View Full Version : Air NZ B777 to fly over NZAA tomorrow
1279shp
28th Oct 2005, 09:38
Significant fuel savings are expected from Air New Zealand's new 777 fleet.
Boeing is officially handing over the first of eight 777-200s at a ceremony in Seattle today.
A special dinner was held in Seattle last night ahead of today's official handover, with guests including the American plane-maker, and engine-manufacturer Rolls Royce.
The new extended range planes will be able to fly further and faster. Air New Zealand's CEO Rob Fyfe says at today's prices, the jet will save the airline up to $50 million a year in fuel.
The 777 will fly to Australia first but he says it opens up the possibility of other destinations, which could include South America and China.
He says benefits for passengers include the latest entertainment and audio systems and improved lighting. Mr Fyfe says it has been a long journey to get to this point, but he is confident the new fleet will be a success.
The 777 will make a grand entrance into Auckland on Saturday with a low-level fly-by over Auckland and a water-cannon welcome at the airport.
ZK-NSJ
28th Oct 2005, 20:37
good to see the engineers will be holding a small protest outside,
...and good to see that the engineers got some decent airtime on the TV news as well.
Not sure what the point is of the ex-hostie extolling the virtues of first class - as if many viewers are ever going to see that end of the cabin!
Also don't get what all the fuss is about, it's an old design now (16 years old). Big deal.
Speeds high
30th Oct 2005, 05:08
Also don't get what all the fuss is about, it's an old design now (16 years old). Big deal.
The space shuttle could land at Auckland and i dont think you would even batter an eyelid. Sometimes i wonder why you bother :ouch: :E :E
ZK-NSJ
30th Oct 2005, 05:51
the concorde couldnt, all the bludgers in mangere used to complain about the noise, so it was never allowed to land there
Waka Rider
30th Oct 2005, 09:03
MOR
Are you aware of the pilot interface and interaction advancements on the 777? This makes it extremely safe and user friendly. Combined with amazing fuel efficiency. The answers are in the wing design.
HI'er
30th Oct 2005, 09:12
Not exactly new technology anymore.
What do Emirates and SQ operate into AKL?
Why are the engineers affected? Presumably we're talikg about LAME's and not Flight Engineers, the latter of which are like Dodo eggs in aviation these days.
BCF Breath
1st Nov 2005, 01:14
Can anyone explain how it arrived with 40+ IFE units not working?
NSJ.... It did though, a few times.
pakeha-boy
1st Nov 2005, 03:14
ferry flights dont require everything to be working.....pull back,houses get smaller.....push down,houses get bigger,,,whot else do you want!!! :ooh:
There's still nothing that can match the -400 for weight/distance.
None of the ETOPS BS either.
Earl Hadlea
3rd Nov 2005, 08:32
skol,
Yes but at what price?
I would have thought that the 777 even with the "ETOPS BS", in dollar terms, is more than a match for the dinosaur.
The 747 is 60's design technology that ain't really up to it any more with pax. only. The freighter version though, is a different animal and is hugely viable due to combined volumetric and weight capacity.
stillalbatross
4th Nov 2005, 05:31
The A380 will kill the -400 overnight. There are only so many suckers out there willing to believe the Boeing hype that 1950's technology is enough to get by on 50 years later. Unfortunately for Boeing none of those suckers seem to be airline accountants.
Bring back Lockheed, there was a US company who knew something about building aircraft.....................................
OhForSure
4th Nov 2005, 11:48
Bring back Lockheed, there was a US company who knew something about building aircraft...
Which is evidenced by the number of them still flying around these days...:rolleyes:
haughtney1
4th Nov 2005, 22:19
Personally I say bring on the 777...MOR...its better than a 146:} , ok ok..its only got two holes, but last time I checked..it went faster than 300 knots...(runnin off to my poxy 757 now:rolleyes: )
Looks good in the Livery..pity about the uniforms:rolleyes:
DeBurcs
5th Nov 2005, 05:15
The fuss is probably largely due to the fact an airline which bit off ten times mor than it could chew several years ago effectively giving another airline its coup-de-grace, dumped the carcass and the staff and then required severe measures including gov't intervention and huge cash injections as well as share manipulation in order to avoid going out of business, themselves...... has managed to buy themselves some brand-new mota-planes only four years later.
