Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA Looking To Fly Nonstop From London To Sydney  
User currently offlineRevo From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 393 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 27691 times:

British Airways is leading the race to become the first airline to operate non-stop flights from London to Sydney.
The 9,200 mile journey, which will take up to 20 hours, has eluded airlines in the past because there have never been any commercially viable aircraft capable of flying such a distance.
Airbus is offering BA the new A350-900R model, which will be capable of flying about 9,400 miles. Passengers have a while longer to wait though before finally being able to take a non-stop flight Down Under – the A350-900R won’t take to the skies for at least another seven years.
BA’s bitter rival, Virgin Atlantic, has already committed itself to Boeing’s rival to the A350, the 787 Dreamliner. This has a range of up to 8,500 nautical miles, which would enable Virgin to launch non-stop flights from London to Perth in Western Australia. Virgin’s 787 is likely to enter service in 2011.
Virgin may become the first to launch non-stop Australia flights, but until Boeing offers an extended-range version of the 787 the key markets of Sydney and Melbourne will remain out of reach.
Australian airline Qantas also has ambitions to offer non-stop flights from Sydney to London using extended-range 787s.

From http://news.flightmapping.com/07/07/...london-to-sydney-flights_1393.html

92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4627 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 27632 times:

It'll be very interesting to see who does this first... if it's any airline before QF, you'll see QF copy them as soon as possible  Smile

Quoting Revo (Thread starter):
Airbus is offering BA the new A350-900R model, which will be capable of flying about 9,400 miles.

With what kind of payload?

Interesting stuff. I still think Boeing haven't put out a 787-10 because their waiting for Airbus to get to design freeze so they can counter!



I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 27605 times:

What a thrilling idea to stay put in a 787 tube for 20 hours non-stop....
I can accommodate the idea of an A380 to handle the distance non-stop but no way would I like to fly that long in a 787-It's a pure matter of space and perception of space-I admit and has nothing to do with the technical feasibility's of any 787 to make the distance...



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineRdwootty From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 902 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 27569 times:

I cannot imagine the smell after the flight arrives with 20 hours cooped up and the loos closed due to a malfunction!! How much food will they need and also water?? there will not be many takers from my clients as they all like to go EK so they can stretch thier legs en route.
No go for me I am afraid.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 27534 times:

This short article is worthless. Who wrote it?

Quoting Revo (Thread starter):
Airbus is offering BA the new A350-900R model, which will be capable of flying about 9,400 miles. Passengers have a while longer to wait though before finally being able to take a non-stop flight Down Under – the A350-900R won’t take to the skies for at least another seven years.

9400 mile range is NOT ENOUGH to fly this route. You need 10000nm minimum due to winds. And the article doesn't distinguish between "miles" and "nautical miles"

Not to mention Boeing offers a 9450nm jet right now. Why do passengers have "to wait" when they could have already bought the 77L? Because 9400nm is not enough range...

and the 787 is not a "8500 mile" aircraft according to Boeing. That data is old. And the A350-900R will NOT likely take to the skies in 7 years. R/LR versions take 2 to 3 years in most cases. That makes it 9-10 years. A 788LR or 789LR would likely be available before then. With 10000nm range? I'd assume because it's the only reason to make the plane to begin with...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4627 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 27418 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 2):
What a thrilling idea to stay put in a 787 tube for 20 hours non-stop....

You've never flown long haul then? By that I mean a SYD-BKK-LHR or a SYD-LAX-LHR?

No difference in being cooped up for 24 hours with a 90 minute stop than 20 hours non-stop.

Quoting Rdwootty (Reply 3):
I cannot imagine the smell after the flight arrives with 20 hours cooped up and the loos closed due to a malfunction!!

Please, talk about worst case scenario.  Yeah sure

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 2):
I can accommodate the idea of an A380 to handle the distance non-stop but no way would I like to fly that long in a 787-It's a pure matter of space and perception of space

Sure, and you've flown both? Talk about making a statement with absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever...  Yeah sure



I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
User currently offlineAdicool From Netherlands, joined Apr 2007, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 27418 times:

Seriously...
Airlines haven't offered this service bc it's simply not very practical. I mean, 20h, c'mon! They'd need tons of water, food etc. I think such a flight would be too strenuous for some people - let alone the FA...having one stop-over in SIN or DUB is just fine, you can walk around a little, have a smoke, get all fresh . I sounds like a really bad idea to me...there are also some medical concerns...I mean, what will be the affect on pax after having stayed in a isolated space for 20h...
definitely not for me, I already think 12h FRA/CDG-LAX is dreadful!


