Bugger competing with everyone else, would you want hand me down SQ 777s full stop! Anecdotal evidence suggests that the term 'discarded' for former SQ aircraft is the correct term! :eek: The advantages of being able to write off your fleet for tax over seven years I guess. It means you don't have to bother maintaining them too well when you've got them.

My other guess was that the 777s could be like the 737-800s that QF took from the Boeing production line that had been allocated to American Airlines. AA also has a fleet of RR 777s. If there are any 777s that AA has not taken, and does not want, those could be available to a nice home, going cheap.

A 777 300ER burns 8t an hour vs the 744's 10t an hour. Carries 400 to 440 pax, same as a 744.
J* have a swag of ex 777 drivers from SQ and a couple from EK, so they can certainly crew them. Plus J8 drivers are cheaper than QF mainline ones.
Dunno, but I reckon J* could see the 777. Soon.

That's another one for the trophy room.
How much does he want?
tell 'im he's dreaming!;)

:bored:
A few months ago Express Freighters Australia a wholly owned Qantas company put to the Qantas board a proposal for 2 777F to replace the 7474F that are operated by Atlas onbehalf of Qantas Freight.
The lease cost blew the proposal out of the water and Atlas was awarded the six year contract. Could this be the 777s that you are talking about?

Alangirvan said:

Gulf do it with ex-SQ 343s (which were bought off SQ by Boeing as a sweetener for SQ to take 777s - you can still see the SQ 'bird' stamped on the metal bits in the loos).

It's not a question of would they 'want' to - rather would it be cost-effective to.

It comes down to the compensation package - if I were Boeing, I'd be offering 777s on ACMI, or throwing in free pilot training (onto 777 then onto 787) plus op & maint costs over & above whatever the performance benchmark in the 787 contract is. Like I said, it gets the 'frames out of the desert (always a bad look) and gets them into a top client where - who knows? - they might stick. Better that, than have them fill Toulouse's coffers further (and the payments for that would just be a straight bank transfer from Boeing to Airbus and that would :{ our friends in Chicago).

It'd be even sweeter for Boeing if they could get a few 'frames into mainline colours.

I wonder.....
 

A quote of GD himself.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...rom=public_rss

I suspect it's all too late now but it's interesting how this one just bursts into life every now and then.

(I certainly claim credit for part of that too...I figure if I keep talking about it, perhaps it'll eventually come true! :ok: :} )

When Airbus announces the official handover date for the Rats first two 380's, aprox 30 days from arrival, they/QF board will announce the signing up of 20 A350's for the "Group". This is my first rumour so be kind!!!!!!!!!:)

this is far and away the best chance for the 773ER to enter the QF fleet.
I don't think QF likes the payload/range figures on the 350-1000 and the 773ER stacks up pretty well in the end, even though Dixon and co embarrassingly have referred to it as old tech.
Something is happening here.

There maybe some V-Australia 777 up for grabs very soon?

Which 777 would be ideal for Qantas/Jetstar? MEL is about 500 miles further away from LAX/SFO than SYD is, so Qantas got the 747-400ER to do the extra 500miles. The A380 is starting on MEL-LAX because of its range ability. Would the 777-200LR be a better plane for MEL-LAX than the 777-300ER? Reports from overseas are that the 777-200LR is proving itself as a freight carrier. Whereas for BNE-LAX the 777-200LR would be overkill for the distance. The older 777-200ER might be the right size for that market. But Qantas would hardly obtain two units of three different versions of the same type. So, which one would be the best compromise if you are only choosing one?

744's are mostly full on that route

From todays Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-23349,00.html

QF will never get those "old technology" B777's.
Same as "there is no money in freight".
CLOWNS !!!!!!! :ugh:

Assuming the 777 (all models) wasn't/isn't given a proper assesment is ignorant. Incidently there are people whos job it is to asses route/equipment combinations for a range of markets based on many factors. The arrogance of some is astounding.

I think you'll find neither 773 or 772 are desirable options for QF on MEL-LAX route. Perhaps if Boeing fits 777s with the GenX or RR engines slated for the (now very much delayed) 787, maybe it would be worth it. I seemed to have read somewhere that Boeing could be considering this very thing. 777-400 anyone?

TG have just announced that they're getting rid of their 4 A345s (pulling out of the non-stop BKK to North America route/s).

Would JQ be able to benefit from the temporary use of those? Not perfect, sure, but at least big, go far, and most importantly, available now.

Also worth mentioning the Airbus 'common flight deck.' Surely it is just another two throttles :ok:

Cat on a PC©
 

I for one would not like to operate a 777 with only 75,000 lbs a side as per the GEnex website. The GE90 is fine except for the odd thrust problem and throwing away the occasional LP blade.

halas

NYC Board Meeting
 

Once The Board Meeting In NYC is concluded and the they have returned home expect an announcement regarding the Triplers.