New planes for Air NZ

[lineboy_nz]

Wednesday, 26 May 2004
New planes for AirNZ

Hot on the heels of this morning's announcement that Air New Zealand will put on direct flights from Christchurch to Los Angeles three times a week is the purchase of eight new planes.


Chief executive Ralph Norris says they are negotiating with Boeing and Airbus for the purchase of eight 300-seater planes to replace the current 767 300s by the year 2006.


He says that would increase the number of seats available by about 70 percent.


Meanwhile Ralph Norris says that if direct flights between Christchurch and Los Angeles are successful, they will become a daily service.

Newstalk ZB

Isn't he describing the A332?

[ZK-NSN]

Either that or the B777. I think Airnz are at the point where they are going to have to choose what direction they go with their fleet. Airbus or Boeing?

[lineboy_nz]

I'd say Airbus A330-200... um... commonality with qantas for maintenence?

[BCF Breath]

I dunno, the 767-400 could be closer until the 7E7 gets up & running.

[Buckshot]

Surely you're joking BCF!
Boeing hasn't exactly been swamped with orders for the 764 - in fact the couple of airlines that have them reportedly aren't that impressed as they haven't met performance targets.
The bus would be a safer bet.

[BCF Breath]

I dunno, maybe Mr Boeing might supply some A330s as an interium measure till the 7E7 gets going...

[currawong]

Surely Aunty Helen should get to choose.

Her money, after all.

[ZK-NSN]

7E7? They must be years away from even having a prototype and ugly, i think it was designed by the same dude who drew up the 1900D. I still back the 777 over the bus, just to score more brownie points with George w if anything.

[cloudcover]

I'll put my money on the purchase of 8-12 777s to be announced within the next week:E

[kavu]

please oh please let it be a boeing

a big bouncing baby boeing. one with wings and a healthy glow to it.:)

[BCF Breath]

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!

Well maybe......;)

[belowMDA]

Is anyone out there actually hoping for the Airbus, I sure as hell am not. For that matter to the Nelson boys & girls; what is the preference Q300 or ATR42 or just having the new type regardless?

[lame]

I am definitely hoping for the Airbus. :ok:

So it will mean another new sticker. ;)

[swh]

lineboy_nz,

To do the flights direct the A332 will not do it, nor will it hold 300 seats. If going via HNL, the A333 or A332 could be used.

772IGW would be my bet 305 seats 7200nm. To do AKL-LAX direct it would need 180-207 min ETOPS approval, also can do AKL-SIN, AKL-BKK direct. 772X could do AKL-JFK direct, but would need 330 min ETOPS approval. Don't think the 777 would get automatic ETOPS certification from the NZ CAA, so initial routing would be via HNL with a trip distance of about 7000 nm to LAX.

Everything the 772IGW or 772X can be done by the A340-500 8500nm 315 seats (can do AKL-JFK direct), QF already has the sim for it also (the A330 sim is also a A340 sim).

B777-200X about the same range/payload as the A340-500 but has ETOPS restrictions.

B777-300X slightly less payload as the A340-600 has ETOPS restrictions, and 1000 nm less range.

:ok:

[Cactus Jack]

Aunty Helen? Geez! That bloke still hasn't got a haircut?:p :p :p

[Crack]

ANZ have been looking into the 777 vs's Airbus, (A340) for the last almost one year.

One thing to remember here is the cost, Airbus Industries is subsidised by the French government, IE they sell at a loss, that Boeing cannot match, and pick up the balance from the French Government.
With this in mind, I would almost bet the 777 is not going to happen,and was probably never going to happen,we never know what negotiations took place when ANZ got the A320's??????.
New Zealand and ANZ are after the cheapest deal? make no mistake it is the $ vs Fr .

My bet you will see airbus:

I really hope I am wrong.

I remember an incident ofan A 330 being hit by a missile on climb out of Baghdad,(december wasn't it?) hit outboard of the left engine, while trimmed in the climb at around 8000ft, & 230kts, the missile blew the wing to something that resembled "swizz edam" both engines continued to run.

The thing I cannot understand is that one hit in the left wing, stuffed all the hydraulic sysytems, yep all??????, not a thing but engine power.

Their saving grace was being trimmed at near their 0 flap speed and the young Capt just fresh from upgrade training, and his young F/O, did a "truely magificent" job including two go arounds, and finally putting it down intact on sand between the runways, only to have stopped amongst a mine field?????,we are talking 220kts plus on touchdown???????.

