credible that story is.
That being said, I think Qantas just bought into the idea that fewer but larger planes made sense for the future as they can carry more passengers per route without needing additional landing slots. The problem with this logic though is that Australia is in the middle of nowhere and doesn't really act as a hub in the same way Middle Eastern airports and airlines do.
They did realise this mistake and buy 787s though. They're also getting some A350s specifically designed with extra fuel tanks so that they can fly for 20+ hours.
bp4850@reddit
The deal was very sweet. The first A330s into the Qantas fleet were practically given to them to get James Strong and Geoff Dixon to sign on to the A380 project. They had options for 20 A380s, with 8 of those options converted to A321s to get them off the books. That likely cost a pretty penny.
Insaneclown271@reddit
Bullied, by offering their managers nice holidays in Toulouse instead of Seattle.
3000doorsofportugal@reddit
To be fair id mich rather spend a vacation in Toulouse instead of Seattle so thats understandable
memostothefuture@reddit
I remember a girl asking me in school what I'd find desirable in a wife. Wonder if she was upset I never married her later?
GlitteringYak2207@reddit
Deliveries yes. But for new sales, didn’t they decide to go for the freighter version only for the last iteration of the 747 instead of trying for a passenger version?
aamslfc@reddit
It was a strange decision (and personally, I think a mistake), but it was due to a combination of factors:
It came down to timing and circumstance, much like those bargain basement pre-built 738s they got after September 11.
They could - and probably should - have taken 77W and 77Ls, especially as Boeing was handing out 77Ws like confetti as compo for the 787 delays, but hindsight is what it is.
Status_Technology888@reddit
IIRC the early variants of the B777 (prior to the 300ER) had range/payload restrictions that meant they weren’t suitable for Pacific routes to the USA.
By the time the 300ER was announced Qantas had already locked in the 747-400ER/A380/787. The 777-300ER and 200LR probably would have been good aircraft for them though.
obTimus-FOX@reddit
Because if it's Boeing... I'm not going. Simple 🤷🏼♂️
Mysterious_Basil2818@reddit
Considering that after 30 years of service the only two in flight losses were due to a Russian SAM and a probable suicidal pilot, their track record is pretty good.
Also, this is the last Boeing designed plane before McDonnell Douglas screwed the whole company up.
Bright-Scallin@reddit
"Pretty good" lol That's like saying one driveby is safe simply because it didn't hit you.
Boeing has had serious safety problems with its planes, not to mention the whole MCAS fraud saga. We've moved far beyond the era of "this plane is good because it don't crash." That's the bare minimum of the minimum for aviation today.
Mysterious_Basil2818@reddit
You didn’t read my whole comment, did you?
Bright-Scallin@reddit
MD is not a scapegoat. I can understand, but not respect, the justification for MD plane accidents already under Boeing's ownership... But we are talking about Boeing planes, and it isnt the purchase of a company that absolves them of the deaths they committed and are responsible for.
Boeing has had numerous technical failures in its aircraft over the last few decades, and almost all of its fatal accidents were due to aircraft malfunctions. Airbus only had one due to an aircraft malfunction, which led to a complete restructuring of its aircraft design.
Mysterious_Basil2818@reddit
So, what does all that have to do with the 777? What could Boeing have done to prevent a suicidal pilot? Should Boeing make their airliners SAM proof?
Mugweiser@reddit
Tell us you don’t travel without telling us.
S1075@reddit
Something you don't understand is not "one of the most baffling decisions in aviation history".
Frequent_Flyer_Miles@reddit
Am i right in thinking that they're probably gonna stick with the 787 for the current Perth-London route now the A350-1000ULR is coming next year to fill the Sydney-London leg?
Pwoo@reddit
Correct
TerriblePokemon@reddit
Was I hallucinating my Quantas flight from New Delhi to Melbourne on a 777-200 last month?
mbericom@reddit
yes, it was most likely 787 or not Qantas planes. https://seatmaps.com/airlines/qf-qantas/
747ER@reddit
No airline flies 777s directly between India and Australia, so they were just misremembering either way
Twitter_2006@reddit (OP)
Qantas operates the A330-200 to New Delhi.
TerriblePokemon@reddit
I guess I was hallucinating
TeMuBeBalalaika@reddit
The 380 makes sense for anyone operating a hub and spoke system... 777 is the king of fleet flexibility!
caverunner17@reddit
Hub and Spoke is like 80-90% of operators though. Very few operators are point to point, especially in the long haul game.
A380 made sense for heavy routes where there were slot constraints or in the case for QF, flights were long enough but demand high enough that warranted a high volume of passengers on a single flight. EK is similar with some of their flights where they simply need the capacity.
Lonestar041@reddit
I think that is the problem of the A380.
When it was designed, everyone expected it to be a hub-to-hub connector.
Over the last 20 years, customers demand shifted towards direct connections with customers willing to pay extra for non-stop.
The A380 can't serve that segment as it is too big for most airports and has too much capacity.
My home airport (RDU) is a good example for this development:
AA started the only Europe route like 12 years ago with a single flight to LHR.
Now we have LHR, CDG, KEF, FRA and DUB.
The daily capacity to Europe has increased by factor 5, the total passenger volume has only increased by 30% in the same timeframe.
TeMuBeBalalaika@reddit
Hub and spoke is a misnomer in the USA were airlines have the equivalent of 3 wheels on an axle type of waggon.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
It only makes sense if you’re operating a true Megahub, like Dubai, where there’s a reliable critical mass of passengers heading to other hubs. Emirates is the only airline that’s truly made that model successful and that’s partially owed to their unique geography.
jmlinden7@reddit
The maintenance costs are high and only make sense if you operate over a hundred of them.
Emirates is the only airline with a business model that can support that many A380's.
orchiddoctor@reddit
My first trip on a Quantas 747 was LAX to Sydney when I was in 4th grade… what a plane!
Introverted_kitty@reddit
People forget how big Australia is. Perth to Melbourne is something like 3500km and a 3-4 hours flight. Melbourne to Sydney is still about 800km
From my understanding, 747s do quite well for cargo at relatively short routes. The 777 is either too big or too small for range.
The 787 is used for Perth to London because its got an enormous range.