Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could QF And The 773ER Mean No More 744s In US?  
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4387 times:

Looking at a bunch of other threads and thinking about routing and such, it starts to pop out at me.

Right now, they fly 744s and 744ERs at the extent of their ranges. They fly daily and part weekly flights to LAX, and the weekly lift from SYD-LAX non-stop as it stands now (18 744 flights) is the same as 3x daily 773ERs at 325 seats.

773ERs have greater range and more cargo space and are more efficient. They are more flexible seasonal, would be more profitable to send on to JFK daily (or MCO/MIA a few days a week, or even a quick trip to LAS).

And in peak season, replacing one 773ER with an A380 adds pax lift without damaging cargo ops or requiring that jet to be sent on a "short hop" that wouldn't make money. You increase your daily seats by 150 seats only when you need it, and all profitably.

It would seem, should QF go with the 773ER, that they would be best served making the USA a 773/A380 destination, mostly 773. In the short run, the non-direct flights would remain 744s, but as more 773s came on board, AKL and other pacific stops would also be 773s, with upgauging to A388 when seasonally appropriate.

And QF have talked about also sending 787s on thinner routes to the US, which even allows for more flexibility (daily 787 Adelaide-LAX-MCO, for example). Since QF is allowed to connect their own international pax at LAX for continuation to the rest of the US, they don't really need 8th freedom, just the right sized aircraft on the US routes so they don't need domestic US pax for profitability.

That would put the 744s onto other routes, like South America, South Africa where ETOPS is an issue, and shorter routes to Asia where they can be reconfigured for denser seating...

Anyone think that this is what they are planning?


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9485 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4259 times:

The MTOW of the 773ER is 660,000lbs versus 910,000lbs for the 744ER. While the capacity might not be that different, the 747 can take more weight. Cargo isn't necessarily about volume, but rather maximum weight. The 773ER can take 20 LD3s, but the 744ER still has 5599cuft of cargo volume. The 744ER can definitely haul more cargo between LAX and SYD. The 773ER is a great plane, but QF had the 744ER specifically designed for them to use between LAX and SYD/MEL. Maybe one day it will be replaced, but the higher capacity and cargo capability of the 744 is needed on between LAX and SYD. Maybe 773ERs could serve Auckland/Brisbane-LAX, but not SYD. There is no benefit to offering smaller planes when larger planes are needed. Yes three daily 777s could be flown instead of 2.5 747s, but is the frequency boost beneficial? Will the extra costs of more flights be made up for? I just don't understand why QF would put 777s between SYD and LAX.

On the other had US domestic operations are possible, but I doubt QF is really going after these. They can codeshare on AA to take passengers anywhere in the United States on AA metal that is more suited to those routes from LAX. Yes QF does leave many jets sitting all day at LAX, but the costs of operating a widebody on domestic US routes for the sole purpose being to shuttle international passengers is costly. If QF really saw a need to fly passengers to cities like MIA, MCO, ORD or anywhere other than JFK on its own metal, it could base a 737 in LAX. But that is what codeshares are for.

The 773ER could be great for QF, but I don't think it will completely replace the 747 on routes to the US. The A380 might be a great plane if it has the capabilities to do so and it could work well with the 773ER, but I still think that LAX-SYD will not see 773ERs in the near future. There are many other routes in the QF system that would benefit more.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3204 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4218 times:

You guys are forgetting ETOPS issues.

The 773ER would be forced to fly a longer routing than the 744 does... and this route is growing, not shrinking. A 773 would be a slight reduction in capacity which is exactly the opposite to what we want.

You'll see this being almost exclusively an A380 operation rather soon.

I don't know what the fasination with MCO is? Not that many Australians are going there. Boston, SEA, SFO and ORD would attract more, and i don't see them getting service anytime soon. This will be The A380, plus the odd 744ER to say SFO or perhaps from Auckland.
I don't think you will ever see QF sending 777s or 787s across the pacifc. They may oneday be sent to Asia, but not across the pacific.


User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5890 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4171 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In an article that someone had on a thread that the 787's would be used on thinner routes like SEA or ORD.

User currently offline3201 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4123 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 1):
Cargo isn't necessarily about volume, but rather maximum weight.