The young chap's deserve some recognition, maybe a free membership to the royal aeronautical society,( being French this would just not be on old boy, french in the royal society)

Anyway just a thought, on the system redundency???.

I was shown photos of this on a MCC/BG/HF's/CRM course a few months ago, but had not heard of it until then.

Boeing: for Pilots.

AB for monkeys, manage the system, push the right buttons, be fed pea nuts.and when it goes wrong enjoy the ride.
:sad: :suspect:

[lame]

I think you will find that was an A300. ;)

Also to be fair, you cannot expect any Airliner, Airbus or Boeing, to have been designed to withstand a terrorist missile attack. :(

[BCF Breath]

Expect ETOPs to vanish in the next few years.

NZ leads in ETOPs flying. Every time a Jet (X 737) gets airborne from those two Islands, it's an ETOPs flight.

[Crack]

Lame:
I do not think I ever said I expect ANY AEROPLANE to survive a terrorist attack?.

I DO think there is something fundermentally wrong to have a missile, or maybe a impact with a bugsmasher maybe ,WHATEVER??, that would robe one of ALL hydraulic systems. in a slightly different senario of the A300 in question.

Just think of ,(given the same circumstances) what would have happened if it had been a boeing. (pre 777).

And you are totally correct A300, Sorry I did mean A 300.


Cheer's

Crack.


:ok:

[lame]

"Just think of ,(given the same circumstances) what would have happened if it had been a boeing. (pre 777)."

You obviously mean NOT including the Boeing DC10 in Sioux City.
;)

It lost ALL hydraulics after the failure of one engine, not even a terrorist attack. :(

[stillalbatross]

Crack, mate maybe you should stop smoking it. Pre7E7 when Boeing were looking at something close to supersonic where did the research money come from? The supersonic program with the Tu-144.

Who paid for that? The US govt under the auspices of funding the US commercial airliner manufacturers. Last time I looked there was only one left. When analysts spoke of breaking up Boeing earlier this year because the commercial airliner business was a burden on the military side why do you think the civil side squealed so much? Because the US Dept of Defense and it's numerous programs has been indirectly propping it up.

The 767 tankers at $150 million each to lease is a fvcking joke. Airbus ain't perfect but the field is a lot more even than you think.

As for design flaws have a read of "Flight 427 - Anatomy of an Air Disaster" about the B737 and the cover ups and politics involved in keeping them flying. If it was European the FAA would have grounded the 737 years ago.

[Crack]

Lame :

Mate I do well remember the DC-10 incident.

I would have liked to think we had at least learnt something since then.

Stillalbatros:

A more even field you say:

The price of a 767 tanker @ 150M??

Thanks for VILIFING my point for me.

Thats just it, the price you can produce something and sell it at with your markup is the price:

Does the US Govt subsidise Boeing.

And yes I am well aware of the contents of flt 427.

AB industries are on the record mate at stating they will be the first to have pilotless A/C, supporting an industry to rid ourselves of a job, have you any logic mate.

A question maybe someone can answer though, A colleage told me that Israel Airlines had their AB fleet modified so that this senario of loss of redundency could not happen??
IS THIS TRUE?.

The US military do and use the fact that they can, fly a UAV (and its F-----g huge) from the mainland USA , while it is on a mission in Iraq?.

With todays technology AB have the capability today to fly pilotless A/C, just customer acceptance thats all.:ok:

Human factors we are taught, and why?, when techno freeks and bean counters are not .

:ok:

[swh]

Mr Crack...what will we do with you ...

Just think of ,(given the same circumstances) what would have happened if it had been a boeing. (pre 777).

Remember reading of a 707 that had two engines fall off in flight over Europe....not a procedure you will find and any manual, nor is missile strike.

One thing to remember here is the cost, Airbus Industries is subsidised by the French government, IE they sell at a loss, that Boeing cannot match, and pick up the balance from the French Government.

Can you provide any verifiable evidence to support this ? If you want to see what the contract looks like for the purchase of a fleet of A320s, have a look at this contract (http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/jetblue/airbus.sales.1999.04.20.html), feel free to highlight the paragraph listing the subsidy by the French government.

What is true is that the French and British governments have for years supported R&D, the US government does this also but on a much larger scale through NASA.

