Originally Posted by Wizofoz
By Maximum payload, you mean difference between DOW and MZFW?
Is there another ?
Originally Posted by Wizofoz
Sure, but what does that matter?
Not really. EK is not the only airline flying 77Ws over sector lengths like DXB-SFO, and they are not getting "all the passengers (445 in two class) all the fuel and all the frieght (freight)" over that sort of sector length.
If you made that comment over a shorter flight, I would have agreed, just impossible going to SFO.
Originally Posted by Wizofoz
What are you suggesting as an alternative?
I was not suggesting anything, the 77W is just another aircraft with limits like any other aircraft. It is also a very expensive aircraft.
Originally Posted by Bankstown
their website lists the 2 class seat capacity as 427 (42J/385Y) or 442 (42J/400Y).
I was not aware of that config, that being said, it would not be deployed to SFO normally, that is a medium haul configuration, not ULH.
Originally Posted by Captain Sherm
From 250 pax to 400 pax, from 1000 nm to 8500 nm, with the lowest seat costs, best freight capacity, most flexible, highest reliability, easiest training, easiest to handle in horrible conditions, most fun, best looks, coolest and most modern technology around, airframe and software
The seat costs would be beaten by the 777-300 and A380, and when comparing with other carriers, and the indirect operating costs considered, the 777W may not be the cheapest aircraft to operate on a per seat basis.
More to operating an airline apart from direct operating costs.
Originally Posted by Captain Sherm
Any airline without them must be way smarter than the rest of the world.
The 77W is a large aircraft in the 60t payload class, it is also expensive to lease/purchase and operate. Many 747-400 operators can continue to operate them cheaper on a per seat basis when all the costs are taken into account.
If you are a relatively young airline with 20% per annum expansion plans like EK it is a different story.
Originally Posted by standard unit
This 18 month old article from Ben Sandilands is worth revisiting.....
Myself and most of my contemporaries still believe the 77W was the wrong aircraft for
VB to start its long haul international operations with. They should have started with some leased aircraft with smaller capacity and build the brand and network. Sure the 77W could in the longer term be a good choice once their network has developed, as we know they have already failed with their JNB and HKT operations.
If QF were to get a modest fleet of 77Ws (say 20), they would be looking at a commitment of over 3 billion dollars. If you were to put that cash in the bank, you would earn enough interest each year to purchase a 77W outright, or continue to operate 744s and buy a couple of 787s and still have change and 3 billion in your account.
Cash is king during economic downturns. That is why AUH bailed out DXB for billions of dollars during the GFC.