Jetstar deferring 787 deliveries?
All well and good but what about the engine out gradient and the obstacles? Currumbin Hill? Its got nothing to do with the distance to Narita but all to do with the grunt using a smallish runway with obstacle limitations. 1.2% nett gradient engine out second segment limit. Maggotdriver is correct, its limiting and thats why the first 4 787-8 are orphans. They were ordered by Dixon to be domestic 767 replacements in 2008. The rest is history. Good to see J* international looses money now that mummy doesn't pay the fuel bills. Thanks Nic for exposing this charade.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maggot,
I don't need to take a bex and lie down at all; quite the contrary!!
I saw the writing on the wall and exited stage left a few years ago now. I'm not the one self destructing.
You guys on the other hand .............
I don't need to take a bex and lie down at all; quite the contrary!!
I saw the writing on the wall and exited stage left a few years ago now. I'm not the one self destructing.
You guys on the other hand .............
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maggot et al,
I can't speak to anything other than common knowledge on the line, but all JQ 788s are 63.8k engines. Always have been. (as moutere101 says, the lowest thrust rating GE offers on this engine is in the low-to-mid 50s!)
I doubt your mate told you a porky, but really the rumours going around on this forum and down at the Coogee Bay Hotel have confused everyone.
Out of interest VKA was delivered with two different version GEnX engines and since that delivery the older one has been swapped out for the latest version. All others have the latest version on both sides. All are and always were 63.8k.
As for OOL on a summer's day, I understand that the answer is yes. I am sure that the A330 would have wider performance and environmental margins, to be fair, but presently JQ is running one of the highest ZFW, lowest thrust setting combination 788s in the world and it's still meeting/ beating performance forecasts. Boring for pilots, exciting for accountants.
WRT to climb gradients at OOL, I too had heard the issue was originally terrain off the end of 32 more than any other. Now that the type has settled further into service I've heard that the refined numbers have been run again and it fits. I have no idea about future changes to thrust settings. Above my pay-grade.
Allegedly.
I can't speak to anything other than common knowledge on the line, but all JQ 788s are 63.8k engines. Always have been. (as moutere101 says, the lowest thrust rating GE offers on this engine is in the low-to-mid 50s!)
I doubt your mate told you a porky, but really the rumours going around on this forum and down at the Coogee Bay Hotel have confused everyone.
Out of interest VKA was delivered with two different version GEnX engines and since that delivery the older one has been swapped out for the latest version. All others have the latest version on both sides. All are and always were 63.8k.
As for OOL on a summer's day, I understand that the answer is yes. I am sure that the A330 would have wider performance and environmental margins, to be fair, but presently JQ is running one of the highest ZFW, lowest thrust setting combination 788s in the world and it's still meeting/ beating performance forecasts. Boring for pilots, exciting for accountants.
WRT to climb gradients at OOL, I too had heard the issue was originally terrain off the end of 32 more than any other. Now that the type has settled further into service I've heard that the refined numbers have been run again and it fits. I have no idea about future changes to thrust settings. Above my pay-grade.
Allegedly.
Last edited by flyingins; 6th Jun 2014 at 13:02.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 90
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JQ 788
Troo Believer..
This is what Piano-X is saying..
TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE {198000.kg., altitude 0.feet, ISA+12.deg.C.}___________________
** WARNING: Takeoff flap was reduced to 14.1 degrees
in order to meet the minimum 2nd segment gradient
JAR25 Takeoff Field Length 8109. feet
115% Factored All-Eng.Dist. 7723. feet
Balanced Field Length 8109. feet
2nd Segment Climb Gradient 2.40 %
Takeoff CLmax 1.92 {wimpress ref.area}
Takeoff Vstall 131. keas
Takeoff Vmc 124. keas
Takeoff Vfail 147. keas
Takeoff V2 151. keas
L/D at 2nd segment 12.66 {incl.windmill & asymm.}
Takeoff Static Thrust 258442. newtons per engine
Takeoff Thrust/Weight 0.266 available static
Takeoff Wing Loading 5387. n/sq.m.{W/S wimpress}
This is what Piano-X is saying..
TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE {198000.kg., altitude 0.feet, ISA+12.deg.C.}___________________
** WARNING: Takeoff flap was reduced to 14.1 degrees
in order to meet the minimum 2nd segment gradient
JAR25 Takeoff Field Length 8109. feet
115% Factored All-Eng.Dist. 7723. feet
Balanced Field Length 8109. feet
2nd Segment Climb Gradient 2.40 %
Takeoff CLmax 1.92 {wimpress ref.area}
Takeoff Vstall 131. keas
Takeoff Vmc 124. keas
Takeoff Vfail 147. keas
Takeoff V2 151. keas
L/D at 2nd segment 12.66 {incl.windmill & asymm.}
Takeoff Static Thrust 258442. newtons per engine
Takeoff Thrust/Weight 0.266 available static
Takeoff Wing Loading 5387. n/sq.m.{W/S wimpress}
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 90
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JQ788
So if the engines are ~64K then the MTOW out of OOL is ~218t
and you get something like this.
AKEOFF PERFORMANCE {218000.kg., altitude 0.feet, ISA+12.deg.C.}
___________________
JAR25 Takeoff Field Length 8088. feet
115% Factored All-Eng.Dist. 7673. feet
Balanced Field Length 8088. feet
2nd Segment Climb Gradient 2.99 %
Takeoff CLmax 1.94 {wimpress ref.area}
Takeoff Vstall 137. keas
Takeoff Vmc 135. keas
Takeoff Vfail 152. keas
Takeoff V2 158. keas
L/D at 2nd segment 12.26 {incl.windmill & asymm.}
Takeoff Static Thrust 311376. newtons per engine
Takeoff Thrust/Weight 0.291 available static
Takeoff Wing Loading 5931. n/sq.m.{W/S wimpress}
and you get something like this.
AKEOFF PERFORMANCE {218000.kg., altitude 0.feet, ISA+12.deg.C.}
___________________
JAR25 Takeoff Field Length 8088. feet
115% Factored All-Eng.Dist. 7673. feet
Balanced Field Length 8088. feet
2nd Segment Climb Gradient 2.99 %
Takeoff CLmax 1.94 {wimpress ref.area}
Takeoff Vstall 137. keas
Takeoff Vmc 135. keas
Takeoff Vfail 152. keas
Takeoff V2 158. keas
L/D at 2nd segment 12.26 {incl.windmill & asymm.}
Takeoff Static Thrust 311376. newtons per engine
Takeoff Thrust/Weight 0.291 available static
Takeoff Wing Loading 5931. n/sq.m.{W/S wimpress}
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 90
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JQ 788
FYSTI............
ISA +15 217t 8084ft 711min. 5583nm
ISA +20 211.75t 8095ft 658min 5157nm
ISA +25 205.5t 8103ft 605min 4721nm
The time is block time.
Is there anyone out there who is privy to the OEW's JQ's 788's , better still does anyone have a typical DOW or known by some as Runway OEW.
ISA +15 217t 8084ft 711min. 5583nm
ISA +20 211.75t 8095ft 658min 5157nm
ISA +25 205.5t 8103ft 605min 4721nm
The time is block time.
Is there anyone out there who is privy to the OEW's JQ's 788's , better still does anyone have a typical DOW or known by some as Runway OEW.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 90
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JQ 788
Thanks Popgun ,this OEW tracks real close to QR's.
re engines, the CASA register shows VKA and VKD with GENx-1B64's and B,E,F,G and H with -1B64/P2G01. GE quote both engines at 298Kn take off thrust. I make that to be around 67000 pounds so I don't see them as being short on power. Piano-X uses the EIS value which I believe was 64K pounds.
Based on Popguns values and the 67k thrust the OOL numbers look something like this.
ISA +15 220t 7991ft 6021nm 764min
ISA +20 215t 8024ft 5622nm 715min
ISA +20 210t 8059ft 5200nm 664min
As usual E & OE
re engines, the CASA register shows VKA and VKD with GENx-1B64's and B,E,F,G and H with -1B64/P2G01. GE quote both engines at 298Kn take off thrust. I make that to be around 67000 pounds so I don't see them as being short on power. Piano-X uses the EIS value which I believe was 64K pounds.
