Wikiposts
Search
Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Boeing offer new 777 version.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 5th May 2013, 23:18
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 308
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why can't they just make these derivatives in the first place?
Captain Gidday is offline  
Old 5th May 2013, 23:55
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,437
Received 212 Likes on 71 Posts
What I can't understand is why doesn't Qantas have 777's ...
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 6th May 2013, 04:12
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3,071
Received 138 Likes on 63 Posts
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.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 6th May 2013, 04:39
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,785
Received 44 Likes on 20 Posts
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 is offline  
Old 6th May 2013, 04:45
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,785
Received 44 Likes on 20 Posts
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.
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 6th May 2013, 04:56
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How does this compare to the stats for tha A350-1000?
Jet Man is offline  
Old 6th May 2013, 06:38
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,785
Received 44 Likes on 20 Posts
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?
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 6th May 2013, 17:35
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 75
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up

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...
Seriously is offline  
Old 6th May 2013, 21:46
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,872
Received 9 Likes on 7 Posts
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.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 6th May 2013, 21:54
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,437
Received 212 Likes on 71 Posts
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
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 6th May 2013, 22:18
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,197
Received 34 Likes on 18 Posts
I dont think hard evidence is called for OO

Last edited by maggot; 6th May 2013 at 22:19.
maggot is offline  
Old 7th May 2013, 01:38
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,888
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
What premium would punters pay for a non stop Oz/London?


Mickjoebill
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 7th May 2013, 04:53
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,197
Received 34 Likes on 18 Posts
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...
maggot is offline  
Old 7th May 2013, 06:03
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: at home
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 1 Post
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.
virginexcess is offline  
Old 7th May 2013, 07:06
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 255
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
pull-up-terrain is offline  
Old 7th May 2013, 07:11
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
moa999 is offline  
Old 7th May 2013, 08:05
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,200
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Rwy in Sight is offline  
Old 7th May 2013, 08:33
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: EGLL
Age: 44
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
jwilliams85 is offline  
Old 8th May 2013, 00:14
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 65
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 4 Posts
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
73to91 is offline  
Old 8th May 2013, 00:52
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.....
The Green Goblin is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.