First Qantas A380 returns Tuesday November 9

As Mark Twain would have said "Rumours of its death were an exaggeration."

It is possible that QF may do similar to SQ and operate a few strange short-haul A380 routes to get crew back fully certified.  This could be routes like SYD-MEL or SYD-AKL.

I'd love to get an A380 from SYD-MEL!

I can't imagine any scheduled domestic passenger flights for the A380, least of all Sydney to Melbourne. There are no A380 gates at the domestic airport so these would have to be from the international terminals, and would Qantas really want hundreds of QFF members with lounge access checking in three hours early to eat their weight at the F lounge? Sydney-Auckland is a better bet but could it support that many passengers on a single flight?

I think we will see a combination of empty A380s flying touch-and-go around Sydney Airport to get the pilots accredited again, but probably also some 'scenic flight' treatment for the A380 with seats on sale for $$ or points. QF could make a really big event out of this, TV stations would lap it up, a really great 'good news' story.

@AsiaBizTraveller

I can come up a bit better: how about flying over the airspace of states which wouldn’t allow NSW or VIC pax to arrive without quarantine or pre-departure approval (which is no point applying since it’s gonna be an automatic no)

So flying to the shorelines of Gold Coast, Brivegas, Townsville/Magnetic Island, Cairns/Great Barrier Reef, returning via Longreach, Charlesville

Lake Eyre, Simpson desert, Uluru, The Olgas, kings Canyon Alice Springs/ western McDonnell ranges, Devil’s marbles, Eastern MacDonnell range

Fill only 1/3 full so that everyone have the opportunity to get to a window without being blocked by the large A380 wingspan 

According to Neil Hansford, when interviewed on ABC radio today, the first of the A380’s will return to Australia in December to (re)train Qantas crews and engineers for the March return to service. May see some local flights in the Jan-Feb timeframe. 

Yes please!  Although you need a good 3-4 hours min  to truly experience the big bird IMHO

Yes a few times 777 with First  to/from ZRH-ATH  so Senators can choose First seating gratis  for HON/SEN   - UA  does a 787-10 reguary  EWR-SFO/LAX  , SQ and TG  A380  to/from  SIN/HKG BKK/HKG respectively  - so why not QF A380  on some domestic routs,  like weve had A330 and 789

Given that the A380s have been in storage for 18 months, and that all A380 flight and cabin crew have been stood down for such a long time, it will take considerable time for maintenance on each aircraft, along with extensive staff training requirements.  There is also the uncertainty of what the international passenger demands will be in the coming 6-12 months, given that some countries might have further major virus outbreaks.

XWu I’m sure Qantas is counting the border being opened to double vacced non Australians by then: before then it is restricted so I’m sure they have modelled the loads to make these decisions.

@kimshep

I am sure AJ had plenty of minions to do the readings for him :)

Gu says 'Hi' LOL. 

No, it wasn't me.

@ kimshep 

Dunno any minions called Gu.

I know all the minions grooving over Gru though.

Not at ALL surprised that the first A380-800 is being brought back on Nov 9, 2021. Simply, as I predicted. Twice.

Now, let's think about the second one. Already moved from mid April to March. Anyone want to bet against another earlier return?

They did try the A380s for the Antarctica services for one year, circa 2010. But there were too many passenger complaints, so they reverted to the B747 the following year.

The problem with the A380 was that the wings are so massive that they obscured the view for a huge number of pax.

Would require a reduced payload from Darwin which would not make it viable. Hopefully they bring SYD-SIN-LHR back sooner.

Why?

Darwin was an alternate/emergency landing site for NASA's shuttle program. Its main runway is 3.3kms long, as long as runways at SYD, MEL and LAX.

Runway 11/29 is long enough as you mention @ 3354m. The issue is more with usable payload and range as PommyFlyer points out. At the risk of getting nerdy: 

A380 at Max Takeoff Weight (MTOW) of 575,000kg on a 30 degree day at sea level (ISA +15deg). DRW close enough to sea level @ 31m elevation would still have a takeoff run ~3100m so that is within limits for the takeoff roll. The A380 nominal range is 8000nm, and DRW-LHR direct is 7490nm which on paper looks possible, but des not factor in prevailing headwinds on outbound sector in particular, and then still a tight safety margin for diversion/holding fuel etc.

By way of a practical example, DFW-SYD is 7454nm butA380 is payload limited certain times of the year due to prevailing winds. Also don't want to be in congested Western Europe airspace with tight fuel considerations. And given the cargo capacity of A380 (13.2t) versus B789 (11t), and A333 (16t);  the numbers just don't stack up to fly the A380 on that long sector unless there is high passenger demand. That's why (in part) QF used the A333 fleet as freight mules during lockdown to keep freight routes open in lieu of using more thirsty and less cargo capacity on A380.

If they are deeming 2 A380s as surplus to requirements, I have to wonder what they are cutting.

