Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2181636/

Topic: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2005-06-21 00:55:09 and read 14882 times.

It seems that if Boeing can prove that the 777-200LR can do at least LHR-SYD nonstop with full pax/payload, I wouldn't be surprised to see QF purchase some of those birds..

"Qantas is currently evaluating the 777 and 787 against the A340 and A350. A decision is probably three to four months off, said Geoff Dixon, chief executive of Qantas.

A person who knows Dixon well and is familiar with how the evaluation is going said Qantas "loves" the 777.

Dixon, in the interview, said Qantas will consider the 777-200LR as part of any possible 777 order, but it wants proof the plane will do what Boeing claims — fly non-stop from London to Sydney with a full load of passengers.

"Our people at this stage are not confident that the plane can meet the specifications that Boeing indicates," Dixon said."


it also seems possible that EK pick some 777-200LR's for their service.

"Emirates is also considering whether to order the 777-200LR. It is a major Airbus customer for the A340-500 and A340-600, and the biggest A380 customer by far. But Emirates also has a fleet of more than 20 777s, and has 30 777-300ERs on order from a leasing company.

Sources said Emirates could announce another big 777 order later this year that will include the 777-200LR. As part of the complex deal that would include a launch order for the A350, Emirates would shed its A340-500s if it orders the 777-200LR, the sources said."


http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pb...?AID=/20050620/NEWS/506200313/1011

If Boeing can prove this and QF pick some -200LR's, I wouldn't be surprised to see BA pick some -200LR's also. Outgoing Eddington of BA specifically mentioned that BA might pick some -200LR's up..

"He (Eddington) suggested that BA's 767 replacements could even be more 777s rather than 787s or A350s. "It could be dash 300ERs, which is a superb 747-400 replacement, and more dash 200s and even the dash 200LR.""

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=1106

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2005-06-21 01:13:34 and read 14752 times.

I fly QF regularly on very long haul. I don't see the business case for 772LR on the Kangaroo route:

Would need to be all premium class, as the 21hr flight will kill too many in Y class due to DVT.

There is little practical benefit for passengers in saving a 1hr stopover in Asia on a 23hr flight. Most people enjoy the stop for a 'leg stretch' or shower.

The ticket price premium (see SQ SIN-EWR) is not worth the questionable benefit.

On the other hand, the extra range would allow QF flexibility that current aircraft can't provide: Oz-DFW, ORD (nothwithstanding the AA OneWorld feeder argument that QF only needs LAX for the whole of the US), although these flights are going to be hard to fill in an all premium configuration, and once again I wouldn't think QF would risk flying passengers in std Y class over 15hrs non-stop due to the health concerns and previous class action on DVT.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Scotron11
Posted 2005-06-21 01:19:03 and read 14705 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):

"It could be dash 300ERs, which is a superb 747-400 replacement

I think that sentence says it all about the 747ADV, and that there is more interest in the T7's than another version on the 747.

Apart from LHR-SYD, there are a lot more routes that QF could fly the 777LR on. USA in particular.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Bill142
Posted 2005-06-21 01:32:11 and read 14627 times.

why get it if you can't do SYD-LHR without being forced to do a tech stop? that lowers the business case even more.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Aerohottie
Posted 2005-06-21 01:48:34 and read 14525 times.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1):
Would need to be all premium class, as the 21hr flight will kill too many in Y class due to DVT.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1):
I wouldn't think QF would risk flying passengers in std Y class over 15hrs non-stop due to the health concerns and previous class action on DVT.

Scientific studies carried out during case actions against airlines such as Air NZ and BA have shown that seat pitch is not a contributing factor in DVT, all studies conducted so far have shown the rate of DVT is common among all classes of travel. The conclusions of such studies have stated that the cause of DVT is blood clotting caused by restricted blood flow, which in turn is caused by long periods of inactivity, not by being in a smaller seat.
Although I do agree being in an aircraft for 21hours must be horrendous even in F and J.
No class action to date has been successful.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2005-06-21 03:09:08 and read 14276 times.

