I’ve posted an excerpt of an article attributed to Alan Joyce (Head of Qantas) regarding his thoughts comparing the 787 v A380, and magically it disappears.
Perhaps the moderators on here are a bit sensitive to any perceived slight regarding the 380?
Are you all sensitive souls perhaps?

Here is the quote for completeness

The Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner versus the Airbus A380
"One of the big advantages of the Dreamliner is that it gives us a range of destinations we couldn't have done before," Joyce said. "It gives you better economics because it's 20% more fuel efficient and with a lot lower maintenance cost given the new technology. That means there are routes we could have done before with distance, but couldn't do economically that now come onto the radar screen."

"For Qantas, it also starts overcoming the tyranny of distance we have," Joyce added.

And the differences in economics between the Dreamliner and Qantas' previous flagship, the Airbus A380 Superjumbo are stark.

According to Joyce, he can fly two 236-seat Dreamliners for less than the cost of a single 486-seat A380, which entered the Qantas fleet in 2008.

"If we were to fly two 787s tail-to-tail, the per-seat cost would be less than the A380," the Qantas CEO said.

And here is a suggestion as to where to find it...

Type into a popular search engine “Alan Joyce 787”

Love to know what part of Airliners.net know more about Australian Aviation than a Business Insider piece interviewing a CEO....but I’m not holding my breath for a reasoned answer.

emiratesdriver wrote:

I’ve posted an excerpt of an article attributed to Alan Joyce (Head of Qantas) regarding his thoughts comparing the 787 v A380, and magically it disappears.

Have you checked your mail box?

So the simple question is why don’t they ?

Answer is slots are restricted. If you cannot understand that simple concept the “cost” equation is out the window. You cannot fly two 787s tail to tail from SYD to anywhere.

It’s a ckickbaiit comment for the inept to distribute and QF gets free advertising.

emiratesdriver wrote:

I’ve posted an excerpt of an article attributed to Alan Joyce (Head of Qantas) regarding his thoughts comparing the 787 v A380, and magically it disappears.
Perhaps the moderators on here are a bit sensitive to any perceived slight regarding the 380?
Are you all sensitive souls perhaps?

Here is the quote for completeness

The Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner versus the Airbus A380
"One of the big advantages of the Dreamliner is that it gives us a range of destinations we couldn't have done before," Joyce said. "It gives you better economics because it's 20% more fuel efficient and with a lot lower maintenance cost given the new technology. That means there are routes we could have done before with distance, but couldn't do economically that now come onto the radar screen."

"For Qantas, it also starts overcoming the tyranny of distance we have," Joyce added.

And the differences in economics between the Dreamliner and Qantas' previous flagship, the Airbus A380 Superjumbo are stark.

According to Joyce, he can fly two 236-seat Dreamliners for less than the cost of a single 486-seat A380, which entered the Qantas fleet in 2008.

"If we were to fly two 787s tail-to-tail, the per-seat cost would be less than the A380," the Qantas CEO said.

And here is the link

http://www.businessinsider.com/qantas-c ... ty-2017-10

Love to know what part of Airliners.net know more about Australian Aviation than a Business Insider piece interviewing a CEO....but I’m not holding my breath for a reasoned answer.

They have been removed as both times you have broken the forum rules

So...explain to me rules I’ve broken? I’m assuming it’s the link? If so...I’m sure you can remove it, or ask me to change it, and quite frankly I’ve seen far worse in terms of rule breaking if that’s the case. If so whoever please tell me what needs to change.

Zeke read the article in its entirety, it addresses the slot issue...QF is not bound with SYD as it’s only base.

emiratesdriver wrote:

So...explain to me rules I’ve broken? I’m assuming it’s the link? If so...I’m sure you can remove it, or ask me to change it, and quite frankly I’ve seen far worse in terms of rule breaking if that’s the case. If so whoever please tell me what needs to change.

Send your request by first class snail mail to a PO Box, moderators may get back to you.

Rule enforcement is arbitrary and capricious at best. One moderator actively liked and promoted gossip as facts and encouraged name calling while deleting my posts actively.saying "Don't let the facts get in the way".

dtw2hyd wrote:

emiratesdriver wrote:

So...explain to me rules I’ve broken? I’m assuming it’s the link? If so...I’m sure you can remove it, or ask me to change it, and quite frankly I’ve seen far worse in terms of rule breaking if that’s the case. If so whoever please tell me what needs to change.

Send your request by first class snail mail to a PO Box, moderators may get back to you.

Rule enforcement is arbitrary and capricious at best. One moderator actively liked and promoted gossip as facts and encouraged name calling while deleting my posts actively.saying "Don't let the facts get in the way".

Moderation is highly debatable on this forum. It's applied arbitrarily and very often for no actual reason other that the personal inclinations of the moderator in question.

Just a quick "heads up". You are walking on very, very thin ice. The Moderators(?) are very sensitive about what is posted. We have the forum rules and then we have the moderator's rules. You are expected to be a mind reader to ensure you don't post anything which is A) not to their liking, B) could be considered thought provoking, C) or has the potential, no matter how small, to be controversial. Please note those rules apply on all days ending in a Y. While the published forum rules apply only on the second Tuesday of the week.

I knew a person who was banned from the forum a few years ago. Was an active Captain with a very well respected airline. He challenged the moderators and lost. But his last laugh was he pursued Demand Media and got his fees refunded!

Well after a short ban for not having a valid email (completely my fault I think as it was a typo or auto correct) I’m allowed back in the forum. I will happily comply with the forum rules, but I will continue to challenge what I see from an operational perspective suspect or factually inaccurate information.

emiratesdriver wrote:

Well after a short ban for not having a valid email (completely my fault I think as it was a typo or auto correct) I’m allowed back in the forum. I will happily comply with the forum rules, but I will continue to challenge what I see from an operational perspective suspect or factually inaccurate information.

And we're happy to have you enquire a deletion. We'll always give you an explanation if we need to make a deletion, you just have to ask. We won't discuss it in an open forum out of respect for your privacy, but we're always happy to answer when you contact us via email at moderators@airliners.net. If users forget how to contact us, they can always PM a mod and ask how they can get in touch with us to resolve an issue.

Contrary to what some have posted, we don't make up rules as we go. We just may interpret things differently. I have never deleted something on the basis of "I don't like it". As for consistency — we try our best. It's never a matter of selective moderation, it's usually a matter of us having not seen something. There aren't that many of us, and we all have jobs and lives and other things to do. We aren't professional moderators, we're volunteer users. We rely on other users to report posts to us if they see a problem. If something isn't brought to our attention, and we don't happen upon the thread on our own, then there's little we can do to act.

At the end of the day, we try our best to keep things running in a respectful and orderly fashion. We'll always take constructive criticism, we're always happy to answer questions or provide clarification, and we're always appreciative of the community helping us out to keep things running smoothly.