The timetable before the pandemic was using 11 with the 12th undergoing refit/maintenance.

They could replace some routes with 787/A330, but they also have to replace the aircraft used on the remaining ex 747 routes and all the 787s, inc the 3 currently stored by Boeing awaiting delivery, had already been earmarked for new routes (ORD) or replacing 747s.

With 5 747s and 2 A380s gone and only 3 787s coming, they won't have enough aircraft to operate the Feb 2020 network without cutting something.

I agree with everything @Himeno has stated in his reply above. However, two points strike me as being relevant.

1. Chicago (ORD.) It is highly conspicuous that *nothing* has been said by QF about the (re)launch. Perhaps, it will need to wait another twenty (20) years? Perhaps, QF might simply delay it another 12 months while capacity and demand (post-Covid) is re-assessed? Perhaps, it might join the A350 'Sunrise' plan, post 2024?

However, if ORD is to be launched / re-launched within the next 12 months, then yes, QF would be short of frames.

2. t amazes me that people believe that QF will 'retire two A380-800 frames, as 'surplus to requirements'. It is generally accepted by the global aviation community and the wider global business network that Qantas is a responsibly run, conservatively managed corporate whose long record accords it the stature of one of the few investment grade airlines in the industry.

Now, how many 'investment grade' organisations write down significant assets (A380's x 2) of tender age, and then seek to retire them - as 'surplus to requirements' ? 

Common sense tells you that if you have taken a (tax benefit) hit - by writing down the value of these frames - you have gained a benefit. Those two frames are now effectively paid for - and only incur minimal extra cost. In fact, where these frames could be used, they would be excellent profit-generators, once their individual trip costs (fare, taxes, fuel, labour, landing / airport fees, etc) are covered. 

Now, look at the 'used' market for A380's ? There doesn't appear to be one. So, in short, dumping two lightly used, relatively young, expensive frames that are already owned / written off does NOT sound like either a logical or financially responsible move. Does it ?

As @Himeno states above, there was only one frame that was 'partially' route allocated - and that frame was routinely dropped into cover maintenance shortfalls, route adjustments and catchups when needed ... which was always during peak holiday periods during the year. Had QF invested in an additional one or two frames (even the MH one's), it may well have allowed a great deal more flexibility to it's network planning.

And as @himeno points out, there's no more B747-400ER's - especially to fly SYD-SCL and SYD-JNB. To cover pre-Covid capacity on 6 weekly (low) or daily (high season) SYD-JNB, this route would require a minimum of 2 B787-9 frames to cover 1 B747-400ER. The route used 2 B747-400's - one in each direction - so to cover capacity, 4 B787-9s would be required. The only competitor here is South African Airways - and that is a sub-optimal competitor, since its emergence from bankruptcy.

Pre-Covid, SYD-SCL fluctuated between 3 services per week (low season) to 5 services per week (high season / holidays), so the B787-9 route frequency could be increased to daily (low season) to 10-11 services per week, requiring from 2 frames per day (one in each direction) to anything up to 4 frames. 

Alternatively, the two A380 paid-for 'retirees' could fly both these routes, maintaining the existing schedules, with the addition of maybe one B787-9 frames during peak periods. These two routes are stable revenue generators and do not attract a significant level of competition or fare-discounting. Indeed, both seem to be premium category fares, even in Economy.

Then there is SYD-DFW to consider. Uses 2 A380 frames for a daily service. Withdraw the A380-800 from this route and you lose a successful First Class route (and revenue). Besides, you would have to replace the A380 with 4 B787-9's, (2 each direction) with an almost identical narrow departure / arrival slot timetable. Not a lot of benefit in that. Neither any great financial, passenger satisfaction or operational benefits - and where would all these 'extra' B787 frames come from? Certainly not just these extra three whose delivery schedule is yet to be finalised.

Destinations like Chicago and Atlanta are classic 787 routes where the business case is for smaller volume and a direct flight, rather than a large plane with connections.  Considering Australian origins as well, there are quite a few city pairs that could be viable on a 787.  As a passenger I'd certainly encourage options that don't involve either a Sydney or LAX connection.  Flights to Vancouver especially makes sense, bypassing any USA entanglement for those going north.

Secondly, going by born2fish's analysis above, the A380 is not quite the right plane for DFW, let alone ORD and of course not JFK.  Eventually these could be filled by Sunrise, and we could speculate whether Qantas's order has skipped ahead in the queue during the pandemic.

@russh7, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Chicago or New York should be served by the QF A380, in the immediate future. 

Both ORD and DFW are American Airlines Mid-West hubs. Given that Qantas has made no mention of ORD, it would be suicide for QF to announce a brand new route and throw an A380 on it first up.

In returning to the pre-Covid model, I agree that ORD is best served by the B787-9. However, since no plan has been announced for the start of ORD, it makes sense for QF to continue serving DFW with the A380 (overflying LAX/SFO as you suggest). Demand is already established.

