New planes for Air NZ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand.
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New planes for Air 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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Where the beer is cold and the weather is colder.
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Where the beer is cold and the weather is colder.
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
New Planes:
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.
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.
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Also to be fair, you cannot expect any Airliner, Airbus or Boeing, to have been designed to withstand a terrorist missile attack.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Missile ,any aeroplane.
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.
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.
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.