[oz_mark]

You may know that Qantas has sent out an RFP to Airbus and Boeing to ask for proposals, amongst other things, to replace the current, aged, gas guzzling 767 fleet. Which aircraft do you think Qantas will get?

[JohnK]

I am glad they are replacing the 767. I flew QF41/QF42 on the 767 to Jakarta and did not have a very enjoyable flight there and back. Not as comfortable as the A330's or 747's. Not sure if it was ever meant to be a long range aircraft (for comfort I think 3 hours on a 767 is more than enough) and only has a cruising speed of 870km/h making the trip to Jakarta a 7 hour flight.

Qantas has around 24 of these in its fleet.

It may end up with a mixture of Boeing 787's and Airbus A350's. Both look very good.

[odoherty]

Why not A330?

[JohnK]

Originally Posted by odoherty

Why not A330?

Good idea, a good plane.

But I think they will get the newer models, A350's and 787's.

[NM]

Originally Posted by odoherty

Why not A330?

With the cost of fuel, the 787 and A350 make much more attractive options. Qantas tend to buy their aircraft new (except for a few specific cases of fleet supplements) and keep them for many years. The 767's are a classic example of that policy.

Also note they are not overly happy with the way their current A330's fit into the fleet. The -300's are doing ok on international routes, but the -200 has two major issues:

• cabin floor is not strong enough for Skybeds, so can only operate domestic routes without a very large capital investment to strengthen the floor
• turnaround time is not good for domestic services

So they have these longer range A330-200s in the fleet and they can can't use the range and struggle to use them effectively on domestic ops. Since there are only 4 of them, I could see them going to JQ or AO for regional international routes that do not require skybeds. But that can't happen until there is a suitable short-haul twin aisle replacement. And I expect the 787 is going to fill that role since the A350 will likely bring similar issues for the domestic routes.

[JohnK]

Originally Posted by NM

...cabin floor is not string enough for Skybeds....

ROFLMAO. I am sure you do this on purpose.

How stringy does the cabin floor need to be for skybeds

[NM]

Originally Posted by JohnK

ROFLMAO. I am sure you do this on purpose.

How stringy does the cabin floor need to be for skybeds

OK, lay off me for a while. I am not travelling at 100% today. I think you know exactly what I meant, even if my spell checker did not. Just in case you didn't know what I meant, I have fixed it in my post.

[JohnK]

Originally Posted by NM

OK, lay off me for a while. I am not travelling at 100% today. I think you know exactly what I meant, even if my spell checker did not. Just in case you didn't know what I meant, I have fixed it in my post.

I knew what you meant.

Sorry to hassle you. I will leave you alone.

[oz_mark]

Originally Posted by odoherty

Why not A330?

Isn't the A330 just a tad bigger than the models they are looking at?

[NM]

Originally Posted by oz_mark

Isn't the A330 just a tad bigger than the models they are looking at?

A330 and A350 are about the same size. The A350 can be considered a next generation A330 with more efficient engines and more use of composites and other material and product improvements introduced for the A380 development.

So yes, the A330 (and A350) are larger than the 767, and that is part of the problem with turn around times for short-haul domestic operations. But the A330-300 has proved a good size for international operations.

The 787-8 is a closer size replacement for the 767, and is my expectation for domestic ops. The 787-9 is a little larger and longer range capability and my expectation for international ops, still be slightly smaller than the A330-300.