LeoDF From Mexico, joined Aug 1999, 359 posts, RR: 5 Posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3139 times:
If I recall correctly, Qantas was one of the 7 airlines that helped Boeing to design the 777. Now there is hesitation between this model and the A330/340. Is this fair? No, but well it's Qantas decision. Who will win this order?
Magyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 598 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2911 times:
With the ER models available, the 777 outperforms the
I beg to differ. As far as I know the 777-200LR is probably
a better deal than the 340-500, however the 340-600 has
some advantages over the 777-300LR. First, longer range,
second, much-much more cargo room. This can actually make
up the lower operational cost of the 777! So depending on the
situation the 340-600 can be a better deal than 777-300LR.
TropicalSkies From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2895 times:
Boeing. I actually did a school report not long ago on the advantages of the 777-300X over the A340Ngs. (sorry Airbus fans!) What I know is that the 777, although costing more, by far pays for itself faster than the A340s. The A340 does have it's advantages, like highly efficient engines and great range, but foure engines, no matter how efficient, cost more to maintain than just two engines. Also, the Trent 800s on the new 777s produce alot more power than the A340's Trent 500s. (Remember, for certification of airworthiness, all a plan has do do is climb with one engine out, AI can get away with lower-power engines, while Boeing must produce a super engine, which it has done with RR.) Also, the 777 can arrive at it's final destination UP TO AN HOUR sooner than the A340! further saving money. Not to mention that by length, the A340 and 777 are similar, but by width, the 777 wins. the added pax capacity makes for a sure money-maker, more money per flights equals a better deal. It's clear, the 777s IS better, and if QANTAS is smart, they'll pick Boeing. Again, no offense to Airbus fans!!!
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10807 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2890 times:
How does the 777 arrive an hour sooner than the 340? From what I heard (here), the 340NG will cruise at .83 mach, and the 777 at .84. As Avion noted, that comes out to 15-20 minutes over 10000 miles, so it is definitely in the noise.
USAirways737 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1026 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2886 times:
Boeing will deffinately want to get this deal, so they are probably giving QANTAS a very low price. Boeing will not let Airbus get this order. I agree with whoever said this earlier that QANTAS is playing with Boeing to get a lower price, but Boeing has probably given them a low price already.
USAirways737 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1026 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2891 times:
The 777 climbs faster, therefore gets to its cruising altitude earlier and can get to its destination quicker than the A340. If you dont believe me go to the 777 page at Boeing.com to the section that says new 777s launched. It is an Adobe file so you'll have to have the plugin.
TropicalSkies From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2871 times:
You are right about the cruise speeds, but those are the normal speeds. Actually, the A340 cruises around Mach 0.82-84, while the 777 can reach a top cruising speed of Mach 0.89! Now that's performance. At that rate, you actually WOULD arrive around an hour sooner at your final destination. But still, even at only 20 minutes for average cruising speed, it does save the airlines that much more time and money, and it adds up. In the time airlines will save, they can put in an extra flight in the time space they create, and generate more revenue. I am hoping QANTAS jumps on this deal.
PerthWA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2878 times:
Id just like to let you know about 3 months ao, Qantas sent an engineering team to France and Seattle to evaluate A340 models and 777 models respectively.
On return they made their recommendations to the QF board, anyway, my sources revealled that there most positive recommendations were for a certain A340 model.
Also, Qantas management pilots have have publicly stated that they prefer the A340 because of its 4 engines.
So the way I look at it, unless Qantas are actually smart enough to listen to there own employees, we should see QF 777 by mid 2003.
Lastly, this crap about Qantas being loyal Boeing customers, and having a design team work on the 777, therefore saying they should buy that, that is a load of crap, if they were so loyal, why have they got an engineering team working on the A3XX.
USAirways737 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1026 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2828 times:
Why have four engines when you only need two? Safety is not a concern. The 777 is a safe and reliable aircraft that can fly as far as the A340 but do it cheaper and get to its destination BEFORE its scheduled arrival time!
Airbus_A340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1558 posts, RR: 20 Reply 12, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2826 times:
"however the 340-600 has
some advantages over the 777-300LR. First, longer rang...."
I spotted a mistake instantly.
The A340-600 may be a longer palne than the A340-500 but the "500" has a longer range than the "600" and it has a longer range than any other commercial aircraft in the world.
People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
Captain747 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2821 times:
About the reliability issue brought up by you airbus fans:
If a plane has four engines that have been made to fly on a four engine plane they are going to be less reliable than the engines on a two engine plane. So even if you have four engines, you have four unreliable engines compared to two almost perfectly reliable engines.
I'm not too sure about this one but I do believe that Boeing is way ahead on their development of the 777xs when compared to airbus's development of the new A340s
FLY DC JETS From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 199 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2812 times:
"I'm not too sure about this one but I do believe that Boeing is way ahead
on their development of the 777xs when compared to airbus's development of the new A340s "
Why don't you do a little bit of checking before you make statements such as this. Rolls Royce just delivered the first Trent 500 engine for the new A340s. The aircraft will be flying very soon! I think you need to do a little checking of fact.