User currently offlineEk036 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27339 times:

It should cut off 2.5hours of total traveling time. I think is should appeal to more business traveler's and premium ecconomy.
Still think QF or virgin should try the water with a LHR - PER on a 777-200LR non stop first!  Wink


User currently offlinePilot21 From Ireland, joined Oct 1999, 1384 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27320 times:

Quoting Adicool (Reply 6):
Airlines haven't offered this service bc it's simply not very practical. I mean, 20h, c'mon!

Well having done 16hrs on CX from JFK-HKG, and people do SIN-LAX/JFK which is 17 to 18hrs, the extra 2 hrs isn't that much more, the airlines have proved (more or less) that people can cope with these long flights, but the aircraft range for this sector is still beyond reach, and even if the plane that can do it is built, the cost V's benefit of doing it non-stop is very borderline. (re: lack of cargo that can be transported/plus lack of pax/plus the amount of fuel needed etc)



Aircraft I've flown: A300/A310/A320/A321/A330/A340/B727/B732/B733/B734/B735/B738/B741/B742/B744/DC10/MD80/IL62/Bae146/AR
User currently offlineBjornstrom From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 329 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27288 times:

Quoting Adicool (Reply 6):
Seriously...
Airlines haven't offered this service bc it's simply not very practical. I mean, 20h, c'mon! They'd need tons of water, food etc.

EWR-SIN on SQ A345 is already 19:20 so there's not much new with 20 hours. I've done SQ20 SIN-LAX 16:20 and it was fine...in Raffles Class Big grin



Eurobonus Gold | BMI Gold | http://my.flightmemory.com/bjornstrom/
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27178 times:

The only thing I have doubts about this on is if you look at the current offerings LHR-SYD, some of them make enormously long stopovers in SE Asia eastbound in comparison to their westbound flights. Is it due to curfews? BA9 stops for nearly 3 hours in BKK and BA15 stops for over 2 hours in SIN. Westbound, the stopovers are 90 minutes or less.

To do it in 20 hours nonstop, BA would have to depart LHR at midnight or later to arrive in SYD when the curfew is lifted in the morning, or change it to a morning departure. If this is such a viable "nonstop" route, what would prevent them from doing it on a short tech-stop basis somewhere now, just inside the curfew hours for both LHR and SYD?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBofredrik From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27178 times:

Maybe would it be a market for F and J and that will be the only type of fares that
the airline would like to have. I can not see a 20 hr non-stop full of lower Y-class
fares. But you never know... Maybe you can work onboard and save some money
for yourself and the airline? "Do you want a ordinary seat or do you like to work
as a steward? We have a vacancy for the second half of the flight, 10 hours...". "OR
you can clean the aircraft inside after landing and we reduce your fare by 100 GBP!"
"My last offer today is to keep the pilots awake. It gives you a reduction of 200 GBP
if you take the 20 hr shift..."  Smile


User currently offlineBjornstrom From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 329 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27143 times:

How many hours do you actually save flying LHR-SYD instead of LHR-SIN-SYD?

If the actual time savings are about 3 hours or more I'd say there is a market for F/C/Y+ flights such as the current C/Y+ SQ flights SIN-EWR/LAX.



Eurobonus Gold | BMI Gold | http://my.flightmemory.com/bjornstrom/
User currently offlineNoelG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27104 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 2):
What a thrilling idea to stay put in a 787 tube for 20 hours non-stop....

Obviously never tried LHR-AKL then, 26 hours in economy with only an hour's stop in SIN or HKG (if the first flight isn't delayed), millions do this every year with no problem!

That's no real issue really, you just get on with it and the flight passes in no time!


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27055 times:

Quoting Bjornstrom (Reply 12):
How many hours do you actually save flying LHR-SYD instead of LHR-SIN-SYD?

BA15 is 22h40m including a 2h10m stopover in SIN, and BA9 is 23h05m including a 2h55m stopover in BKK.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4627 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27025 times:

Quoting Bjornstrom (Reply 12):
How many hours do you actually save flying LHR-SYD instead of LHR-SIN-SYD?

In 1989, the QF 747-400 delivery did LHR-SYD in 20 hours non-stop (30 guests on board, nothing else).



