Why can't they just make these derivatives in the first place?

What I can't understand is why doesn't Qantas have 777's ... :E:E:sad::E

From Flight Global

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.

Probably more to do with the hospital pass thrown to him by the previous management rather than the aircraft itself.

Yes, why DIDn"T the Wright Brothers just go ahead and build a Space Shuttle...

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.

How does this compare to the stats for tha A350-1000?

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?

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...

Not picking on you A380 driver but:

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.

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.

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 :eek:

I dont think hard evidence is called for OO :eek:

What premium would punters pay for a non stop Oz/London?


Mickjoebill

as of the last check i'm aware from a few years ago, the answer is - not enough...

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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.....