Qantas mulls Airbus A350, Boeing 777X to replace Boeing 747s

Qantas mulls Airbus A350, Boeing 777X to replace Boeing 747s

Qantas is considering the Airbus A350 and Boeing 777X as potential replacements for its ageing fleet of Boeing 747 jumbo jets.

In a presentation held in Seattle over the weekend, ahead of today's delivery flight of Jetstar's first Boeing 787, Qantas Group CEO Alan Joyce flagged what he called "the next big decisions" on the airline's fleet.

This also encompasses replacements for the smaller Boeing 717s used for services to regional Australia as well as Sydney-Canberra route, and the Boeing 737-800 which remains the workhorse of Qantas' domestic fleet.

Qantas
This slide from the Qantas' presentation flags "the next big decisions"
Qantas

Qantas’ partner Emirates is deeply involved in the planning of the Boeing 777X program, an improved version of Boeing's successful 777 series which is expected to begin commercial flights towards the end of the decade.

The 777X will be offered in two versions: the 777-8 will replace the Boeing 777-300ER with a capacity of 350 passengers in a three-class configuration, while the 777-9 is a stretched version which will be the world's largest twin-engine commercial jet.

Boeing says the advanced design and technology, including a 787-inspired composite wing plus all-new engines, will achieve 20 percent lower fuel consumption and 15 percent lower operating costs than the 777-300ER.

Lufthansa has already signed up as launch customer for the 777X, while Emirates CEO Tim Clark is looking to place a substantial order if the 777X can meet his reportedly stringent specifications.

Or perhaps the Airbus A350?

Going up against the Boeing 777X is the Airbus A350-1000, due from 2016 and already ordered by British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Qatar Airways, United and Lufthansa among others.

Another strong contender is the Boeing 787, which Joyce said would be ordered only in the stretched 787-9 version, although the even longer 787-10 could also find its way into the mix.

“The 787-9 is a long-range aircraft which can fly to the US, which can fly to Dallas, and it's ideal to open up a range of new routes for the Qantas network than we’ve seen before” Alan Joyce told Australian Business Traveller.

“They’ll also replace some of the older aircraft that we have, like the older 747s and the A330-300s."

Read: Qantas sets its sights on Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner

None of this means that Qantas will be abandoning its flagship Airbus A380, of which the Flying Kangaroo already has 12 in the fleet, with two more due in 2016-2107 and the final six to be delivered from 2018-2019.

However, Joyce is unlikely to spread his love or Qantas' money too thinly as he drives a 'simplification' of the airline's fleet to fewer aircraft types in both the domestic and international arms to reduce operating costs while taking advantage of the opportunity to retire older planes and bring in new aircraft with increased fuel efficiency and lower maintenance costs.

"This year the Qantas fleet is the youngest it's ever been, and it will go lower again when we retire the Boeing 767s, it will actually go below Singapore Airlines in age for the next couple of years" Joyce told journalists in Seattle.

Australian Business Traveller visited Seattle as a guest of Qantas and Boeing.

Get the latest updates for business traveller and frequent flyers: follow @AusBT on Twitter.

David Flynn
David Flynn is the editor of Australian Business Traveller and a bit of a travel tragic with a weakness for good coffee, shopping and lychee martinis.
 

45 comments

  • AusFlyer

    AusFlyer

    8 Oct, 2013 01:26 pm

    Ah... the 777... The plane Qantas should have ordered 10 years ago.
    No member give thanks

  • watson374

    watson374

    8 Oct, 2013 03:45 pm

    Disagree. They should have gotten the A330-300 in even larger numbers for QFi.

    No member give thanks

  • AusFlyer

    AusFlyer

    8 Oct, 2013 04:05 pm

    The A330 definitely has its place for short to medium haul, but the 777 is more suited as a 747 replacement and has a better range with more passengers than the A330. The A330 can't fly Australia to USA so would be of little use to Qantas for those types of sectors, whereas the 777- 200ER and 300ER can do it easily.

    No member give thanks

  • watson374

    watson374

    8 Oct, 2013 04:17 pm

    The A330 doesn't have to. There are enough B747s in the fleet to have covered the JNB/SCL/DFW/LAX/FRA issue long enough to await the 787's delayed arrival.

