VAustralia 777 at Sydney
Thread Starter
VAustralia 777 at Sydney
It has been parked at the GA area for over a week now. I walked up to it the other night and noticed the shadow of the Union Jack under the fresh paintjob just in front of the tail section.
Does it mean it is an ex BA aircraft or is it just a cheeky reminder that it belongs to Richard Branson?
Does it mean it is an ex BA aircraft or is it just a cheeky reminder that it belongs to Richard Branson?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I walked up to it the other night and noticed the shadow of the Union Jack under the fresh paintjob just in front of the tail section.
Photos: Boeing 777-3ZG/ER Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Last edited by Short_Circuit; 15th Feb 2009 at 02:05.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever the job takes me...
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought it looked sensational everytime I saw a promo shot, unfortunately in the flesh - and especially from a distance - it just looks like a 777 that hasn't had a wash in five years.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the billions of available colours they could of chosen, why is the tail exactly the same colours as QF? Now when we look at a plane approaching from a distance it will be impossible to tell the two airlines apart.
Tiger
Tiger
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, you armchair experts are right! Looks like they won't be around for much longer! Wow.....look at the colour scheme of their aircraft....imagine what they must be like to fly with 
What an Awesome machine is that -300ER eh?
It's fantastic that we've now got one (and more to come) on the Ozzie register - Who would've thought it would be V Aus to pioneer them out of Downunda...
Have fun with the Triple Heaven guys!
Vy
It's fantastic that we've now got one (and more to come) on the Ozzie register - Who would've thought it would be V Aus to pioneer them out of Downunda...
Have fun with the Triple Heaven guys!
Vy
Bloody light twin- 351 Tonnes HA!
I think we are the only airline (EK) operating both the 777 and A380 on the same routes (DXB-JFK, DXB-LHR, DXB-SYD) and the figures are "Enlightening".
On DXB-JFK the 777 has 6% less payload (but MORE room for freight) and uses 60 tonnes less fuel.
Now let's talk dispatch reliability......
Wiz Wiz Wiz, Stick to your simple lightie, your figures are wrong. The 380, carries 135 more passengers on said route. Lots of money there. Plus the punters prefer the comforts of the 380 (Bar, showers, more space, greater speed and less noise) than those of the worn out old 777.
You mention money- the cost-per-pax on the 777 is proving much lower than the 380 (even assuming you fill the 380, which no-one is) based on the Actual, in service figures, not the fairy-tales AB spun in the brocure.
Flew one of our "Old" 777-300ERs last week- a whole 150hrs in the tech-log.
We fly aeroplanes to generate profits. This is proving much more difficult with the 380 than the 777 or even the 330.
Twins are more efficient than quads- make any comparison you like and you'll find that so.
Pourch Monkey- Yep, those are the stats!
A tale of two trips
Actual figures from a few days ago;- A380 and 777-300ER doing the same route within a few hours of each other.
A380- Trip fuel 164 Tonnes, available Payload 71 Tonnes =2.33 Tonnes burn for each available tonne of payload.
777-300ER Trip fuel 108 Tonnes, available Payload 61 tonnes = 1.77 Tonnes burn for each available tonne of payload.
On these figures, 777 is 24% more efficient than the A380 in Payload/burn IF you fill it.
Now factor in more crew, higher charges and double the number of engines to maintain when it ISN'T full......
An interesting figure is the difference in available payload- a mear 10T. 135 extra passengers with bags equals about 12T of load. So, of course, what we're finding is that if we DO fill the seats, we have to leave the cargo behind! (At least until the 777 gets there!!)
Now, you fly for the Rat? Your telling me your aircraft haven't had any tech problems? Not what I've heard!
A380, I'm glad you like your big new toy. I hear it's a pleasure to fly and very comfortable for the Pax.
In trying ecconomic times, it's too big for most routes it's flying on.
In times ahead, we will once again be looking at high fuel costs, and it is simply not fuel efficient enough for what it is supposed to do.
I hope those 840 Pax (IF Air Austral are still arpund to take delivery of the whole TWO aeroplanes being built in this config) don't have too much luggage- cause it's got less under-floor space than a 777.
A380- Trip fuel 164 Tonnes, available Payload 71 Tonnes =2.33 Tonnes burn for each available tonne of payload.
777-300ER Trip fuel 108 Tonnes, available Payload 61 tonnes = 1.77 Tonnes burn for each available tonne of payload.
On these figures, 777 is 24% more efficient than the A380 in Payload/burn IF you fill it.
Now factor in more crew, higher charges and double the number of engines to maintain when it ISN'T full......
An interesting figure is the difference in available payload- a mear 10T. 135 extra passengers with bags equals about 12T of load. So, of course, what we're finding is that if we DO fill the seats, we have to leave the cargo behind! (At least until the 777 gets there!!)
Now, you fly for the Rat? Your telling me your aircraft haven't had any tech problems? Not what I've heard!
A380, I'm glad you like your big new toy. I hear it's a pleasure to fly and very comfortable for the Pax.
In trying ecconomic times, it's too big for most routes it's flying on.
In times ahead, we will once again be looking at high fuel costs, and it is simply not fuel efficient enough for what it is supposed to do.
I hope those 840 Pax (IF Air Austral are still arpund to take delivery of the whole TWO aeroplanes being built in this config) don't have too much luggage- cause it's got less under-floor space than a 777.
Comparisons are facinateing.
The VOZ 777 looks great. The 380, well the French have made some ugly aeroplanes over the years. Pro's and Cons make for interesting reading.
I'm afraid though it's all academic. VOZ will survive or fall based on one thing. Whoever has the deepest pockets!!
The VOZ 777 looks great. The 380, well the French have made some ugly aeroplanes over the years. Pro's and Cons make for interesting reading.
I'm afraid though it's all academic. VOZ will survive or fall based on one thing. Whoever has the deepest pockets!!
Sorry for accusing you of being a rat driver, A380!!
Well, good to know the AB v Boeing rivelry is alive and well!!
I maintain the the 300ER is THE ecconomy king, but I certainly hope we generate the loads to fill the ugly beamouth of yours!
Enjoy it!
Well, good to know the AB v Boeing rivelry is alive and well!!
I maintain the the 300ER is THE ecconomy king, but I certainly hope we generate the loads to fill the ugly beamouth of yours!
Enjoy it!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 41,000'
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380-800 driver,
I'm guessing by all of your posts you probably haven't flown any boeing whatsoever...explains your perspective.
WizofOz, at least there is some subjectiveness there...
Both of them fly...most of the time. Although the dugong is still a flying forehead (jet)! (sorry A388 driver)
Now where's my red wine!
I'm guessing by all of your posts you probably haven't flown any boeing whatsoever...explains your perspective.
WizofOz, at least there is some subjectiveness there...
Both of them fly...most of the time. Although the dugong is still a flying forehead (jet)! (sorry A388 driver)
Now where's my red wine!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
380-800, do the crews get a shower in the crew rest? I couldn't car less if people think its ugly - cutting edge technology i'd swap seats with you in a flash.
Showers must be seriously time limited right? Mrs. Hat would empty that water tank pretty easily!
Showers must be seriously time limited right? Mrs. Hat would empty that water tank pretty easily!