Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Jetstar deferring 787 deliveries?

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

Jetstar deferring 787 deliveries?

Old 2nd Jun 2014, 12:59
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Alloyboobtube
Best way out of it is to go bankrupt !
no it isn't. Once an administrator is called in it turns into a complete fustercluck. Then it would be all about them maximising their fees.... Anyway, who is likely to appoint? The banks don't seem to be concerned yet, and the board is hardly likely to wave the white flag just yet.
VH-Cheer Up is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2014, 13:21
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In a house
Posts: 137
Maybe that's the plan all along. Administration. The wolves made a fortune out of Ansett.

Imagine Qantas?

It's the only explanation for the incompetence.
Blueskymine is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2014, 14:30
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 85
Posts: 32
JQ's 788's

It is difficult to understand what the problem is. Based on a 335 passenger load ACAP OEW plus ~3t to bring the aircraft upto DOW the MTOW for HNL-SYD for a 10-hr sector is ~211t. The lowest thrust engine at 53K has no trouble getting this weight in the air on a field length of ~9000ft.
moutere101 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2014, 23:34
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 91
There is no problem with the 788 in JQ service. It's just a great deal more enjoyable to watch the various and baseless heavy landing/ weak pylon/ passenger cap/ RTOW limited/ deferred delivery/thrust rating rumours take life on this forum as 'fact'.

Rubbish the lot of it, but long may it continue!

Allegedly.
flyingins is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 00:13
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cloud cuckoo land
Posts: 96
Not rubbish

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story! The Gold Coast is 2492m long. It CANNOT lift what they wanted out of there (with the first three I believe) because of rwy length and pylons. Told to me by someone who really does know. FACT!
maggotdriver is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 00:50
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The bush
Posts: 140
Angel

Maggotdriver,

Sorry to disappoint your twisted agenda, but the B788 will be operating:

-Cairns to Tokyo and Osaka by September 14 and

-Gold Coast to Narita late July 2014.

Myth busted
The Banjo is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 00:52
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 91
VKA, VKB and VKD all have the same pylons as VKE and every other 788 on the planet, maggot. It's a fallacy and your source clearly does not know.

As for the runway length, every RPT jet has limitations out of that airport under certain conditions. EVEN THE 737/A320!!!! Out of interest, the TODA at Gold Coast is 2402m (2552m on RW32), TORA is 2342m (2492m on RW32 from full length).

A good illustration of how 'FACT' can be distorted so very easily. Especially when it suits your agenda.

Keep 'em coming though. It's fun to watch the falsehood-frenzy!

Allegedly.
flyingins is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 05:52
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cloud cuckoo land
Posts: 96
Wow, thanks for explaining TODA, TORA etc., I don't know how I got my command without you! Didn't realise that aeroplanes have limitations out of some airports, once again thank-you. The person who told me was one of your pilots involved with the introduction - face to face. I asked why they don't chip the donks and he said they couldn't. Pylons according to him and I've never known him to be anything other than a straight shooter. Personally, I don't think it matters because from what I hear they're usually half empty!
maggotdriver is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 08:14
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 91
Hey Maggot,

OK then. Your mate is wrong about the chip as well as the pylon. Each engine could be chipped up to a higher rating but it's not necessary. The aircraft performs just fine.

Loads are good too. Often very few seats spare in fact.

But please, continue your aggressive ranting. I'm enjoying it. FACT!

flyingins is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 09:33
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 9
Posts: 331
Muck Fe.

What's that about brotherhood of pilots and all that.

With guys like you all in the "GROUP", who needs enemies or Management to help their agenda? You make their task so easy to achieve. Self destruction at work.

You guys are absolute twits.
Normasars is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 09:41
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 91
I agree entirely.

But he started it......
flyingins is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 13:33
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 9
Focus on the problem

Everyone should focus their bad thoughts on the twits that made the decision to buy the frames in the first place.A330's arent any better current config.What model have the light weight floors and long range tanks
mymatesadutchman is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 17:05
  #33 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the couch
Posts: 58
Flyingins
Heres another fact:
VKF is now the oldest airframe in Everett (except for the "terrible teens" of course, and besides an Air Canada frame that was damaged by a forklift) that still hasn't flown. An inordinate amount of time has passed since its rollout without any good explanation for this highly unusual 9+ weeks just standing there like some piece of modern art.
wild goose is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 17:52
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,038
VKF is now the oldest airframe in Everett (except for the "terrible teens" of course, and besides an Air Canada frame that was damaged by a forklift) that still hasn't flown
That airplane is scheduled to B1 next week, and deliver June 30.

No explanation for the long delay after rollout, but the schedule does show "repaint".

It's not uncommon for new aircraft to be "build ahead" - operators often want to take delivery all at the same time (e.g. to handle the peak summer season) so new aircraft can 'stack up' a bit, then a bunch deliver in a short period. But I have no idea what the story is on this aircraft.

BTW, I asked some counterparts on the 787 program about the "lightweight" pylon. No one had heard of that, but came short of saying it didn't exist.
tdracer is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 19:00
  #35 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the couch
Posts: 58
Tdracer
Thanks for that, it just about wraps up this story.
wild goose is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 19:49
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Exiled in the Ukraine
Posts: 269
Geez Maggotdriver, don't you know anything? I can't believe your a captain!

Every body knows its easy to operate out of the Gold Coast to anywhere when you are empty.................

I'm just surprised that they'll even be using two engines due to the piss poor loads.

Maybe they could use a caravan..............
Stalins ugly Brother is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 20:38
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cloud cuckoo land
Posts: 96
Normasars, take a bex and have a lie down. I'm well aware of our unity (or requirement thereof) within the GROUP.

Flyingins I assume you must be on it. Apparently, the person I referred to must have told me a porky? Just for my own edification (and their defense), is there, or has there been at any stage a change in thrust ratings for any of the J* 788s? And further, is there any difference between thrust ratings amongst J* 788s? And last but not least, on a normal summer's day can you lift out of the Goldie (on the lower engine speced if indeed you have them) what the 330 can to Narita and if not, is there a higher thrust rating engine spec for the J*788 that could?

moutere101 sorry for the other posts I was just trying to let you know that the runway they operate from wasn't quite 9000 feet more like 8500.
maggotdriver is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 21:50
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 619
For those who are into this sort of stuff.

A table of all 787 production details, with times for each stage of pre/post production.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=2&output=html
Going Nowhere is online now  
Old 5th Jun 2014, 23:28
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Angel

definitely gonna need some more ergs out of the Goldy...but judging by announcement,the negotiations with GE have taken place.......
howyoulikethat is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 02:18
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 85
Posts: 32
JQ 788

with 53k engines and 8100ft at OOL and assuming a std day (15c) + 12c the MTOW is about 198t. I am assuming the OEW of JQ's frames to be very close to QR's ( similar internal config) at about 115.5t plus about 3t to bring it upto DOW. Piano-X tells me that at max passenger load this variant is good for about 8.5hrs/3950nm which is about OOL-NRT
moutere101 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.