Based on Popguns values and the 67k thrust the OOL numbers look something like this.
ISA +15 220t 7991ft 6021nm 764min
ISA +20 215t 8024ft 5622nm 715min
ISA +20 210t 8059ft 5200nm 664min
As usual E & OE
Jetstar deferring 787 deliveries? - Lets not get caught up in dazzling facts about aircraft performance and wing loadings - lets stick to gritty rumours here. I think the guts of the argument is not about the struts, it's about QANTAS is out of CASH!!! Get it, Jetstar is a shelf company and it's parent QANTAS pays the bills and is now broke!! If QANTAS had the money it would snap up the new airframes whatever strut/engine combo it has, gift them to Jetstar and find any number of routes to fly it on. The question is - how broke is the kangaroo??
OK, Jetstar isn't a shelf company.....
OK, Jetstar isn't a shelf company.....
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who cares? QF is lost ,Jstar 787 will rule the world according to alain and the poor 744 pilots are believing in Marty Mc fly and his Delorean.
Wake up and smell the avgas.Jstar is growing,QF shrinking,and the LCC model will last about five years more,who invest $230 million an airframe to sell seats at $69.
better return with money in the bank
Wake up and smell the avgas.Jstar is growing,QF shrinking,and the LCC model will last about five years more,who invest $230 million an airframe to sell seats at $69.
better return with money in the bank
Griffin One, Jetstar aint expanding anywhere if QANTAS is broke and the whole house of cards falls down... QANTAS group = Jetstar + mainline + the board + hundreds of other entities. Lots of tribal battles going on in there but your 744 and 787 crews are all part of the one group and are employed by one and the same board.
It is very easy to interchange the names QANTAS/QANTAS group/Jetstar and make it mean what you want it to mean, which is what Joyce and Dixon have done for years to camouflage their real agendas. So the question I am making is this: is it 'Jetstar' delaying deliveries for 'performance shortfalls' or is the Qantas group broke and can't afford them - I know which one I would lean towards right now.
It is very easy to interchange the names QANTAS/QANTAS group/Jetstar and make it mean what you want it to mean, which is what Joyce and Dixon have done for years to camouflage their real agendas. So the question I am making is this: is it 'Jetstar' delaying deliveries for 'performance shortfalls' or is the Qantas group broke and can't afford them - I know which one I would lean towards right now.
Last edited by redkite1; 7th Jun 2014 at 20:34.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: brisbane
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had dinner with a consultant who had been involved with Qantas restructure. He said that once the grand plan had been rolled out and the long haul award was extinguished, the plan was to magically come up with a plan to equip Jetstar with 25 B787 to fly in both silver and red tails.
This isn't about pilots, it's about awards. Including the l/H flight attendants and engineers. There is a reason J* is working so hard on introducing the new 787. Their pilot award is 25% more efficient. Their F/A award is 66% more efficient etc etc
This guy would know, they are the guys steering the industrial ship in the background. It's what they are paid a lot on money to do.
This isn't about pilots, it's about awards. Including the l/H flight attendants and engineers. There is a reason J* is working so hard on introducing the new 787. Their pilot award is 25% more efficient. Their F/A award is 66% more efficient etc etc
This guy would know, they are the guys steering the industrial ship in the background. It's what they are paid a lot on money to do.
Last edited by qfpaypacket; 7th Jun 2014 at 23:00.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 airframes were delayed to July/August, apparently so that for accounting purposes the costs were pushed into the 2014/15 financial year.
Those airframes start arriving in a few weeks.
The additional pilots needed to fly them are currently completing their type ratings.
The only 'deferrals' are the already announced 3 airframes - so 11 total instead of 14. That is a 1 for 1 swap out with the A330s returning to QF.
Strong rumours fuelled by management comments are that those 3 airframes will be 'un-deferred' once it is politically expedient to do so.
PG
Those airframes start arriving in a few weeks.
The additional pilots needed to fly them are currently completing their type ratings.
The only 'deferrals' are the already announced 3 airframes - so 11 total instead of 14. That is a 1 for 1 swap out with the A330s returning to QF.
Strong rumours fuelled by management comments are that those 3 airframes will be 'un-deferred' once it is politically expedient to do so.
PG