PDA

View Full Version : Boeing offer new 777 version.


halfback
4th May 2013, 11:05
Looks like even Boeing are trying to save QF Int. Do you think the QF CEO and Board will finally wake up to what the people at the coalface (pilots and engineers) have been saying for years? Comments....

Keg
4th May 2013, 11:11
Do you think the QF CEO and Board will finally wake up to what the people at the coalface (pilots and engineers) have been saying for years? Comments....

No. They won't. :( :{ :ugh:

ernestkgann
4th May 2013, 12:14
If it makes you feel any better, Borghetti still doesn't believe the B777 can make money.

Ngineer
4th May 2013, 15:07
Whats the bet this thread wont last that long?

Capt_SNAFU
4th May 2013, 23:21
Perhaps they could turn some of the options for the 787 into the 777x which in size terms for some of the routes makes more sense.

tail wheel
4th May 2013, 23:23
The Mods have been awake for hours.

Thread being watched to see if there is any news content or whether it should be moved to the questions and debating forum.

Wellwellwell
5th May 2013, 00:18
Anyone know how hard VA fly theirs? I seem to recall that it's just SYD/MEL to LAX daily now?

pull-up-terrain
5th May 2013, 01:30
Anyone know how hard VA fly theirs? I seem to recall that it's just SYD/MEL to LAX daily now?
And abu dhabi

Red Jet
5th May 2013, 01:35
Anyone know how hard VA fly theirs? I seem to recall that it's just SYD/MEL to LAX daily now?
I think our current level of activity is something like:
SYD-LAX-SYD 7 times a week
SYD-AUH-SYD 3 times a week
AUH-KUL-AUH once a week
MEL-LAX-MEL 3 times a week
BNE-LAX-BNE 3 times a week

5 aircraft going pretty much flat-stick, spending most of their "downtime" for scheduled maintenance etc. on the ground in LAX.

If it makes you feel any better, Borghetti still doesn't believe the B777 can make money.
His view is a lot more nuanced than that. He likes the aircraft, but immediately upon taking the helm, re-deployed the aircraft to different routes where the aircraft currently is turning a tidy profit. As to future aircraft, I believe an announcement re long-haul fleet acquisition decision is forthcoming sometime in Q3/Q4. More Tripplers, - Dreamliners or the new A350? We'll soon know either way.
Cheers

speedjet
5th May 2013, 02:14
SYD-LAX-SYD 7 times a week
SYD-AUH-SYD 3 times a week
AUH-KUL-AUH once a week
MEL-LAX-MEL 3 times a week
BNE-LAX-BNE 3 times a week.

All correct above except BNE-LAX-BNE is 4 times a week

Ken Borough
5th May 2013, 04:06
spending most of their "downtime" for scheduled maintenance etc. on the ground in LAX

Yikes! I thought that would have not been to acceptable ALAEA standards and would not have been permited. Oh, that philosophy only applies to Qantas. Silly me!:ugh::ugh:

Red Jet
5th May 2013, 04:31
Yikes! I thought that would have not been to acceptable ALAEA standards and would not have been permited. Oh, that philosophy only applies to Qantas. Silly me!:ugh::ugh:
Are you saying your engineers must be on Aussie soil to swing a spanner, Ken? Nahh, didn't think so...
We used to have the "slack" in our schedule on the ground in Sydney, but I believe that due to the desire to have morning arrivals into LAX (possibly along with the high parking charges in Sydney), that was changed a couple of years ago.

Ken Borough
5th May 2013, 05:02
Hey Red,

No, I'm not saying that! Whenever off-shore maintenance was/is mentioned, Qantas was/is mercilessly crucified. Another carrier does it - silence. The hypocrisy of some is breathtaking. :ok:

Freewheel
5th May 2013, 07:18
So what about this alleged new model makes it better than the current fleet?

Silverado
5th May 2013, 07:19
No, I'm not saying that! Whenever off-shore maintenance was/is mentioned, Qantas was/is mercilessly crucified. Another carrier does it - silence. The hypocrisy of some is breathtaking.

Yes Qantas has been crucified many times, for many reasons. Non of which have anything to do with the topic. :ok:

virginexcess
5th May 2013, 09:04
So what about this alleged new model makes it better than the current fleet?

Has a lot of the 787 innovations (without the batteries i suspect)

It will be bigger, fly further and weigh less. I believe it is such an improvement in weight that it is going back to the 90 ton engines, or at least a lighter version of the 115's.

Chocks Away
5th May 2013, 13:53
Great article here (http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/777X/), with a good run down of engines, here. (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-engine-makers-prepare-to-do-battle-on-777x-376865/)

I recall reading recently that GE were granted the favoured engine for type (?)

Wizofoz
5th May 2013, 14:22
They're talking about an 18% decrease in seat-mile costs, unprecedented in a derivative design.

Captain Gidday
5th May 2013, 23:18
Why can't they just make these derivatives in the first place?

Ollie Onion
5th May 2013, 23:55
What I can't understand is why doesn't Qantas have 777's ... :E:E:sad::E

neville_nobody
6th May 2013, 04:12
From Flight Global

The reduced fuel burn and extended range may, for the first time, open the prospect of profitably operating flights between Sydney and London, without the requirement for a kangaroo stop in Southeast Asia

If that statement is true it could become the QATAR/EMIRATES/ETHIAD killer. Basically means you can fly anywhere in the world non-stop. Not what the ME Carriers will want to be hearing.

If it makes you feel any better, Borghetti still doesn't believe the B777 can make money.

Probably more to do with the hospital pass thrown to him by the previous management rather than the aircraft itself.