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 2):
I think that sentence says it all about the 747ADV, and that there is more interest in the T7's than another version on the 747.

the 747ADV isn't really competing with either the 773/346 or A380..it's going to fill a niche position and there are many cargo carriers who would be able to use the 747ADV....also, many carriers such as BA, CX prefer to increase seats incrementally, so while a step from the B747-400 to an A380 might be large, a multiple step up from the 747-400 to 747ADV to A380 might be a more prudent business case.

Quoting Aerohottie (Reply 4):
Although I do agree being in an aircraft for 21hours must be horrendous even in F and J.
No class action to date has been successful.

while I've never been on a plane for 21 straight hours, I have been on 15 hour fights cramped in EK's Y cattle class A345....bad enough, but people do deal with it.......

if they (QF) do get the 777-200LR....would be interesting to see which routes they are going to use, but the article did specifically mention the LHR-SYD route.....

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: NAV20
Posted 2005-06-21 03:47:55 and read 14118 times.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1):
There is little practical benefit for passengers in saving a 1hr stopover in Asia on a 23hr flight.

I'm sure you realise, OzGlobal, that allowing for letting down, taxiing in, disembarking, queueing for security, re-embarking, taxiing out, and climbing to height, the time lost is more like three hours minimum.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1):
I wouldn't think QF would risk flying passengers in std Y class over 15hrs non-stop due to the health concerns

Depending on wind the MEL-LAX run can be the best part of 14 hours already. I'm not sure that lawyers could make any case for 17/18 hours being demonstrably more injurious than 14 hours. Besides, Boeing are talking about providing bunks in the fuselage crown which will be available to the economy section at extra cost.

Speaking personally, now that I don't travel on business I'm usually reasonably comfortable in economy; there is no way I would pay the exorbitant prices for business or first. But a non-stop flight with the option of a bunk in which I could sleep properly is an option that I would definitely consider paying a solid premium for.

The other interesting thing about the press item is that it refers only to non-stop LHR/SYD - not the other way. It's pretty clear that a fuel stop in Perth or Darwin would be required westbound because of the winds. If Qantas are willing to consider that it's a step forward.

We'll soon know the aeroplane's capabilities, anyway - Boeing have been talking to Qantas for a while about an LHR/SYD demonstration flight later this year as part of the 772LR publicity programme.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: DfwRevolution
Posted 2005-06-21 04:01:24 and read 14061 times.

>> Besides, Boeing are talking about providing bunks in the fuselage crown which will be available to the economy section at extra cost.

I believe this is being offered on the 747-Adv, not the 772LR. The 772LR crown isn't as spacious as the 747 crown, and the overhead cabins add quite a bit of weight, penalyizing the performance of an aircraft on the far edge of ULH duty.

>> why get it if you can't do SYD-LHR without being forced to do a tech stop? that lowers the business case even more.

Even if you can only fly LHR-SYD (eastbound) the 772LR can still be utilized effectivly. For example, the aircraft can be routed (purely hypothetical):

SYD-ORD/JFK
ORD/JFK-LHR (I know... B2)
LHR-SYD

In addition to other points in QF system, a small fleet of 772LR aren't out of the question if the 773ER wins the RFP. SYD-LHR alone isn't a deal killer.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: NAV20
Posted 2005-06-21 04:49:45 and read 13858 times.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
believe this is being offered on the 747-Adv, not the 772LR. The 772LR crown isn't as spacious as the 747 crown, and the overhead cabins add quite a bit of weight

You could be right, Dfw. Until recently Boeing had a sketch of the proposed passenger bunkspace on the 777 webpage (not cabins, just sleeping-berths either side of a narrow walkway) - it seems to have gone now, all that I can find is the sketch of the overhead crew rest areas.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777...onger_range/lr_back3.html#overhead

Maybe they've dropped the idea for the reasons you state.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: AirTran737
Posted 2005-06-21 05:05:42 and read 13775 times.

