SCL is the IATA code for Santiago International Airport

LATAM do it now in a 787 so shouldn’t be a biggie I would have thought.

Same as all the other 787s (or similar) between Auckland and South America?

Don’t the Qantas 787’s have 330min ETOPS anyway.

it’s capable of 330 with 345 fire suppression

So where does this leave the SYD-JNB route from 2021?

I used to think like that but, when flying along the coast of Antartica, I realised that fire was a bigger threat than an engine failure. The B787 has almost twice the cargo fire suppression compared with the B747ER so, in some ways, it will be a safer operation. Also, the fuel doesn’t get as cold in the B787 wings, due to the thermal properties of Carbon Fibre.

The announcement indicates a daily service so there won’t be any excessively long slips in SCL. CASA approval of 330 minutes is currently being processed and will be available before June 2020.

It also means there are not enough hulls to replace the B747 on JNB & HND routes - maybe there are more on order that we haven’t been told about.

JNB and HND were to be the 380 however the Japanese have told Qantas it can’t go to Haneda. Nobody seems to know what plan B is.

So you are at 65south and the Cargo Fire Warning goes off. Where is the nearest runway?

Airbus, Boeing, 2 or 4 engines. Same applies!

So how many times in the last 20 years has a 4 engined aircraft lost two engines but been saved by the fact that it’s a quad?

Yep, land there on fire. Then a couple of hundred suffering hypothermia.

At least there’d be a reasonable sized bonfire on the runway to keep everyone toasty. For a time.

In Australia, our ponds are larger:)

BB:
So how many times in the last 20 years has a 4 engined aircraft lost two engines but been saved by the fact that it’s a quad?

How many times in the last 20 years has a quad lost ONE engine but been saved by the fact it’s a quad? And then there’s the Kegwort style incidents. Semantics, twins have less failures because they HAVE to:)

HA!
From the man obsessed with undertaking a ‘longitudinal study’ before launching any new route.

Not sure what you’re driving at there V-jet? Given a twin is not doomed if it only loses 1 engine, the real threat is losing 2. So how often in the modern age does this happen?

Ummm - Kegworth type incidents?

When in doubt, I would ALWAYS err on the side of a bigger hammer. An earthmoving mate gave me exceptionally good advice which does have some significance around 65S. ‘Always use the biggest machine you can - it works out better in the long run’ And at 65+S, it’s ALWAYS a long run!

If it makes you happy, so be it.

But others may find comfort in more modern aircraft built to later certification standards and more upgraded systems and operated to stricter requirements

Siple Island is lovely this time of year. McMurdo even better - they have accomodation (for scientists) although there is nothing currently available on Airbnb....

Of course, I’m totally ignoring the fact that ‘modern’ jets never break down or need maintenance.

Maybe it might be best if you retire with your trusty quad and 1970’s thinking