I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27001 times:

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 5):
No difference in being cooped up for 24 hours with a 90 minute stop than 20 hours non-stop.

With a stop is definitely worse. Because the total time spent in the airplane is longer...you have to slow down, descend, land, taxi, taxi back out, climb, etc.

Airbus would be throwing down an interesting gauntlet; since the aircraft would be, to some extent, "useless" if it didn't make the numbers, the penalties for non-performance would have to be quite large.

Steve


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7399 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 26955 times:

Do we really expect BA to still have an Australian service by the time the A350 900R flies let alone enters service? They have terminated their services to both MEL and PER in recent years. And less than a year ago they downgraded one of their two remaining flights - both to SYD - from a 744 to a 772 service.

If the JSA is still in force when the A350 900R enters service and if BA are still serving SYD at that time it would seem the ideal time to quit the LHR-SYD route. They could then allow QF to fly the route non-stop on behalf of them both. Then BA would not have the costs of buying and operating an aircraft type simply to be able to offer one or two return flights a day on just one route.

To me the 'race' BA is meant to be leading is one they will never enter.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 26882 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 14):
Quoting Bjornstrom (Reply 12):
How many hours do you actually save flying LHR-SYD instead of LHR-SIN-SYD?


BA15 is 22h40m including a 2h10m stopover in SIN, and BA9 is 23h05m including a 2h55m stopover in BKK.

QF1 is an hour faster -- 21:35 with a 1:30 stop at SIN.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 26746 times:

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 15):
In 1989, the QF 747-400 delivery did LHR-SYD in 20 hours non-stop (30 guests on board, nothing else).

Actually I was told by a QF employee the flight did carry freight - one football.  Smile

As for making that trip non-stop there is no way I would go for it. I'm too old and wold end up with a fried brain at the end of the flight. Besides, there is far more pleasure in stopping overnight someplace I have never been (or some place I enjoy visiting) to pass up the chance that a layover gives me.


User currently offlineAlbird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 26649 times:

Well if BA are really interested in doing this route then i would expect them to aquire some 772LRs and then do the same as SQ with there SIN-EWR route and just have it as a premium cabin service. I wonder if the demand for a full club world config aircraft would work or would they need to add some WTP??

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 26628 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
QF1 is an hour faster -- 21:35 with a 1:30 stop at SIN.

So nonstop, without descent, stopover time, takeoff, climb, etc., will come in under 20 hours. Is it possible to do it within the curfews without changing it to a morning departure?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineQantas787 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 26341 times:

Quoting Adicool (Reply 6):
have a smoke, get all fresh

Talk about an oxymoron.  Smile


User currently offlineJWMD123 From Ireland, joined May 2006, 867 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 26300 times:

Quoting Bjornstrom (Reply 9):
EWR-SIN on SQ A345 is already 19:20 so there's not much new with 20 hours. I've done SQ20 SIN-LAX 16:20 and it was fine...in Raffles Class

Last year I completed SIN-LAX in Economy (albeit executive economy) for 16.5 hours and whilst a first it sounded daunting, after it was over, it was not that bad.

Anyway, I am heading to SYD in October and if I had my way I would not mind a straight flight. Given the schedule we have with VS vis Hong Kong, it would cut over 4 hours off if it were a straight flight


User currently offlineSparklehorse12 From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 884 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 26237 times:

I can't imagine doing it straight. I can't stand much over 8 hours let alone 20!