When is Boeing going to load a 77-200LR to the gills and try to fly the LHR-SYD-LHR so that Qantas can see that this aircraft has the legs to do it? If they pull that one off, then they will be able to sign Qantas up for sure.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-06-21 06:13:25 and read 13484 times.

I'd look carefully at the latest Boeing presentation. Lars Anderson at Le Bourget told one of our contacts the maximum theoretical range of the 777-200LR without auxiliary tanks was identical to that of the A345, although it did carry slightly more passengers. If equipped with three auxiliary tanks for an extra 5000 US gallons of fuel the jet could fly an additional 700-800 miles.

The actual passenger number figures are a minefield to navigate, as a reduced and spacious cabin for premium priced passengers unfortunately adds the weight of the luxury seats into the equation. Like Airbus with the A380, Boeing needs to benefit urgently from a major weightv reduction program in such seating.

I'm confident that will happen, less confident that a business case can be made for the jet in the QF fleet at the moment. Its time will come, but whether it is a version of the 787, or a significant gain within the framework of the 777-200LR or something unannounced from Boeing or Airbus only time will tell.

Whatever the solution, it has to be a jet that has application to a range of long routes, not all of them as long as SYD-LHR.

My guess at this stage is that the 777-300ER, which offers a small but important improvement in range over the 747-400ER, and has other attributes that make it useful for longish routes carrying more cargo than a 747 would have to be attractive to Qantas...other than those in management who just look at firm contracts for $18 billion in new jets and get paralysed by fear when they examine the gap that still exists between the costs of financing those jets (which will be considerably more than $18 billion over time) and the current returns QF is earning.

I hope Qantas orders the 777-300ER soon, provided it can provide the market with a more detailed formula for funding them, as they could provide a wide ranging and very useful improvement in operational efficiency across a large part of the network, not just the most extremely distant parts.

Antares

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2005-06-21 07:11:03 and read 13007 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 10):
I hope Qantas orders the 777-300ER soon, provided it can provide the market with a more detailed formula for funding them, as they could provide a wide ranging and very useful improvement in operational efficiency across a large part of the network, not just the most extremely distant parts.

Do you believe that maybe they should have gone with the 777's instead of the A380, being that the 777 has more possiblities (i.e more adaptable) for more routes than the A380? Also, if there is a worldwide global recession (which by the way I do think will happen-thanks to Alan Greenspan & Co., along with a housing bust..but thats for another thread).....filling a 777 would be a lot easier than filling an A380.....

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: SLUAviator
Posted 2005-06-21 07:44:43 and read 12756 times.

Ya know, the people at QF and BA can do what all companies in the US do when safety is in the least bit questioned. Put a disclaimer on it. Say that sitting in your seat for prolonged periods of time is a health concern and we cannot be responsible for any problems you encounter when YOU do not get up and move around. We cannot force you to stand up and move and and any health issues that come from that is your problem.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Scotron11
Posted 2005-06-21 07:48:22 and read 12733 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11):

.filling a 777 would be a lot easier than filling an A380..

Bingo! It could be the way QF are thinking as well, but then again, on CH4 here in UK, they ran a piece on the building of the A380 and QF was one of the featured customers. On touring the mock-up of the A380, Dixon was well pleased.

Could be they see the T7 as an "excellent replacement for their 744's", though!

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Brons2
Posted 2005-06-21 08:02:06 and read 12612 times.

Didn't QF only buy 6 A380's?

Surely they can run that number just to LHR and back.

They could use the 777 to fragment service to the USA (LAX/DFW/ORD)

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: BoeingFever777
Posted 2005-06-21 08:09:27 and read 12541 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):
"Qantas is currently evaluating the 777 and 787 against the A340 and A350. A decision is probably three to four months off, said Geoff Dixon, chief executive of Qantas.

I thought we read/heard this back in Jan/Feb that they would make a descision in May/June? Now we are talking Sept/Oct?

Also... now that Airbus upped the $$$ of the A380 and A350 does this apply to there current carriers that have ordered them or the future customers that order them?