If however, ORD were to be announced with a daily ORD B787-9 service, then it may make sense to serve DFW with a single daily B787-9 and serving ORD with another (ie. splitting the Mid West market from one to two destinations). 

Other alternatives are also options, such as delaying ORD for 2 years or so, and opening MEL-DFW nonstop which would allow two daily B787-9's to serve DFW, one ex SYD and one ex MEL. 

But would we see a combination of SYD-DFW, MEL-DFW and BNE-ORD within the next two years? I would find that somewhat difficult to consider, given that it would severely degrade market loads on QF's LAX and SFO services.

Qantas has not actually ordered any A350s - it indicated that it would be placing an order - and then COVID hit. 

Kimshep you forget a bunch of A350-1000s in your calculations.

Aircraft which haven't been ordered, no order slots assigned, no idea when such an order might be made, no confirmed amount of how large such a order might be, nor when such aircraft might arrive.

Hi Stephen – Qantas hasn't added WiFi to the A380s yet – the airline has long maintained that the speeds and coverage it wants, and that passengers expect, are still a few years away. That was the pre-pandemic plan and I doubt it's changed.

With all due respect David, that argument died at the beginning of 2021 and it is relatively easy to point to the following ET article:

Qantas to launch high-speed international WiFi by 2021 - Executive Traveller

among a number of others. Qantas may well be waiting for 'superior' technology but here we are at the end of 2021 and the issue is still sadly lacking. Some of us are getting a little fed up with QF's constant excuses for providing sub-standard or no international WiFi service, when their international competitors are able to. I don't see a raft of complaints regarding WiFi services on the US competitors across the Pacific.

Qantas is not doing itself or its customers any favours. It all boils down to whether you wish to address customer needs - or whether you want to offer the 'best' possible solution, when everyone else has secured their share of the market and are serving all your disappointed customers.

With all due respect back at you, Kimshep, the argument didn't "die" because the high-speed / high-bandwidth technology Qantas intends or at least intended to use at the time that article was written – the Via-Sat 3 system – has been delayed by several years. As best as I can recall, all three Via-Sat 3 satellites were due to be operational in 2021 (including the Asia-Pacific bird which is of course vital to an AU-based airline) and then this was pushed back to 2021-2022. But they're all still on the ground, and the first isn't now expected to be launched until early 2022. I'm not defending Qantas by any stretch, just stating the facts.

David - the assumption that you make is that I said the argument died "because of the high-speed / high bandwidth technology." Your words, not mine. Whilst there night be a modicum of truth in there, I don't consider it the true answer.

In fact in my estimation, the argument 'died' because QF made a public promise in respect of the delivery of WiFi and they clearly didn't deliver. If I recall directly, it also wasn't their first failure to deliver on a WiFi promise for international. I pretty sure if I dig deeper, I could find that article too.

Let's face it - QF had installed WiFi on an test A380 circa 2012 or thereabouts, and decided to discontinue it after approx 6 months for a number of reasons including demand (at the time) and customer reaction to pricing. You think that technology, customer attitudes and other things have remained the same as nine years ago?

Funny how QF has a habit of starting out with an innovative idea and 'accidentally' killing it off, due to poor execution. Sorta like the 'revolutionary' B787 Premium Economy seat which proved to be - ahem - not quite so revolutionary.

Kimshep, I'm hardly an advocate for QF, but many corporates have marketing departments that confuse 'aspirations' with promises or intentions.  I'm acutely aware of the difference - purely for selfish, self-preservation reasons- having kids in their teens who judiciously hover over anything I say - always looking for the 'gotcha' moment.  Will admit, I'm inclined to do the same with anything said by Jayne and Alan (but they, at least, deserve it!).  

Stephen not sure how you can assure wifi on a 17 hour flight with so many providers. I prefer to avoid such irritation.

Good luck getting consistent wifi on Emirates, with so many connected. 

Some of your criticisms are fair whilst others are a bit rich.

- I agree that their processing of refunds was poor.  It should be a largely automated and immediate process.  When I cancelled a trip due to border restrictions, it took over 8 weeks to receive the refund even though the consultant on the phone quoted the credit card number on the spot.

- International demand and reactivation of the fleet was hard to predict so I give them a pass on this.  As it turned out some flights demand (QF9) was less than predicted even though everyone thought initial demand would be very high.

- Call centre response was poor but that was nothing new; they, along with lots of other Australian businesses, have tried to push customers onto web-based self-service for years.

- I don't mind QF's soft product or VA's for that matter.  Both have a distinct Australian casualness which tends to be more familiar than some of the stiff and insincere formality you get from some of the Asian and ME3 airlines.  Their hard product is mixed with some good things like their J class on A330s and 787s and some big misses like the "revolutionary" but hopeless flawed 787 W class.