    No member give thanks

  • AusFlyer

    AusFlyer

    9 Oct, 2013 12:53 pm

    I'm not disagreeing with you.. .but the 787 is hardly a 747 replacement. The 777 would have provided the best stop-gap solution with better performance for longer sectors. The 787 is better suited to replace the A330.

    No member give thanks

  • watson374

    watson374

    9 Oct, 2013 08:10 pm

    Again, we're ignoring the roles that the 744 plays in the QFi fleet. Firstly, we need to divide the two roles the 744 plays: 1) where it is the right plane for the job (SYD-JNB), and 2) where it is being used because that's all QFi can muster (e.g. BNE-SIN).

    No, it's not a 744 replacement. Absolutely not. But what I'd like to see is the 789 used for both long-and-thin routes (e.g. reviving the SFO and/or FRA services) and also to swap out daily 744s for multi-daily 789s.

    I believe in the power of frequency. It's all well and good to use a 744 once a day, but if we use more 789s (remember, options for up to fifty) then we can run services like BNE-SIN double-daily or more. This brings QFi more towards a CX model of more capacity using more flights, enhancing convenience, connectivity and competitiveness.

    It's not a like-for-like replacement, but I don't believe it has to be. The only case where we need a true 744 replacement are for the long-hauls like JNB, and for that QFi has the nine post-1999 744(ER)s to cover that until it can snag a modern "game-changer".

    No member give thanks

  • SniperMonkey500

    SniperMonkey500

    27 Jan, 2014 09:15 am

    Yes but they ARE Slowly Getting rid of the 747s. They are only keeping Freighters But not many

    No member give thanks

  • SniperMonkey500

    SniperMonkey500

    27 Jan, 2014 09:14 am

    EXACTLY AusFlyer QANTAS MADE A MASSIVE MISTAKE NOT Getting the 777-200/300 (ER) It would have been so good for them plus they are agreat aircraft.

    No member give thanks

  • watson374

    watson374

    27 Jan, 2014 11:31 am

    For the Asian network, how is it better than the A330-300, especially given QF already had domestic A330-200s?

    No member give thanks

  • mbpro

    mbpro

    8 Oct, 2013 01:37 pm

    Except, the 777, 350 or 787 doesn't offer any answers to what will they fly to South America and South America once their current 747s are retired. The only option seems to be 747-800s to comply with aviation laws. 

    No member give thanks

  • Craig Dennington

    cdinoz

    9 Oct, 2013 07:23 am

    Joyce would not be foolish enough to buy the 748. He wants to streamline the QFi ops by simplyfying the fleet, not replacing one 747 with another!

    I'd keep the A330's in the fleet and utilize them as best he could then use the A350-1000 to replace the 747's. Then he'd have an all Airbus QFi fleet once the 747's are gone!!!

    No member give thanks

  • mbpro

    mbpro

    9 Oct, 2013 01:04 pm

    350s are twin engines, can't fly to South America or South Africa because they'll fly over areas more than 3 hours from a useable airport.

    They can only send 380s (won't fill them) or 747s to those two continents. 

    No member give thanks

  • Hugo

    Hugo

    9 Oct, 2013 01:18 pm

    QF might be able to fill an A380 a day to Santiago if it didn't charge such gougey prices.

    Searching for SYD-SCL on random days next month and I can't find tickets on actual QF metal for less than $3000, which is rather excessive for a sixteen-hour flight. Australians don't visit South America much, but that's largely because it's much more expensive to get there than any other destination.

    No member give thanks

  • ILIKEPLANES101

    ILIKEPLANES101

    14 Jul, 2014 04:33 pm

    A340 could be used too! Iknow its not good for effiecientcy but its possible!

    No member give thanks

  • ILIKEPLANES101

    ILIKEPLANES101

    14 Jul, 2014 04:33 pm

    A340 could be used too! Iknow its not good for effiecientcy but its possible!

    No member give thanks

  • ILIKEPLANES101

    ILIKEPLANES101

    14 Jul, 2014 04:33 pm

    A340 could be used too! Iknow its not good for effiecientcy but its possible!

    No member give thanks

  • ILIKEPLANES101

    ILIKEPLANES101

    14 Jul, 2014 04:33 pm

    A340 could be used too! Iknow its not good for effiecientcy but its possible!