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 13):
filling a 777 would be a lot easier than filling an A380.

Your not saying that QF is not going to take there A380's are you? You are stating that they will replace the 743's and 744's with the 773ER?

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Scotron11
Posted 2005-06-21 08:18:57 and read 12460 times.

[quote=BoeingFever777,reply=15][/quo

You are stating that they will replace the 743's and 744's with the 773ER?

That's what I'm thinking. On the CH4 programme, shown here on Sat, Dixon was absolutely thrilled with the A380, as was Leahy!

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2005-06-21 08:29:01 and read 12372 times.

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 13):
Bingo! It could be the way QF are thinking as well, but then again, on CH4 here in UK, they ran a piece on the building of the A380 and QF was one of the featured customers.

I'm sure they will be happy with The WhaleJet if it pans out as promised, but if I can recall...wasn't QF also working with Boeing on some jet? BA has worked extensively with Boeing on the precursor to the 787, the SonicCruiser...but I'm not sure if Boeing will order the 787 (maybe they will go with the A350, but I think the 787 has a better chance than the A350)...

anyway, while I'm not going to start another B vs. A thread of whether the 777 is a better plane than the A340 (there are enough threads for that already.. biggrin  ) time will tell if they pick up some 777's...it would be VERY cool to see the 777's in QF colours....!!

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: PM
Posted 2005-06-21 08:31:10 and read 12353 times.

Quoting Brons2 (Reply 14):
Didn't QF only buy 6 A380's?

No. Twelve firm plus options.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Scotron11
Posted 2005-06-21 08:37:09 and read 12300 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 17):

but if I can recall...wasn't QF also working with Boeing on some jet?

I think they worked with Boeing on the T7 development. And it has always been surprising they weren't one of the first customers, unlike BA.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2005-06-21 09:06:57 and read 12082 times.

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 19):
I think they worked with Boeing on the T7 development. And it has always been surprising they weren't one of the first customers, unlike BA.

Would have been nice if QF wound up getting the T7 as I'm planning on flying to SYD this December from SFO-LAX-SYD....... bigthumbsup .....

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Monteycarlos
Posted 2005-06-21 09:29:06 and read 11904 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11):
Do you believe that maybe they should have gone with the 777's instead of the A380, being that the 777 has more possiblities (i.e more adaptable) for more routes than the A380?

Well how do you mean? They bought the A380 because they believe they can fill it on the kangaroo and trans-pacific routes... A 777 does not have the capability of flying 500 people. The 777 would be used on current 743/744 routes which are not A380 viable such as SYD-FRA etc.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11):
filling a 777 would be a lot easier than filling an A380.....

But they won't have trouble filling an A380 on the routes selected... Not after SQ got the knockback.

Quoting BoeingFever777 (Reply 15):
Also... now that Airbus upped the $$$ of the A380 and A350 does this apply to there current carriers that have ordered them or the future customers that order them?

It doesn't apply to those airlines who have already bought the aircraft and realistically it doesn't apply to future customers since they're going to discount it anyway.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 17):
wasn't QF also working with Boeing on some jet?

The t7?

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Bjornstrom
Posted 2005-06-21 11:37:49 and read 11182 times.

Is it really 21hrs? I flew SQ LHR-SIN-MEL with about 19.5 hours in the air including landing and takeoff at SIN.

If you fly a optimal route without the stop at SIN you should be able to shave off at least 30 mins?

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2005-06-21 11:44:29 and read 11141 times.

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 21):
Well how do you mean? They bought the A380 because they believe they can fill it on the kangaroo and trans-pacific routes... A 777 does not have the capability of flying 500 people

my point was that they could have stuck with the 747ER's for now and possibly added some 777's and 747ADV's (if launched) for some extra service.....though slot-restricted, I don't think QF would have a problem adding an extra flight or two to operate to the United States at least. The WhaleJet will have a profit if it basically fills most of the plane up-with so many carriers now offering the Kangaroo route service, it might be good for SQ to offer a differentiating service..........Filling a plane of that size day in day out, week-in-week out might be difficult...by having a smaller plane, they might have had some flexibility....but we'll see...will be interesting to see how this pans out..