That used to be the case, but average densities have gone way down over the last ten years, and isn't necessarily any more.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7985 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4102 times:

I think QF will continue to fly the 747-400 and 747-400ER between Australia and the US West Coast for this reason: passenger capacity. People forget that with the 777-300ER you get a fairly substantial loss in passenger seating compared to the 744 and 744ER. By the way, I think Boeing has qualified the 773ER at well beyond ETOPS 180 certifiaction, which means in theory QF could fly the 773ER between SYD and LAX on almost the same routing as done for the 744/744ER models.

User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9160 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4088 times:

From what I heard/understand the new QF order will not replace any B 747-400/400ER. Not sure about the 300s.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3984 times:

Let me dispel some wrong information posted very quickly by some people, for reasons I don't understand. Why not check the numbers before you object? If you had, you'd see the reality of the situation.

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 3):
In an article that someone had on a thread that the 787's would be used on thinner routes like SEA or ORD.

And Adelaide to LAX, and Brisbane to LAX, etc. Read the article. And pointing out they will also use the 787 to smaller cities in the US directly once they get them doesn't do anything to the concept of running 773ERs to LAX. It actually supports it, since it would take pressure OFF of the route, making the A380 less important year round, instead making it a 1 a day type aircraft for peak travel periods.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 2):
You guys are forgetting ETOPS issues.

The 773ER would be forced to fly a longer routing than the 744 does... and this route is growing, not shrinking. A 773 would be a slight reduction in capacity which is exactly the opposite to what we want.

No, you are guessing at these issues as reasons to dismiss the idea. But you aren't speaking from knowledge.

First, you didn't bother to look at the math.

18 744 LAX-SYD flights a week is what they do now. 350 seats x 18 = 6300

that EQUALS 21 773ER flights a week in capacity, with MORE cargo space (by far) for those 773 flights. 300 x 21 = 6300. If the 773ER is set up with 325 seats, it has more capacity, but 300 is very roomy.

Second, there are not major ETOPS 207 restrictions from Australia to the west coast of the US, nor from NZ or the south pacific. The route isn't longer, there are plenty of diversion airports. The section with the longest span between airports is between HNL and LAX, and that is flown with 73Gs using ETOPS 180! A 773ER can do it.

NZ is using the 772 from AKL to SFO. SYD/MEL to LAX/SFO goes west of that, which is less of a worry as it is closer to more airports.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 1):
The MTOW of the 773ER is 660,000lbs versus 910,000lbs for the 744ER.

The MTOW is 775k for the 7900nm 773ER, the one QF would order should they make that choice next week.

The 744ER WEIGHS more to go with that MTOW of 910k at 7650nm, and it holds more pax and baggage for those pax, and seats for those pax, but that is only proportional. The 744, also used LAX-SYD, has a MTOW of 875k for 7250nm.

(if for some bizarre reason you think MTOW is the only factor that matters, 21 x 775k = 16275k, 18 x 875k = 15750k, 18 x 910k = 16380k. So total MTOW on the route, a meaningless number, is GREATER with the 773ER vs. the 744, and equal to the 744ER if they only used 744ERs on the route. But that again, means nothing. It's not the MTOW, but what you can do with it. Otherwise, the heavier 346 would be winning the battle...)

The 773ER is more capable.

The 744/ER is less efficient than the 773ER so needs more fuel weight, and yet it has a smaller cargo hold than the 773ER. Even the 744 has a smaller hold with far less range, the ER has belly tanks which take up space, and if you were to use the 773ER on the SYD-LAX route, you'd have more available free TOW to carry heavier cargo, as well as more space to carry big but less dense cargo.

Before you so quickly dismiss the concept, it would be nice if you guys looked at the FACTS.

Both the 346HGW and 773ER carry more cargo than either the 744 or 744ER. It's one major point of building the planes to begin with.