As for age, how old is the A340?Hmmm... launched in 1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A340) which makes it 17 years old.
Looks like the 'shaggers have done well.
BCF Breath
5th Nov 2005, 20:43
Yep. Shouldn't have bought that lemon in Oz!
haughtney old bean
Nothing beats the 146, and you know it. She is the queen of the skies, manufactured in the Mother country by skilled artisans... not like these cheap and nasty Boeings and Airbii, made of inferior materials and put together by a bunch of wetbacks.
In addition, it is quite unnecessary to go faster than 300 kts, it is well known that human physiology is irrepairably damaged at any speed just over the Vne of the mighty quad.
Good luck with that 757 - a poor excuse for a light twin. The 777 is only slightly better.
Nope, no pilot worth the name flies with less than four thrust levers under his hand. T'aint natural.
Air NZ - low-tech to the last! :p :p
haughtney1
6th Nov 2005, 12:09
She is the queen of the skies, manufactured in the Mother country by skilled artisans...
Umm MOR was that meant to say.."She is the queen of the skies, manufactured by skilled artisans to be a Mother..." :p :p
reynoldsno1
6th Nov 2005, 19:57
has managed to buy themselves some brand-new mota-planes only four years later.
AFAIK the first four are actually leased............
belowMDA
6th Nov 2005, 20:56
Nope, OKB which will arrive early thursday morning is owned (as soon as they hand over the coin) by ANZ. can check on the ownership of the others later if you want.
Waka Rider
8th Nov 2005, 07:04
MOR
Which MFD do/did you use on the 146 for CPDLC operations. As I understand the 777 is ancient technology. Did you fellas have an electronic checklist with open loop sensing. Before we even begin to discuss passenger comfort points.
Datalinks are for pussies... we just talk faster. Who needs an electronic checklist when you have an F/O?
Now let's see your 777 take off with an engine shut down, or fly quite happily with two of them shut down.
More to the point, let's count the number of 146's that have crashed following a mechanical or structural failure... hmm, that would be zero. How many Boeings have either fallen apart in mid-air, or rolled onto their backs and dived into the ground?
Nah, give me good old-fashioned English quality any day of the week. If it's good enough for the Queen, it is more than adequate for you!
Waka Rider
9th Nov 2005, 07:08
MOR
Cannot recall any 777 breaking up in flight or making the final dive. Most Boeing making the final dive had some freak pushing it down. Finished two years of 146 and RJ flying earlier this year and the 777 even handles better than the Sky Pig. The only good thing about the 146 was that it had steps so you could walk out under your own steam.
DeBurcs
9th Nov 2005, 09:35
4 donks.... might as well have 40. They aren't much good when all of them stop making noise all at the same time... :rolleyes:
You enjoy flying your gas-chamber down there at 25 grand and watch out for the nasty icing conditions, won't you..!! ;)
I believe the 777, on the other hand, is certified to fly in icing conditions without use of it's anti-ice systems. I guess they built a good machine there.
Unlike:She is a mother of the skies, manufactured by queens...
Canoe paddler
The 777 hasn't speared in (yet), but plenty of 737s have... rudder hardover, anyone? And then of course there is the old 737 cabrio, sheds it's roof in flight... then the 767 that deployed it's reversers in the cruise and promptly shed some vital bits of airframe... and the 747 that lost a large section of fuselage skin, along with several pax... and the many 747's that have lost sections of flap... some good photos of that out there on the net.
Boeings are built to a price, and it shows. Nice enough to fly, but not engineered like the British stuff.
De Burcs
No 146 has ever had four fail... the 747 has though.
As far as being a flying gas chamber goes... I think you will find the 757/767 is renowned for that too.
DeltaT
9th Nov 2005, 11:23
2nd 777 comes in this morning (Thursday) ZK-OKB
The Librarian
10th Nov 2005, 09:18
VH-JJP 146 had all four roll back in ice about 12 years ago in WA although the crew got them all burning again so I guess its not a complete failure.