With this in mind, I would almost bet the 777 is not going to happen,and was probably never going to happen,we never know what negotiations took place when ANZ got the A320's??????.

Many factors come into play here, I have done some back of the envelope calcs that suggest that over a fleet of 20 aircraft, an A320 fleet would burn 8 million tonnes less fuel per annum than a 738 fleet doing the same number of flight hours.

For international ops it is nice to be able to load freight via ULDs, the 737/757 does not have this ability.

If they go for the A340, they have other things in mind other than 300 pax to LAX, that route and payload is made for a 772IGW.

If they go A340, they might be looking further down the track, ie a 767/747 fleet replacement with A345/A346, which seems to be the way South African Airlines is heading.


:rolleyes:

Mr Crack...

The 767 tanker contract was not for the purchase of new 767\'s it was for the lease of old second hand 767-200\'s...Airbus submitted a proposal based around new A330\'s.

The Boeing 767 Tanker: Let’s Get the Facts Straight


(Source: Boeing Co.; issued May 4, 2004)


(EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is the text of full-page ads placed by Boeing in a dozen U.S. publications, including The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, on Tuesday, May 4.
"This is a sign of desperation," Keith Ashdown at Taxpayers for Common Sense told the Reuters news agency on Tuesday. "The Boeing contract is on its last legs and they\'re doing what they can to keep it alive.")


The Boeing 767 Tanker: Let’s Get the Facts Straight

Airborne refueling operations are a linchpin of military action. From conducting combat operations over Afghanistan and Iraq to patrolling the skies above our own homeland, our military needs the most advanced refueling capabilities to effectively project U.S. military power and to protect U.S. interests around the world.

Yet the oldest U.S. Air Force tankers were first bought in the 1950s. They are expensive to maintain and are increasingly unavailable for operations. The central issues for the Air Force have been how to best replace the oldest tankers in the inventory; and how to quickly deliver improved capability to the warfighter while providing value to the taxpayer. Many believe that taking advantage of market-based financing at a time of record low interest rates is the most cost-effective way to jump-start this critical long-term modernization effort.

Therefore, in 2001 Congress directed that the Air Force negotiate to acquire these planes using a streamlined process and tools commonly employed in the commercial aircraft market. The Air Force and Boeing worked together for more than two years — a normal process of rigorous give-and-take discussions — to develop a financial proposal that would deliver the tankers expeditiously to the warfighter and provide the best possible value for U.S. taxpayers.

Last fall, after much debate on the plan that had been submitted to Congress, the Secretary of Defense directed a pause in tanker program discussions in order to undertake a series of additional reviews. Boeing fully supports these reviews so that the Department of Defense, the Congress and the American public can have full confidence in the 767 tanker program.

Unfortunately, recent news reports — based on draft reports, out-of-context e-mails and misleading allegations — have misrepresented important issues and merit our factual response:


Accusation: Boeing violated defense contracting conflict-of-interest laws by rewriting the operational requirements for the new tanker.

Fact: The Air Force independently developed requirements, and these requirements remain unchanged. The U.S. Air Force developed a set of 26 requirements for a new tanker in November 2001. These requirements have not changed. Boeing did not write them. We did not change them. In fact, our original 767 tanker design did not meet all 26 requirements. To meet them, we added such features as increased-thrust engines, increased-power generators, an all-digital cockpit, a beefed-up landing gear and heavy-duty flaps structure. In short, Boeing changed its aircraft to meet U.S. Air Force requirements, not vice versa. Our enhanced 767 meets all Air Force requirements and will be available to all other Boeing customers, both military and commercial.


Accusation: Needs of Navy and allied refueling requirements will not be met by the Boeing 767 tanker.

Fact: 767 tanker has simultaneous refueling capability. From Day One, the 767 tanker will have the capability to refuel all Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and allied aircraft on the same mission. The requirement for simultaneous refueling of two aircraft was not requested in the first set of U.S. Air Force tanker modernization plans. Whenever the Air Force wants simultaneous refueling capability, it is available. In fact, the first 767 tanker now in production for Italy will be capable of simultaneously refueling two aircraft.


Accusation: The Air Force used an inappropriate acquisition strategy to negotiate the lease of 100 new 767 tankers.