18 x 744ER = 101k cu ft. max with optimal pallet/container config
18 x 744 = 108k cu ft. max with optimal pallet/container config
21 x 773ER/346 = 147k cu ft.! (no voodoo to get there, either)

As for fuel to make the trips:

18 x 744 = 1030k gallons if you fill them up, needed for LAX-SYD flights
21 x 773ER = 1010k gallons if you fill them up, which you DON'T NEED TO DO to fly LAX-SYD, or LAX-MEL for that matter.
(18 x 744ER = 1145k gallons if you fill them up, needed for LAX-MEL flights for reference)

So, you can carry the same amount of TOTAL pax or more, with more cargo space and more cargo lift, using LESS fuel by running 21 773ERs a week rather than 18 744s LAX-SYD.

You can also save more money and make more money by sending a daily 773ER on to JFK vs. a 5x weekly 744, and even sending a 773ER on to Florida or Vegas a few times a week (or connecting with a 787 and sending that on to Florida daily).

In case everyone hasn't figured it out, this is why the sales of 744 pax versions ENDED as soon as the 773ER was offered, and why the 748 is needed in the first place for Boeing.

The 748 tips the scales back to make the 747 feasible. It has the same cargo capacity as the 773ER, it carries more people, and is more efficient than the 744. It would act as the more logical "upguage" aircraft for 773ER routes than the A380 would be, due to commonality with various aspects of the 773ER/787/744s already in service and soon to be in service.

Which is not to say that QF will buy the 748, but it's there for the taking, and it would make equal sense for NH and JL for the same reasons stated.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8537 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3968 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 2):
You guys are forgetting ETOPS issues.

The 773ER would be forced to fly a longer routing than the 744 does

are you sure ? I thought that SYD-LAX , MEL-LAX , BNE-LAX and AKL-LAX all fit easily within ETOPS 207 - on the other hand if they start up SYD-DFW that skirts the edge of ETOPS 207 and would require a slight deviation for ETOPS 180 , while AKL-DFW would require a slight deviation even for ETOPS207



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2940 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3895 times:

Due to how time diffential works out the A380 will get probably get the nod over the 773ER for transpac flying on the LAX-SYD but other routes from Australia/NZ can be 773ER.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
it would make equal sense for NH and JL for the same reasons stated.

744s at NH will soon be history as they have 10 773ER on order/received. The 744D fate will rest on HND expansion.
JL is a prime candidate for the 748.


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5607 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3817 times:

Guys you are forgetting something!

The current QF RFP is mainly for a B767 replacement. As such the real competition is between the B787 & A350. The B777 would not figure at all, as its NOT a 767 replacement its outside the scope of the RFP. If it wasn't for the rumored offer by Boeing for an ULR version of the 772, capable of SYD-LHR, year round with an economic payload I doubt the B773's or B772ER's would be in serious consideration. A viable SYD-LHR non stop proposal is ALWAYS within the scope of anything at QF.

I think you will see 80 787s (mix of orders and options) for both QF and JQ heavy, 10 A333 (5 JQ heavy, 5 QF) to tide things over until sufficient 787 arrive and maybe, just maybe 10 B772ULRs. This number of ULRs covers 1 daily SYD-LHR, 1 MEL-LHR and one other route, say SYD/MEL-DFW.

So if this is even close to the actual order, you wont see any of it at LAX any time soon. LAX will remain B747, particularly ERs and will add A380s in 07.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Q 400 And ATR 72 Why Not More Orders In The US? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 22:15:15 by Cumulonimbus
No More Standing In Line For The Lav posted Mon Jan 5 2004 16:12:11 by CPH-R
LH And The 773ER posted Sat Jun 3 2006 13:58:49 by Dutchjet
NW: No More Food In Y Class On Transatlantic? posted Tue Sep 20 2005 15:55:35 by N593HA
No More Song In LAS? posted Thu Apr 7 2005 20:23:58 by United_Fan
QF And The A340-500 posted Thu Mar 25 2004 15:41:08 by ANstar
No More Standing In Line For Potty While In Air posted Mon Mar 1 2004 23:28:59 by Cmckeithen
Iberia . No more check in between 2 flights posted Wed Feb 18 2004 13:04:08 by FLYSSC
US Carriers And The 773ER posted Mon Jan 12 2004 02:15:57 by Paddy
No More Twov In U.S. posted Mon Aug 4 2003 08:28:25 by Red Panda