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 21):
But they won't have trouble filling an A380 on the routes selected... Not after SQ got the knockback.

see above

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 21):
The t7?

yes..it was answered above... Wink

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Monteycarlos
Posted 2005-06-21 11:47:07 and read 11121 times.

Quoting Bjornstrom (Reply 22):
If you fly a optimal route without the stop at SIN you should be able to shave off at least 30 mins?

Hmmm, thats because MEL is closer to SIN than SYD. However you would shave a lot more than 30 minutes off the journey by going direct! I'd be guessing 2 hours depending on winds...

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: TBCITDG
Posted 2005-06-21 12:57:29 and read 10719 times.

SYD to LHR non stop??? Wow!
QF would then really have to up the anti on what it offers on board! There is only so much one person can sleep on board an airplane especially in economy class where things tend to get cramped.
QF would have to 'start' executive economy for the rest of the passengers that travel in Y class. Otherwise destinations like SIN,BKK,DXB are looking mighty tempting. Even if it meant stretching the legs in the airport.

One question: Could the 777-200LR do SYD-GRU/EZE non stop??

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Zonky
Posted 2005-06-21 13:01:09 and read 10683 times.

Quoting TBCITDG (Reply 25):
One question: Could the 777-200LR do SYD-GRU/EZE non stop??

Etops issue, surely.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Columba
Posted 2005-06-21 13:10:33 and read 10615 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 17):
..but I'm not sure if Boeing will order the 787 (maybe they will go with the A350

Me either but I would love to see Boeing ordering the A350 over the 787, maybe Airbus could order some 777s instead Big grin

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: United Airline
Posted 2005-06-21 14:04:18 and read 10237 times.

When it comes to B 747 replacement, I think the newest B 747-400s will replace the B 747-300s. And QF will probably order the B 747 Advanced to replace their B 747-400s when it comes to replacement. My 2 cents.

The B 777-200LR does make sense if you want to fly SYD-ORD or SYD-LHR nonstop.

Regards

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-06-21 14:50:49 and read 9906 times.

Jacobin777,

No I don't think they should have gone with the 777 instead of the A380. That would have been daft, considering they are at around 90 % on most days to London. But they should have gone for it on non-A380 routes, even back when the best model was the 777-200IGW. But they didn't. Inexplicably.

The 777 just doesn't cut the mustard on the trans Tibert corridor. In fact it can't fly it legally. The A380 is the only jet that can fly either direction across the Tibet corridor at MTOW and bypass India's congested air space. that alone justifies the investment. Time, fuel, money, work it out.

If Qantas persisted with 777s across India to London on its current and forseeable slot limit it would have to turn away hundreds of passengers per flight. Its a no brainer. The marketing dynamics of strong O & D markets just don't make sense for a smaller jet. Especially as slot constrained as SYD and LHR.

Similarly the Pacific is a bitch during cyclones on ETOPS. You need a quad.

Zonky,

You can't do twins along the high southern latitudes to South America non-stop from Sydney. You need a quad. But not one as big as an A380. I think Qantas will use other people's 340s, like the LAN Chile flight, rather than buy just a few jets for those routes, which have been disappointing to date in terms of growth anyhow.

United Airlines,

ORD got the flick from the Qantas plans when they looked closer. It just doesn't make sense compared to the frequency of AA connections from the LAX terminal available for each QF flight. I think it might make sense one day, but not now.

LHR is just uneconomic for the 777-200LR now, and maybe forever. We need a better design. The idea of a one stop is attractive, but not if the costs are so high you can't recover them with the fares, or with the very small number of seats possible going westbound in the northern winter.

That's why I think the 777-300ER has better prospects, but time is beginning to run out. Maybe Qantas will wait for something better from the 787 range for those secondary routes where it would work.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: UA772IAD
Posted 2005-06-21 15:36:00 and read 9499 times.