Airlines Flown : QF,NW,AA, CX, AC, MH, SQ, DJ, NZ, TG, PG,US, FJ, J8, AN, DD, JQ
25 SpeedbirdEGJJ : Thats purely due to the 5am curfew at LHR nothing more
26 LHRBlueSkies : Me neither! I'd much rather a stop-over in SIN or BKK... Now, come back to me when the a/c is built that can do it in around 16 hours and then we'll
27 Boysteve : LHR-SYD via DUB? Interesting! Anyway, I think that this would be a really good PR exercise and should be seriously looked at. Some people say who wou
28 AeroWesty : Did you mean the 5am SYD curfew for landings? I thought there was a takeoff curfew at LHR beginning at 11:30pm. But my point still stands, what benef
29 Nzrich : If a plane can do SYD-LHR what about AKL-LHR? how much further is AKL ?
30 Smokeyrosco : I'd do it, would do a long weekend somewhere on the way over or back but if I had the choice it wouldn't stop both ways.
31 Jbernie : QF has stated that they do not want to charge a premium fare for a "non-stop" service only to have it stop on route for a tech stop, no matter how qu
32 AeroWesty : Great. How are they going to do it within the curfew hours at each end?
33 WonderFan : I think if people fly SIN-EWR in 17 hours and some odd minutes, flying an additional two- or three-hour is not too much of a stretch. I think if anyth
34 Post contains images Rivet42 : I think this story is complete nonsense. For a start, everyone seems to be forgetting the fact - re-stated on a.net whenever this route gets a new thr
35 Smokeyrosco : I would think that if margins are tight and an aircraft can do it with one stop, would it not save money to make it one stop? initally you'd have fuel
36 XT6Wagon : One thing people forget is that the 777, 787, and 747 all have a very real speed advantage over the A340, so a 20 hr flight on a A345 is alot shorter
37 Aminobwana : People old enough to remember the pre-jet age know that 30-36 hour flights (which very uncomfortable scales) were nothin special. As example: Frankfur
38 Ansett767 : Oh no way! For me I would much rather break the journey in two if I was travelling Y or Y+. In J I think I could just manage it... but I really would
39 Antskip : I agree, at least as far as cattle class goes. The A380 is going to be a hugely better aircraft to travel long distances. I have just suffered two 14
40 Jamesjimlb : QF is getting their 787 very soon, i believe sometime this year or next, and they might be doing the flights, who knows though it's anyones game, i me
41 EK413 : Hmm, I dont see the Australian Government allowing another carrier other than QF to operate the route non-stop first... Another point I would like to
42 Sparklehorse12 : Ansett767 - Totally with you...SYD to LAX or SFO is just awful, I am almost scratching my eyes out after 10 hours. Thanks heavens the days of doing t
43 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I recently did SJC-ORD-DUB-BAH-KHI..that was around a 25-30 hour journey... .....
44 Zkpilot : I'd rather do it in a 787 than a A380! 787 has higher cabin pressure (ie lower cabin altitude) this means that you won't get as dehydrated, your sinu
45 Post contains images Brucek : I'm probably the exception, but I love the landing / takeoff phases of flight (must be that private pilot's license that I have ). I fly regularly LA
46 Philadelphia1 : What about Qantas focusing their energy on AUSTRALIA - USA meaning DFW, ORD and JFK from SYD or BNE with the 787 As for BA wanting the LHR-SYD. Good l
47 Rivet42 : Well, as you've pointed out, the measures that would make such a flight bearable result in fewer passengers, which means that the fares would have to
48 Sparklehorse12 : Yeah! Bring back the stop in HNL!!!! I too love take off and landing, particularly on a 777 - the sound of the engines winding up for take off is exc
49 RayChuang : I think LHR to SYD non-stop eastbound is possible using a modified 777-200LR with only premium seating (e.g. no more than circa 215 passengers) and ex
50 Sllevin : Actually, that's exactly why BA and QF want the non-stop; so they can avoid being run off the routes. Right now they compete with everyone. And as yo
51 SSTsomeday : To my way of thinking it's not the size of the aircraft that determines the comfort of a flight, but the size of the seat and legroom, and the nature
52 SSTsomeday : Whatever A/C wins this distinction, I predict it will put another feather in the cap of the "point-to-point" trend, and put a bit of a dent (a small o
53 FD728 : LHR - PER could be profitable if the service is marketed as the fastest way to fly to other (mostly western) Australian destinations, (i.e. Albany, A
54 Sparkingwave : BA may be looking to fly London Sydney nonstop, and someday they may be able to. But it will have to be a specially modified aircraft. Boeing and Airb
55 Bwohlgemuth : My wife and I did LAX to HKG to SYD on CX back in March/April. Now don't get me wrong, a direct out of LA would have been much faster, but I don't thi