Not only that, but the CFM's on the A340 have ETOPS approval, that's for twin jet operations. ---The same reliability standard used for 777 engines. The Trent's will likely make their way to newer A300 and 767 replacements, therefore it will be put through etops testing.
Not only that, of the three engines Boeing picked the least reliable for the 777X! At least Airbus is corrupted by GE's money.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2689 posts, RR: 59 Reply 16, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2800 times:
I have it on good information that Qantas has chosen the 777-200LR. An announcement will be made a FIA 2000, along with other launch customers. (Now, perhaps sooner to take back the spotlight after the recent EK/A3XX announcement)
Now I want to clear up a few points:
The 777-200LR will have a greater range than the A240-500. However, the A340-600 will fly farther than the 777-300LR.
The CFM56's on the current A340 have ETOPS certification because they are uprated versions of the CFM56-5A used on the A320, an ETOPS certified twinjet.
Reliability is not a consideration here, as all three engines offered on the 777 have proven highly reliable. Boeing chose GE (who co-produces the CFM56, BTW) because it could be upgraded the quickest and GE offered to share development costs.
Nobody has come to the conclusion that 'Airbus is pure crap.' AI builds fine aircraft, the A330-200 in particular is awesome. We are just debating the merits of the A340 vs. 777, not Boeing vs. Airbus.
UAL747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 565 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2794 times:
It is you that might want to check your facts.
The engines for the A340NG are new RR engines (not CFM) and hence NOT ETOPS certified. However this point is moot anyway because the A340 has 4 engines.
I am so sick of the pro-airbus contingent talking badly about the GE90. You people have very short memories about CX, MH, Garuda RR Trent powered aircraft sitting on the ground for several weeks while RR tried to remedy the situation. Yet we are not hearing about AOG's with regards to GE90's. That is because GE is making every effort and absorbing a huge expense of chartering cargo planes to fly engines to aircraft, switch out the engine, make the fix and then put the engine back on the plane meanwhile allowing the aircraft to remain in service generating revenue for the affected airline.
Lets also not forget that only 1 engine option is currently available for A340NG. It will be interesting to see the pro-airbus folk's reaction will be to the market dominance of the 777x family over the A340NG that we will see at/after FIA 2000. No wonder Airbus is pushing the superjumbo because they certainly don't have it in the 300-seat market.
FLY DC JETS From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 199 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2784 times:
I am fully aware, if you read my entire post, you'd have seen that I made reference to the Trent 500.
Captain 747 had made reference to the A340s engines as being 4 less reliable engines, that is pure BS! All the engines on the current A340 meet Etops requirements on other twins, the same as the engines on the 777. The new engines are likely to be chosen for the new A300 replacement and an updated 767. Therefore, they will in turn be subject to etops approval at that time. Common reasoning and the reading of my post will allow the deduction of those facts.
YOU CLEARLY, and OBVIOUSLY MISSED MY POINT. ...and missed a large portion of my text as well.
BTW, It must really eat you up to see all those wonderful Airbuses in UAL's fleet!!
And as for Rolls Royce's problems on the 777, good, they deserve all the bad press they can get. I have a PW preference anyway.
UAL747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 565 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2772 times:
ETOPS deals with a lot more than just engines. It also takes into account aircraft systems redundancy and the way in which an airline operates the aircraft on the routes. The AIRCRAFT is ETOPS, not the engines!!!!
Ryanair From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 654 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2734 times:
Boeing will win the order because of the 777's in the BA fleet and the potential economies that can be had by jointly operating fleets as they are currently starting to do with the 744's.
All this talk about engines is rubbish, pretty well all the major variants have had some sort of problem with them and when you actually look into it the reliability fiqures are much of a muchness.
The cruise speed isn't that important, now a days flight times are often destined by the matching of availale slots and working out the most economic way of doing things which like a car is usually taking things easy, take the atlantic, last year on American I got to the US TWO HOURS quicker than schedule because they needed the aircraft as one had gone tech., putting $4000 on their fuel bill on the 762.
ETOPS for QF isn't that important because mostly the old 747's go to Asia which rarely takes them out of 180 min ETOPS anyway.
The extra capacity of the 777 is fine if you can fill the seats, if not it's just added expensive weight.
The major thing against the Airbus is it's dog awful climb, I know from controllers at some major airports it's hated because of the congestion that builds up behind it because of the space they have to leave for the next take off. That must costs money.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2713 times:
I think Qantas will select the A340 because of the long range requirements. I know Qantas has a fleet of GE powered 747-400s and some 767s, but I think they will want Rolls Royce Trents so they are going for the A340 instead of the 777.
Sammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1686 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
Ahh Tedski, I don't think the engine will be the deciding factor for Qantas. Seems Qantas knows ETOPS rather well with all those 767 flights they have. Besides, I don't think the Trents are all that common with the RB.211s they have on their 747 and recently aquired 767s. So either way its a new engine. Then again, one never knows
25 TEDSKI: Hi Sammy, you might be right on this, I figure because they use the 747 for it's long range overseas routes they would prefer a four engine aircraft l
26 Sammyk: Tedski, since they are looking at a smaller than 747 aircraft for these routes, it is possible that they are using the 747 for its range, and not capa