The statements about the 744ADV are very true, indeed. Rember, as Boeing has stated many times, the 747 was developed for RANGE not high passenger capacity.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: DfwRevolution
Posted 2005-06-21 16:13:30 and read 9137 times.

>> One question: Could the 777-200LR do SYD-GRU/EZE non stop??

Yes, both are well within range of the 772LR and just on the edge of the 773ER at payload.

>> Etops issue, surely.

Nope, the route is possible with ETOPS 330, which Boeing successfuly demonstrated on the 777LR platform. It won't actually be granted until an airline applies for that certification, but it's very much do-able.

>> That's why I think the 777-300ER has better prospects, but time is beginning to run out.

Umm in what way? The RFP winner isn't expected to be announced until year's end.

>> Similarly the Pacific is a bitch during cyclones on ETOPS. You need a quad.

Man... then what were Air NZ thinking when they ordered the 777 for Pacific opperations because it was a twin? The ultra-ETOPS now available on the 777 makes such arguments moot...

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2005-06-21 18:42:46 and read 7810 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 30):

The 777 just doesn't cut the mustard on the trans Tibert corridor. In fact it can't fly it legally. The A380 is the only jet that can fly either direction across the Tibet corridor at MTOW and bypass India's congested air space. that alone justifies the investment. Time, fuel, money, work it out.

I do not know of the exact route the Kangaroo takes (i.e. if if crosses the Tibet corridor)......but QF is seriously looking into that route if the -200LR can perform upto specs so there has to be something which we do not know of.....

Quoting Antares (Reply 30):
ORD got the flick from the Qantas plans when they looked closer. It just doesn't make sense compared to the frequency of AA connections from the LAX terminal available for each QF flight.

I was thinking the same thing.....LAX-ORD is a big route for AA......the only way I can see QF going to ORD is if they fly nonstop form MEL/SYD...but the traffic isn't there right now......its easier for QF to codeshare it

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 32):
Man... then what were Air NZ thinking when they ordered the 777 for Pacific opperations because it was a twin? The ultra-ETOPS now available on the 777 makes such arguments moot...

that came to my mind also..I'm sure NZ has dealt with this before quite exetensively and realised it that having a twin won't be of any problems.

Quoting The Coachman (Reply 33):
Give it a break...

give what a break  confused 

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Bwc1976
Posted 2005-06-21 19:18:37 and read 7514 times.

In my experience, seat pitch has *everything* to do with getting up from your seat and potentially preventing DVT, if you're in a window seat, or in the dreaded middle middle seat on a 777. People don't like having to inconvenience strangers sitting next to them in order to get up and out into the aisle, and with the typical 31" seat pitch on Qantas, BA, etc., people have to stand up and get all the way out of their seats into the aisle themselves, to let you out. Whereas on the Air New Zealand 747 I was on (with 34" pitch and special slimline seats), I was able to just slip through in front of them (as long as they weren't in the middle of eating or sleeping, which is yet another can of worms).

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Africawings
Posted 2005-06-21 19:41:45 and read 7319 times.

Any chance the proposed 747 Advanced will have the range to complete the SYD LHR run non stop thus, adding value to 747 category?

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-06-22 00:29:17 and read 5825 times.

Hi Dfw and others,

We checked with Boeing concerning twin operations to South America and also asked the question of our Qantas contacts.

The Qantas pilots said only a fool would ever contemplate a twin on those routes, as you face an unacceptable risk of loss of aircraft. Headwinds along the optimal great circle routes reach over 150 knots in places, especially at the flight levels you would settle on if flying one engined, and at speeds where an alternate might be 400 minutes away or further. Real world flying conditions. It isn't on.

If you fly the 330 minute contours posted by Boeing you loose the benefits of direct routing by a significant margin, and the mission doesn't work out as worth operating.

The reason non-stops are not done from Australia at the moment, even though technically possible, is that running a jet to the limits over these routes would be irresponsible. You are too far from anywhere at all the wrong moments. So they go via Auckland, where the real flight times come in at around 13 hours.

Personally I've always wondered if there is a route over Tibet that a 777 could fly, other than to Lhasa or the like in a more lightly loaded jet.

However the constraints appear to be safe minimum altitudes on one engine (it ends up lower than the terrain...not good) and the inability of the 744s flying north out of Bangkok fully laden in northern winter conditions to reach a minimum altitude that allows safe transit of the easternmost Himalayas into Yunnan in the event of cabin depressurisation or one engine failing.

There are three parts of the world where route planning is full of raw challenges for airlines. They are Antarctica overflights and bypasses, deep southern routes between Australia and Africa, and across Tibet and other potential but currently avoided direct lines over the Himalayas and Karakorums. Sure a 100% functioning jet has no problems apart from some serious terrain induced winds, but a jet forced down to FL 260 or thereabouts by engine failure, or one without cabin pressure, where there is no sufficiently low land for a long time, is a recipe for disaster.

As to the NZ trans Pacs with 767s, they were island hoppers, never non-stops from Auckland. The 777s will be inconvenienced at times by cyclones, especially if the alternate airports go down, or any of the surviving weather station airports get closed, in which case it might be back to the drawing boards time for their use in general.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Ozglobal
Posted 2005-06-22 02:28:35 and read 5564 times.

Quoting Bjornstrom (Reply 22):
Is it really 21hrs? I flew SQ LHR-SIN-MEL with about 19.5 hours in the air including landing and takeoff at SIN.

If you fly a optimal route without the stop at SIN you should be able to shave off at least 30 mins?

Don't think you did. You might want to check your arithmetic, as the world record non-stop 744 LHR-SYD was flown by QF in '89 on their first delivery and was 20.5 or so hours.

Non-stop 772LR will be around 21hrs with payload.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Nickofatlanta
Posted 2005-06-22 03:03:03 and read 5489 times.

Quoting Ozglobal (Reply 38):
Don't think you did. You might want to check your arithmetic, as the world record non-stop 744 LHR-SYD was flown by QF in '89 on their first delivery and was 20.5 or so hours.

Non-stop 772LR will be around 21hrs with payload.

QF schedules their LHR-SIN at a 12hr 45min flight time and SIN-SYD at a 7hr 20min flight time. Total of just over 20 hrs. However, there are often tail winds which reduce this flight time especially LHR-SIN. I, too, have flown LHR-SYD via both KUL and SIN many times and in-air time is sometimes as short as 19 1/2 hours. Going the other way, of course, is more like 21-22 hours of actual flight time. (not counting the enroute stop)

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2005-06-22 03:31:10 and read 5454 times.

the 772LR would need a 2-2-2 F (or 1-2-1 suite), 2-3-2 J, 2-4-2 Y+ config (38" pitch) config to justify spending that much time on a plane. But I assume you'd pay a premium for saving 1.5 hours?

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Gemuser
Posted 2005-06-22 03:43:06 and read 5438 times.

Ok! Just how long would a non stop SYd-LHR and LHR-SYD service take? Lets take a look at some facts and a few reasonable assumptions:

Currently the fastest services listed on the QF web site (which contains both QF & BA timings) is:

Westbound: QF 1 22 hours 55 minutes total elapesed time (1:25 transit BKK)
Eastbound: QF 32 21 hours 35 minutes total elapesed time (1:30 transit SIN)

So just elimitating the transit stop time, we get:

W: QF1 20:30
E: QF 32 20:05

Now lets say .5 hours to get down from FL390 and another .5 hours to get back and lets say another .5 due to more direct track, higher average flight level, less congestion due one less airport etc, etc, we get:

W: QF1 19:00 (saving 3 hours 55 minutes)
E: QF32 18:35 (saving 3 hours)

Will I sit an extra 4.5 hours (over SYD/MEL-LAX & SIN-LHR) to LHR to save 4 hours, damm right I will! in Y! in Business or First, no contest!