Fact: Commercial acquisition process is fully consistent with Congressional direction. Almost two decades ago, the Packard Commission’s landmark report on Department of Defense reform recommended increased use of commercial products, services and processes to reduce the time and the cost it took to field weapons systems. Consistent with that goal, in 2001 Congress directed the Air Force to negotiate a commercial lease for the streamlined acquisition of up to 100 new 767 tankers to begin replacing the 43-year-old KC-135 tankers. The Air Force has publicly stated that it “fully complied with all applicable statutes and regulations” during a negotiation process that was reviewed in detail by the Department of Defense’s Leasing Review Panel, the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress. Leasing 767 tankers is consistent with the Packard Commission’s vision of acquisition reform; leasing is a common business practice in the commercial aviation world where 20-25% of Boeing and 25-30% of Airbus aircraft are leased at any given time.


Accusation: The terms and conditions of the 767 tanker lease do not adequately protect the U.S. government or the taxpayers.

Fact: Agreement provides unprecedented protection for taxpayers. The 767 tanker lease agreement will provide new refueling aircraft to the Air Force at a fixed price, and it contains unprecedented protections for the U.S. government and taxpayers. Under the proposed contract, Boeing — not the Air Force — assumes the risks. Boeing pays upfront for the tanker’s development. The Air Force is not required to make any payments until new 767 tanker aircraft are delivered. Boeing has agreed to limit its potential profit, and has agreed to a Most Favored Customer clause: The U.S. government will get a rebate if the company sells the basic 767 airframe to another customer for less than the price paid by the Air Force.


We — the 157,000 people of Boeing — are proud of the world-class products we provide to our customers. We stand prepared to reopen discussions with the Air Force as soon as the Department of Defense is ready.

(signed)

Harry Stonecipher
President and Chief Executive Officer
The Boeing Company

Level playing field ?

And this UAV stuff...are you referring to global hawk ? If you are...do not suggest it was launched from mainland USA to Iraq and return non stop, it has good range, but not that good, if you mentioned an Island in the Indian Ocean I would believe you.

[lame]

Crack,

You rubbish the A300 for its design, and when I point out about the DC10 you say, "I would have liked to think we had at least learnt something since then."

However the A300 was designed long before the DC10 Sioux City incident. :rolleyes:

What is your point?

I suspect this HAS to be a windup, so I will not waste any more time on it. ;)

[Traffic]

Crack

Sounds like you know everything.

Why are you bothering with us limpdicks on pprune?

[Crack]

Opinions gleened from info over the years.

Be a tad uninteresting if we all shared the same ,would it not?.

Remember : always bowl overarm.

Its amazing how quick one can resort to insults.

Keep smiling: I will have a pint.

You can only wind those up that want to be wound.:E

[Crack]

A couple of points to clarify:

I do not know much about the 777, except that it is the first Boeing FBW machine,.

What I meant to say was at least with other Boeing products,and if one was unlucky enough to be in the same situation as the poor bloody A300.

One has,
Stdby Rudder,
Alt Flaps,Manual reversion, and of course two engines still running.

I know what I would rather have.

It was stillalbatross that quoted $150m, I just used it as a figure to show the relation to what anything is produced for ,and sold for, your product is no different in this respect.

UAVs I should have said OPERATED from main land USA.
(taken off else where).

As for subsidies, why would one expect to see a mention of such in a contract?????, this is a countries internal financial revenue Vs GDP thing.

So Mr Stonecipher, keep making em.

:ok:

[swh]

Mr Crack,

Your are being silly, manual reversion is availabe in all Airbus and Boeing equipment, except you may have 4 engines instead of two in the A340/B747.

Many around would say that the 777 is not Boeings first FBW machine....correct to say its their first FBW commercial airliner.

Three global hawks were deployed from Edwards for Operation Iraqi Freedom, along with 4xC-17 loads of gear (100t) to the forward base, they did not operate missions out of mainland USA.

According to the US Air Force (http://www.afmc.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC/PA/news/archive/2003/May/0516-03.htm) "More than 50 people, some from Edwards and others from Beale, also deployed to pilot and maintain the Global Hawk at its forward-deployed location."

So the question is still out there...can you provide any verifiable evidence to support you claim that "Airbus Industries is subsidised by the French government" ?

Have another beer or three, as I cannot make sense of your comments.

So what will Air NZ buy......you seem to know everything already ....

:ugh: