First QF B787

[dreamer84]

Originally Posted by busdriver007

Anyone checked pavements limits for the B789? Currently 251100 for Perth and 238200 for Melbourne. MTOW B789 is 254011. Makes a very limiting sector even more so!

Perth seems perfectly fine? PPH 03/21 016 113a PCN 65 /F /A


787-9 Max taxi weight : ACN 66 (Sub-grade:A) - though not sure what TP QF will operate at

Only a 1-2% overload - completely permissible I would think, under concession and providing overload ops don't exceed 5% of annual departures. (as per CASA instructions )

[doug606]

????????????????

Originally Posted by busdriver007

Anyone checked pavements limits for the B789? Currently 251100 for Perth and 238200 for Melbourne. MTOW B789 is 254011. Makes a very limiting sector even more so!

not sure what you are talking about as a380 has a much larger MTOW and operates out of perth and melbourne

[dreamer84]

The 787-9 (and A350) has a more demanding wheel load than the A380. MTOW is only one part of the stress on a pavement.

[Chad Gates]

Doug.

It's got to do with the way the weight is distributed. The A380 has 22 Wheels to distribute that weight over the pavement. The 789 only has 10. Tyre Pressure also comes into the equation.
I agree that this will not be an issue. Currently in Broome the pavement Limitation can be exceeded by 4 tonnes anytime, all that is required is a phone call.
There are some taxiway and apron works going on over on the T3 and T4 Side at the moment. Maybe they are going to strengthen the pavement over there to elevate the issue.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by CurtainTwitcher

Wow, your just not a team player with your facts are you? (/sarc)


Correct, delivery of MSN number 6xx, way behind the curve. The greatest screw-up over the last 10 years has been the Asian experiment, and the A380 before that from which the balance sheet is only just beginning to heal. The B787 is a balance sheet game changer for QF. Everyone else moved on years ago...

I was just going to say the same thing, it's a game-changer for QF. Although it's fair to say, QF has been far too focused on the domestic market for too many years, the one market where they have virtually no real competition.

If they HAD to have a 4 engine large aircraft, they should have got the 747-8I

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by topend3

It is a game changer! So revolutionary it can't operate from T1 at Perth where all the other 787 operators fly from

Yeh, because what everyone coming from the East Coast really wants to do is catch a bus to change terminals in PER.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by Deano969

Big fuss over 8 frames
JQ has 11
Enough said

No. QF has 11 already, they're just in JQ livery and operating for JQ.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by JPJP

Quokka and Uluru ? So ...... a small rat-like creature and a large pink rock. How apropos. Alan must be tingling. This is as close as he's going to get, to having his name on a jet.

Actually I thought Quokka was a bit off but I guess with the hoopla surrounding WA, they had to have one named after something West Australian.

[Buster Hyman]

Originally Posted by AerialPerspective

Actually I thought Quokka was a bit off but I guess with the hoopla surrounding WA, they had to have one named after something West Australian.

Rose Hancock perhaps???? (Have to be a 380 though)

[Ken Borough]

I thought that 'Quokka' was Strine for a Kiwi Ocker!

[bolthead]

Last time I was in Sydney their terminals were separate. But hey, what difference is another 20 mill on the maxed out taxpayers' credit card?

[Bad Adventures]

Any updates on where aircraft 5 thru 8 will be flying?

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by Buster Hyman

Rose Hancock perhaps???? (Have to be a 380 though)

No, more apt would be a Comet... starts out screaming then crashes and burns and is only there to drain your bank account.