QF/BA will jump at an aircraft that offers SYD-LHR non stop with an economic payload, it offers the ultimate answer to SQ, EK, etc they cannot match it. LHR-SYD non stop, I dont know, the case is less compelling, but maybe still irrestiable.

Gemuser

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-06-22 04:00:36 and read 5395 times.

Gemuser,

Thanks for the incisive figures. I believe the routing will be across Siberia and then China crossing the coast at a point between Hong Kong and Shanghai unless significant weather conditions dictate otherwise. This may improve the times further, although I have heard suggestions that eastbound the way to go may be the longest routing, across the Indian Ocean, but with the best tail winds at certain times of the year.

Clearly SQ employs a wide variety of routes to do its ultra long haul US flights depending on conditions at well, and has on occasions flown the A345 from ERW across northern England along a path nearly as long as LHR-SYD.

The precarious capital expenditure situation at Qantas is such that they won't jump at any new jet, no matter how good, unless it is a dead set gold plated cash cow from day one.

Lots of pain in the Australian press today about job cutbacks starting at Qantas and a special analyst briefing held this Friday to look at the consequences of compliance with new international fiscal reporting standards. As I said on this forum many months ago, these will force Qantas to take a big hit in terms of accounting for FFP liabilities, and Qantas may (as in may or may not) take advantage of this Friday's tidings of no joy to announce a profit downgrade.

It would be a very brave, and short lived executive who went to the top management at the moment with a suggesting for spending ANYTHING on new jets. The lid on the cash box is about to get slammed shut, very hard. Watch fingers.

Antares

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Trolley Dolley
Posted 2005-06-22 04:30:22 and read 5349 times.

What about the departure times ex Lon? Currently, they are flights that leave around midday, to get into Sydney late evening the next night, and flights that leave late at night to arrive in Sydney very early two days later. (All local times) Cutting the stop on the late flights and saving about 2-3 hours journey time would give rise to curfew issues- too late to leave London and arrive too early into Sydney. This means the 777 could only effectively be used on the single day time departure. The real benefit would be the SYD-LON nonstops, meaning that flights could depart a few hours later than the current rush at around 5pm, thus giving the business market the all important full day of work in Sydney.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2005-06-22 04:35:37 and read 5320 times.

on a side note, what does "Qantas" stand for again?  confused 

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Atmx2000
Posted 2005-06-22 04:40:54 and read 5307 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 46):
on a side note, what does "Qantas" stand for again?

Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Service. Google is your friend.

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: Antares
Posted 2005-06-22 14:14:40 and read 4995 times.

It is one thing to do a long non-stop flight and another much less attractive thing to have a stop on which you are not allowed off the jet. Not attractive at all.

The problem with these desperate attempts to get a 777-200LR to operate the London-Sydney route is that the cost per seat is going to be very uncompetitive against say a 777-300ER doing a nearly mid way stop at say Shanghai or Hong Kong, where the fuel equations for the shorter stages, and the likely opportunity to gain incrimental revenue are big operational pluses.

I don't thing Qantas will fall for it. And in any event, there is zero chance they would waste a slot at LHR or SYD on anything smaller than the largest possible jet, which in their case will be the A380.

Qantas needs the A380 on that route now. The flights are packed. The market is growing. And it is overwhelmingly a pure origin and destination route, as most of the passengers who used to transit over London and back track into Europe are now sold the more convenient one-stop services of SQ or EK an will likely be targeted with similar single class services by Qantas subsidiary Australian Airlines when that enters the Australia-Europe market to claw back some of the market share Qantas has surrendured to its competitiors in recent years.

Antares

Topic: RE: Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777!
Username: United Airline
Posted 2005-06-22 15:26:41 and read 4879 times.

Quoting Antares (Reply 29):
ORD got the flick from the Qantas plans when they looked closer. It just doesn't make sense compared to the frequency of AA connections from the LAX terminal available for each QF flight. I think it might make sense one day, but not now

They had plans to fly to ORD. They even had advertisements on it. A pity that the plan was cancelled.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/