The old 146 is over engineered to the max, that aside it is still one of the niceset aircraft to pole around the sky from a pure flying aspect (even if the cabin air is not so pure), beats the heck out of the 400's handling characteristics.
I saw the NZ 777 at the Sydney terminal on Monday, sure looked nice. I wonder if QF will follow suit. Still the classics have still got a good 15 years service in them.:confused:
VH-JJP 146 had all four roll back in ice
Quite right, however an engine experiencing rollback hasn't necessarily failed - it's still running (unless the crew shut it down). That is significant.
More to the point, that situation had a large "human error" contribution.
There's no doubt that the engines are crap, but then they are American, not British. Chuck four Tays under the wing and see how she goes!
BAe had some very interesting plans for the 146 airframe (in the early 90's), including a two-engine variant. The RJX would have been a winner if it had been allowed to go ahead.
As is the case with most British aircraft, the 146 could have been a world-beater if it had not been interfered with along the way.
DeBurcs
11th Nov 2005, 19:44
an engine experiencing rollback hasn't necessarily failed Hahaha.... yeah I'm sure that's what the guys were saying to themselves as they hosed out the cockpit afterwards...:rolleyes: on BOTH occasions it happened.
Trying to blame volcanic ash-induced failures on the B747 is a little desperate, though. And they were fine British engines, in that case, too!!
Sounds like someone's got small-jet syndrome but I do admire the tenacity with which you attempt to defend the Huff 'n'Puff...
"Human Error"is right. Someone on the design team fcuked up royally. :rolleyes:
Yes the 14Sux is a wonderful machine. I'd much rather fly that than the Boeings I have flown so far. The 14Sux is so good they are gonna strap some bombs and missiles on it so the guys flying it can really feel like they've got a performer on their hands.146 could have been a world-beater if it had not been interfered withOr if it had not been a piece of ****e.
What a lemon. And butt-ugly on top of all else.
A bit like your good self, one assumes... :}
My flamin' God how in the hell can you begin to compare a 777 to a 146??????????????????????? heck
Ain't even close.
If it ain't Boeing................
There is only one aircraft family worse than the 146 and it too is built in Europe.
Would that be the company with a somewhat larger order book than Boeing?
Boeings... low-tech, fragile, built to a price. No thanks...
Waka Rider
14th Nov 2005, 11:37
MOR
You need to take a REAL LONG HARD LOOK at yourself mate. Seems that trying to wind people up gives you more pleasure that the 146. Keep trying and fishing son it might work out right one day.
Capn Bloggs
14th Nov 2005, 13:16
Well MOR, I've flown a swinebat and a Boeing, and the Boeing is a dog. RS cockpit, RS handling, RS switches. The only thing Boeings have got going for them is they don't ---choke--- smell.
Deburcs, they're turning it into a water bomber, not a bomb-bomber, you twit! :p
Keep trying and fishing son
Lol... trying? You bit pretty hard, I'd say my fishing skills are better than your paddling skills. When you graduate from canoes to, you know, aircraft, you will understand... :p
Well Bloggsy which Boeing have you flown then? I'll bet it wasn't the 777. The 777 has the best flight deck in the world, handles pretty well and looks damn good to boot.
The only complaint we 777 drivers have is the dome light, it could be a little better.
if it ain't Boeing............
...it's a damn fine aircraft! :p
Capn Bloggs
15th Nov 2005, 10:47
A cripple 7? Nope. That'd be the one that almost went ape over WA a few months back and killed all? Good job, Mr Boeing! :(
Waka Rider
15th Nov 2005, 23:53
MOR
Your similar to the 146. A fond memory but its the best you can do mate. I'll stick to me 777 and leave the rest to the dreamers and tyre kickers bro.
DeBurcs
16th Nov 2005, 04:51
the one that almost went ape over WA a few months back and killed allYeah but look at what was flying it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't teach it to fly.
I guess if I was stuck on half an aircraft like the -146 I'd make some sort of effort to defend it, too. Or would I?? Is pride really worth the loss of dignity? ;)
Naw on second thoughts I'd probably try to keep it quiet and keep applying for better types/jobs... :ok:
Sterling effort though, as the pommys would say.