    No member give thanks

  • ILIKEPLANES101

    ILIKEPLANES101

    14 Jul, 2014 04:33 pm

    A340 could be used too! Iknow its not good for effiecientcy but its possible!

    No member give thanks

  • Craig Dennington

    cdinoz

    5 Aug, 2014 11:37 am

    With the extension of ETOPS that Airbus is pushing for the A350, it does seem that the South Africa flights just might be achievable on a twin. They are pushing 420 ETOPS "eventually" but are aiming for 350 ETOPS on EIS (as in a good marketing campaign "350 for a 350" perhaps?). 

    What are the overwater legs on the South America and South Africa routes? What is the current time away from an airport?

    No member give thanks

  • pgcsingapore

    pgcsingapore

    10 Oct, 2013 09:48 am

    Boeing already offers 777s with 330 min ETOPS which will allow direct SYD-JNB and -SCL. Air NZ was lead customer.

    QF should've gone for the 777 10-15 years ago but having not done so, it's probably too late now.

    However it could also have allowed ops on routes which have perhaps been marginal for the 744 eg. SYD-SFO (in and out since 2008), maybe YVR, some European routes (eg. CDG and FRA and HKG / BKK-LHR), perhaps also SEL and TPE? Maybe even direct MUM rather than having to drop into SIN (as the QF51/52 A330s had to)?

    I for one wouldn't do the long southern routes in the plastic fantastic for some time, just don't trust 'em (and I'm not talking about the engines).

    No member give thanks

  • Himeno

    Himeno

    11 Oct, 2013 04:17 pm

    It doesn't matter if the aircraft can do a high level of ETOPS if CASA won't let QF/VA use it.

    No member give thanks

  • mbpro

    mbpro

    8 Oct, 2013 01:37 pm

    South Africa or South America*

    No member give thanks

  • hutch

    hutch

    8 Oct, 2013 02:13 pm

    Assuming there is no change to ETOPS requirements

    No member give thanks

  • PLATY

    PLATY

    8 Oct, 2013 02:15 pm

    ...and assuming QF don't ditch S. America and S. Africa...

    No member give thanks

  • PLATY

    PLATY

    8 Oct, 2013 02:23 pm

    Well the fleet simplification concept went out the window when they bought the A330's...perhaps someone could show Mr Joyce a 777 whilst he's in Seattle - it'll only be 10 years too late...

    No member give thanks

  • watson374

    watson374

    8 Oct, 2013 03:58 pm

    So it's okay to bash fleet simplification when it involved introducing A330s, but it's also okay to hype about 777s?

    No member give thanks

  • PLATY

    PLATY

    8 Oct, 2013 05:51 pm

    because at the time the introduction of the original A330s involved a paradigm shift away from an essentially all Boeing QF maninline fleet (aside from the two A300)...the wedge being the A380...

    No member give thanks

  • watson374

    watson374

    8 Oct, 2013 08:34 pm

    That's a large wedge, but I see your point. Essentially, they were initially just a sweetener/compensation, but they've grown to become the heavy artillery of the domestic fleet, and light brigade for the international section.

    I just believe that in light of their position of having a good number of A330s already that the A330 would have been the better choice for the Asian market, and that the remaining sectors of QFi would have been either able to support a daily A380 (LAX, LHR, even FRA) or 744ER (DFW, SCL, JNB) or survived on the newer 744s until they could be replaced (especially ex-BNE and ex-MEL).

    I suppose my view is shaped most by my belief that QFi should focus on fat trunks on most of its longhaul network (Europe, Americas, etc.) and then have a smaller, more convenient frequency-oriented network for Asia. That's how I came to the slightly unusual A330/A380/B747 conclusion.

    No member give thanks

  • PLATY

    PLATY

    9 Oct, 2013 06:24 am

    That's all fine...but the question is the 10 year plus plan, wherein access to newer marques with claims of better fuel efficiencies and lower maintenance costs are the order of the day...hence the A350 vs 777X dilemma, and similarly for the A320neo and 737MAX, etc...

    Look at the airlines who are more advanced that QF (EK, SQ, etc) for clues...

    Then factor in which routes can even be expected to nourish a QF service long term - I suspect SCL and JNB won't be there in 10 years.

    And consider that QF currently is a minnow, even on Australian-Asian routes when your compare to the competition: is QF going to bite the bullet and aspire to being a significant player (with much higher capacity on Asian routes) or happy to tootle along resting on its ever diminishing claim to be the "Australian airline" with an international operation which can only be described as bonsai or boutique, using JQi to patch the routes it doesn't have the stomach for...hence my long held suspicion that these Asian routes will increasingly get turned over to JQi once the 787 fleet is delivered as the "this route isn't commercial for QF' excuse gets trotted out over and over again.

    Hence the great incertainty over the fleet requirements...in truth Joyce hasn't got a clue what he wants to purchase fleet wise because the future of QFi is completely uncertain - its all options and clouded vision - hence the unresolvable debate we're having on long tem fleet.

    And whilst Joyce ducks and weaves the competition is growing stronger with greater diversity (read Malaysia Airline's recent push), increasing services with brand new fleet (e.g. Qatar and Etihad and Malaysian A380s, even Air India with a 787!).

    The new QF business seat is several years behind the competition along with the QF 787s...Joyce is several years behind the pack!

    QF customers will continue to bleed to the competition, especially as the punters find out they are being taken to the cleaners both on price and the QF FF scheme (look at the decreasing value of QF points compared with say AA, or the redemption rates on MH), which has recently been severely undermined with the loss of any seat award online bookings and the new online system calculating point redemptions on total mileage flown across sectors.

    No member give thanks

  • Hugo

    Hugo

    9 Oct, 2013 03:58 pm

    I'm not convinced that the economics of an all-Boeing fleet (or an all-Airbus fleet) are worthwhile. Once you have multiple aircraft types it doesn't seem to matter that much whether they come from the same manufacturer or not. Otherwise, more airlines would have single-manufacturer fleets, but almost every major airline in the world (not counting short-haul LCCs) uses a mixed fleet.

    I'm guessing that any small advantage which might come from having aircraft mechanics who can switch from type to type is completely wiped out when you're sitting at the bargaining table.

    No member give thanks

  • watson374

    watson374

    9 Oct, 2013 08:16 pm

    I'm not arguing for an all-anything fleet, Hugo. I'm only saying that you're better off having two dozen A330s rather than a dozen A330s and a dozen 777s.

    Unlike PLATY, I don't hold a pessimistic view of QFi post-789. I am worried about it surviving to that point, though; but if it gets that far, I believe the 789 should allow it to push back into the fray.

    I hope.

    No member give thanks

  • PLATY

    PLATY

    10 Oct, 2013 11:06 am

    Perhaps...787-9 (and fleet/product renewal) and leadership team with customer connection...

    No member give thanks

  • Robert Eden

    reno
    Banned

    8 Oct, 2013 02:37 pm

    Agree with Aus Flyer, QF had every and all opportunities to purchase 777,s some years ago .Under Dix/AJ  management they sucessfully screwed mainline operations by maintaining outdated 747/a330,s.What is real sad  one got the pay out the over the bonus and we a FF ,s get remince.

    No member give thanks

  • watson374

    watson374

    8 Oct, 2013 04:01 pm

    The 777 still doesn't work for QFi.

    It's too small for its biggest runs to Europe and America (HINT: A380). It's a twin, so it can't properly do the South Africa and South America runs (HINT: 744ER). It's too big for the Asian network which demands convenience, frequency and connectivity (HINT: A333).

    No member give thanks

  • PLATY

    PLATY

    8 Oct, 2013 05:48 pm

    ...so... 

    • why put an A333 on an Asian route instead of a 787?
    • why is a A332 good enough for QF but not good enough for JQi over a 787?
    • why dither around with A333s to Asia when the competition (SQ) can muster multiple daily flights with A380s (two 380s, a 772 and a 773 at least?), with other A380s to Asian ports to come shortly, many with a better product offering in premium?
    No member give thanks

  • watson374

    watson374

    8 Oct, 2013 09:13 pm

    I should probably emphasise that my comments are directed at the last couple of years. But I'll bite anyway.

    • Why put an A333 on an Asian route instead of a 787?

    In the 2009-2013 timeframe I'm looking at, the 787 wasn't available; but the A333 was. It works well for the Asian carriers serving Australia, particularly when we look at ports that aren't SYD.

    • Why is a A332 good enough for QF but not good enough for JQi over a 787?

    Costs. Simply put, JQi has lower fares and therefore lower revenue per passenger, so it needs a lower operating cost. QFi charges more so it can afford more expensive planes in the interim. It's a bit perverse, but I think it was you who said that QFi is still acting like a legacy carrier, and in this case it's true.

    It's a crying shame - I'm with you all on that - but the 787-8 fleet is a paltry 14 planes and given my above reasoning I think sending them to JQi makes sense.

    • Why dither around with A333s to Asia when the competition (SQ) can muster multiple daily flights with A380s (two 380s, a 772 and a 773 at least?), with other A380s to Asian ports to come shortly, many with a better product offering in premium?

    There are a few reasons.

    Firstly, I believe that SQ will always have the upper hand when it comes to Australia-SIN traffic. Remember, SYD-SIN is at best currently a 744 and a 333. In such a position, I find it unreasonable to expect that QFi could totally match its competition on double-daily A380s plus double-daily 777s.

    However, I believe there was scope for additional frequency with additional A330s, e.g. enhancing SYD-SIN to triple-daily A333s, oreferably with the A380 Marc Newson product.

    Secondly, CX has gone for this exact strategy with regards to the Australia-HKG market. It works. Essentially, they have stuck to the A333 with a good onboard product - more so now with the reverse-herringbone J and introduction of W - and grown using multi-daily flights. I believe in such an approach because it offers more choice to the customer while also growing capacity; if we simply aim to quickly upgauge to the A380, we are growing capacity but not improving convenience.

    Thirdly, my view is with regard to the 2009-2013 timeframe where the 787 was supposed to have arrived, but was delayed. As such, I am viewing a scenario where the A380 is here but in limited supply, the 744s are aging, the 744ERs are able to soldier on for a while longer, and the 777 has not been acquired.

    In this light, the only sectors of QFi that need a 787 stand-in are the Asian network and the long-and-thin sectors. The additional A333s I proposed would be leased to cover this timeframe (and then churned when the 789s come in, say in 2016), allowing a few things: 1) for the existing owned A333s to be refurbished; 2) for the 744s used in Asia to be transferred to SFO/DFW and other long-haul services; and 3) growth in Asia.

    The 77E offers no advantage over the 333 in QFi's Asian network in this timeframe because we don't need the slight additional capacity and we don't need the additional range, so we don't need the additional weight and fleet complications. The 77W is indeed an excellent 744 replacement, but QFi has three post-1999 ones and then the 2002-2003 six ERs - enough, I believe, to cover the sections truly requiring 744s (e.g. JNB). Everything else can either be upgauged to an A380 (e.g. LAX) or swapped out for additional frequency with A330s (e.g. SIN); this negates the need for a true 744 replacement.

    That's why I believe the 777 doesn't have a place in the QFi fleet.

    No member give thanks

  • Michael Briggs

    Mikeologos

    8 Oct, 2013 10:01 pm

    Dam that was one informative post.

    No member give thanks

  • PLATY

    PLATY

    9 Oct, 2013 06:36 am

    Yes, in my opinion you are right on many counts! As you say your rationale is based mainly on the legacy 2009-2013 position.

    The main sticking point in the immediate time frame, as ever, is the allocation of the initial 787s to JQi rather than QF - perhaps a well explored debate, if it's OK to say so, with strong points to be made both for and against.

    The question at hand is how this game play could develop over a 10 year plus plan!

    Bridging the two, my main concern is how QF can compete seriously as it denies itself new aircraft that can form the basis of a strong competitive position, both in terms of product offering, frequency, and frequent flyer value paradigm. And its years behind on product to Asia (see more in my post above)!

    No member give thanks

  • watson374

    watson374

    9 Oct, 2013 08:24 pm

    No, you're right to question the sensibility of the immediate future gameplay. My rabbling has mainly been regarding how we could have avoided getting QFi into its current, rather unenviable position.

    If we are to assume the current scenario, the outlook is (to be polite) a little bleak. Nevertheless, the crucial period is the 2013-2017 period whilst we await the 787-9, if the purchase options are exercised. If there are not, we can bid QFi adios.

    I believe that this period will be the most painful. It will be QFi's darkest hour. But if it can survive until the 787-9s arrive and enter full service, it can use that weapon to make the very same push I believe the A330-300 was ripe for three years ago.

    The survival of QFi hinges on lasting until the 787-9, and then using it to push back into the fray.

    No member give thanks

  • PLATY

    PLATY

    10 Oct, 2013 11:02 am

    Yep. We must agree to...agree!

    Despite the obvious and immediate challenges, QF continues to expend its energies on non core activities.

    It could be viewed as ironic that you have the Loyalty CEO dithering around in NZ, with a domestic market where the mainline QF brand has been removed along with the AKL-LAX route, rather than directly address the competition (both domestic and international) with core innovation.

    Mars rover ads and branded debit cards can't substitute for outdated product, loss of domestic feeder flights (read concentration of fleet away from regions to golden trinagle), dilution of FF value and the dwindling pool of frequent flyer options on QF metal (read upgardes) dictated by such a sparse international schedule of QF aircraft.

    It's QF mainline who should be capitalising on the incessant 787 publicity!

    QF are so lucky that VA didn't go Star Alliance (and stuffed up their online bookig engine)!

    No member give thanks

  • JBH

    JBH

    10 Oct, 2013 12:26 pm

    Bang on. Doubtless there are many QFFer's that would share you observations.

    No member give thanks

  • Dave Thomas

    deethom

    11 Oct, 2013 05:24 pm

    Another point is QFi's ability to ignore the lack of intra Asia, and Europe/London flights from BNE. Not one A380 flight East or West, or to any Port for that matter; no direct flights to NRT; go to OOL or CNS and jump JQ, like it or lump it; CX offers more direct HKG flights per day; no direct China, or Thailand routes; all in all it keeps me flying the likes of VAi to the West Coast, and CX to Asian ports.

    No member give thanks

  • adsa999

    adsa999

    15 Sep, 2014 06:20 pm

    In my personal opinion, it was a very bad mistake of Qantas to purchase A380's to it's fleet. It does not have a strong enough passenger command to require that large seat capacity aircraft. Other airlines such as Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Lufthansa, etc, have the passenger numbers to support such a large airplane. The more wise and logical aircraft would have been the B777 to begin with for the international sector. Large enough capacity, good fuel efficiency, a very safe aircraft, and is very friendly for the crew.

    In regards to the domestic market, I'm not one to judge on how full the routes become, with increased competition from Virgin and Tiger, but I don't think aircraft bigger than the 737 are necessary. They do not to provide better in flight entertainment however to beat the competition from Virgin.

    The regional market is where Qantas and QantasLink need to pick up. I catch regular flights from Coffs Harbour to Sydney, and these are only on a Dash 8 (turboprop aircraft) which seats around 70 people. These flights (around 6 per day) are generally full, and sold out. I think to cut trip times, and increase passenger volume, they need to purchase the A319 or other plane to that standard. I feel considering Virgin provides us with a jet powered plane, Qantas should do the time. Especially since we get no in flight entertainment!

    They seriously need to look at other airline (Cathay, Singapore, Emirates) fleets to really thrive in the airline industry.

    No member give thanks

  • AB__CD

    AB__CD

    24 Oct, 2014 12:25 am

    The lack of 777's was the airline's biggest mistake - practically every major airline has it and unlike the 747 or the A380, the 777 is more flexible and for an airline like Qantas, it can offer long haul international routes to more European and American destinations. Now that the 787 is delayed and that the 747 is due for retirement, it leaves Qantas with either the A330 (small capacity and short range) or the A380 (large capacity and long range) for its US destinations. Given that they don't even fly the A330 into the US, it leaves just the A380. For an airline of their scale, running A380-only services doesn't look profitable, something below it, which is the 777, should have been ordered.

    No member give thanks

  • Craig Dennington

    cdinoz

    24 Oct, 2014 01:40 am

    The 777 myth has been busted a few times. When the A380's were ordered, the pax counts and requirements were there. 

    When the 787 was ordered, Boeing offered planes to be delivered much earlier.

    When QF was looking at the 777, it did not have the distance, was too big or too small for the various routes.

    No member give thanks

Guest

27 May, 2019 03:41 am

×
×

Forgot Password

If you’ve forgotten your password, simply enter your email address below, then click 'Submit'. We’ll send you an email to re-activate your account and enter a new password.

×

Resend activation email

If you have not received the activation email, simply enter your email address below, then click 'Submit'. We’ll send you an email containing the activation link.

×