Wizofoz
6th May 2013, 04:39
Why can't they just make these derivatives in the first place?

Yes, why DIDn"T the Wright Brothers just go ahead and build a Space Shuttle...

Wizofoz
6th May 2013, 04:45
If that statement is true it could become the QATAR/EMIRATES/ETHIAD killer. Basically means you can fly anywhere in the world non-stop. Not what the ME Carriers will want to be hearing.


There's a difference between doing flights like that and doing them profitably.

The 777-200LR comes damn close and is capable of routes no other aircraft can do non-stop, but has probably been the least successful version commercially.

To get to extreme ranges like that, the extra fuel burn needed just to carry the fuel become prohibitive, and almost always limits payload.- you actually save a lot of fuel on a trip basis by doing a tech stop and can carry as much as the aircraft can hold.

PLUS you are restricted to one city pair. The ME carriers are doing so well because the rergion works as a hub, conecting almost everywhere to almost everywhere else with one stop.

Jet Man
6th May 2013, 04:56
How does this compare to the stats for tha A350-1000?

Wizofoz
6th May 2013, 06:38
380,

I typed a reply, but then didn't bother.

You know your pathological one-eyed support for anything Airbus ruins otherwise sensible discussions, don't you?

Seriously
6th May 2013, 17:35
Hey fishy, it's like how u told me that the 777 seats were so uncomfortable compared to the A380(rubbish)... The 777x is off the board. It'll kill that whale that is the A380. You will truly be an ex a380 driver...

Going Boeing
6th May 2013, 21:46
Not picking on you A380 driver but:

The 345 has a bloody good range. (and didnt have to get etops approval)

The A345 fuel consumption and seat mile costs are so woeful in comparison to both the B777-200LR and B777-300ER that very few of them were built.

And let's not get started about that cumbersome control yoke/wheel thingo that sits in front of you for 14hours.

A lot of very experienced people are blaming the "Sidestick" as the major contributing factor in the Air France A330 accident (just ask Chesly Sullenberger). Boeing's decision to stick with a conventional control column when they designed the FBW system for the B777 appears to have been vindicated.

Ollie Onion
6th May 2013, 21:54
And having flown both, I must say that my c**k was immeasurably bigger when I was on the 777 and shrunk to the size of a peanut when I transferred to the A320. Not 'hard' evidence but worth consideration :eek:

maggot
6th May 2013, 22:18
I dont think hard evidence is called for OO :eek:

mickjoebill
7th May 2013, 01:38
What premium would punters pay for a non stop Oz/London?


Mickjoebill

maggot
7th May 2013, 04:53
What premium would punters pay for a non stop Oz/London?


as of the last check i'm aware from a few years ago, the answer is - not enough...

virginexcess
7th May 2013, 06:03
The problem with the direct flights is that the only people that will buy a ticket are the people going to London. The people going to Manchester, Paris, Rome........................[insert any destination] are still going to go via the middle east.

pull-up-terrain
7th May 2013, 07:06
mickjoebill What premium would punters pay for a non stop Oz/London?





What about all the first and business class pax, I'm certain they would be more than happy to pay extra to go non stop. I guess it could be cheaper too because there won't be any airport landing charges/parking charges in Asia/middle east, they won't need all the ground staff too in Asia/Middle East too

moa999
7th May 2013, 07:11
Unfortunately its a lot of premiums that the pax have to pay.

- Premium for carrying more fuel just to carry the fuel you will burn
- Premium for all the additional staffing requirements.

but most importantly.

- Substantial premium for the purchase cost of a plane (of which the design costs will be huge) that will only work on a few routes in the world and only a few airlines will purchase.

IMHO the only airline that has a chance of flying London-Sydney direct is Virgin
.
.
.
.
Virgin Galactic that is

And at $200k just for a joyride flight that is going to be a substantial premium

Rwy in Sight
7th May 2013, 08:05
How does the failure or SIA ultra long range non stop flights fit here? pull-up-terrain business people may pay a premium but you still need the great unwashed.

Rwy in Sight

jwilliams85
7th May 2013, 08:33
Will be interesting to see whether operators replace existing 777 fleets and the effect on the cargo operators...has DHL or FedEX expressed any interest in 777 conversions?

73to91
8th May 2013, 00:14
Do you think the QF CEO and Board will finally wake up to what the people at the coalface (pilots and engineers) have been saying for years?


It could happen, easy to 'blame' the previous management and the fact now that there is or are, different Chairperson, board members, CEO and CFO and how easy to say,

- the aircraft is a new version?

- we believe that this 777X would better suit the requirements of QANTAS International going forward,

- this is not a back-flip by the Board and Management, this is a new version of an aircraft that QANTAS 20 years ago, did not see as a fit for our operations,

- we have been in discussion with Boeing about their plans for the 777X and now believe that the 777X will be suit our needs bla bla bla.

More: Boeing board OKs selling new 777 - seattlepi.com (http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boeing/article/Boeing-board-OKs-selling-new-777-4483876.php#ixzz2SeflcJi0)

The Green Goblin
8th May 2013, 00:52
Nope,

They will get a sniff of the 787-10, order it under management synergy speak, and scratch their heads why its not in service by 2030.....

Chocks Away
22nd May 2013, 04:52
EK has urged Boeing to "take total control" of B777X. (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/emirates-chief-urges-boeing-to-control-777x-supply-chain-385953/)

nomorecatering
26th May 2013, 02:23
is there a formula or rule of thumb to work out at what range does it become impractical ...as in to carry fuel to carry the fuel for the increased range. Thinking of the Sydney direct London situation. What sort of air mile range would that trip be taking into account the average winds.