56 Aminobwana : [quote=Bwohlgemuth,reply=55]While the 787 is a great plane, I don't see people clamoring for 20+hours in standard Y fare without some sort of massive
57 Beaucaire : Used to work for a company in Sydney being based in Brussels and Cairo-so have done my fair part of long hours flying... The reason I posted was prec
58 NAV20 : Maybe worth pointing out that MEL-SIN-LHR, for example, is very debilitating precisely BECAUSE you can't sleep all the way through. You get two compl
59 Jacobin777 : ...it would probably like SQ's A345...business class and Y+ (Raffles Class).....
60 Antskip : Is MEL-LAX "noticeably less tiring" than MEL-DXB (another 14-15hr nonstop trip)? - I found DXB-MEL much tougher than MEL-DXB - I suppose because flyi
61 NAV20 : Don't know, Antskip, never gone that way - my comparison was based on MEL-SIN-LHR. I agree that (on the basis of medical opinion anyway) better cabin
62 Post contains links Flyboysp : The curfew for SYD arrivals is 6am. However only 24 movements per week are aloud to land before the 6am curfew. They must use 34L for arrivals. http:
63 KL1291 : I am not really into this subject, but what about the crew on board this non-stop flight?? I can imagine these flight needs double crew occupation.
64 AirPacific747 : Ok, I feel the exact opposite way.. Id rather fly in a smaller aircraft with less people than a big aircraft crammed with 500-600 people if not more.
65 Bh4007 : Based on this information; the 787 has 9,781 miles and the A350-900R 9,400 miles so why does the article say that the cities of Sydney and Melbourne
66 JumpJet : As a potential passenger I'd go on this one, simply to get the trip over and done with! I'm looking round for tickets LHR- SYD for August 2008 already
67 Jetfuel : The smartest move would be for somebody to fly LONDON-DARWIN non-stop. It's 400 miles or so closer than Perth. It just needs upgrades at Darwin airpor
68 Jacobin777 : ..simple, its more cost-effective to fly to SIN, HKG etc and pick up passengers from there rather than flying to DRW as a flight stop, especially whe
69 A340313X : I seem to remember QF and BA announcing they were not looking to fly non-stop routes between LON and SYD when the 772LR came out.... what's changed? I
70 Jetfuel : Maybe true to some extent, but DRW is not that much past SIN. It's a matter of who wants to fly to Australia non-stop first. The logic for a carrier
71 NAV20 : Because of winds, BH4007 - the 772LR is already capable of connecting LHR and SYD with a reasonable load, but going the other way it would need a tec
72 Rivet42 : ... agreed. Whilst some posts above applaud BA, VS, etc for this 'proposal', there is actually no reference in the article to any comment or claim by
73 KC135TopBoom : It would not be to difficult to extend the range of the B-777-200LR another 600nm or so. But that will be at the costs of reduced cargo capacity. It w
74 Post contains images Superfly : I am with you on that. It doesn't matter if the seat space is the same, it's the overall size of the tube and ability to move around when you get res
75 NAV20 : Funny, that, Superfly - I'm the direct opposite, I hate travelling in jumbos, go out of my way to stick to six-across or less whenever possible. The
76 Post contains images Aminobwana : Move around ?? Assuming that the aircraft has a normal configuration, i.e a majority of Y seats, in a B747 and A380 about 400 to 600 persons would be
77 VV701 : I do not think that there is any way of creating anything that is more of a joint venture than the current Joint Service Agreement between BA and QF.
78 Post contains images Jacobin777 :
79 Shamrock_747 : According to this article, BA are 'leading the race' because Airbus have supposedly offered them a long range aircraft. Not really a sound indication
80 Post contains images Icarus75 : Millions do this every year? What are you talking about? AKL-SIN-LHR?
81 Post contains images Ikramerica : me neither...
82 Bwohlgemuth : I have always wondered how airlines are really going to address the health issues with people sitting in a plane for 20+ hours. You would have to crea
83 Leigh pilgrim : Out of personal choice, if flying to Australia, Id rather stop off at Singapore and then get on another flight to Australia, Ive done that in the past
84 Kaneporta1 : Because the 77L is capable of flying the route but not capable making a profit. 788LR...How much money an airline can make flying 130 pax for 9200nm?
85 Aminobwana : Could you substantiate this ?? How the 130 figure was calculated ?? We are not speaking of the B788 with reduced payload, but a B788 with B789 engine
86 Post contains images Andaman : There's a free idea for Finnair HEL is closer (8,200 miles) to SYD than almost any other European city - only IST is closer? And they have ordered A3
87 Kaneporta1 : The figure was not calculated and is not performance related, it's comfort related. It was an estimation, based on some current BA seat configuration
88 Post contains links NAV20 : Since there is so much 'shooting the messenger' going on, here is the same story from 'The Times' and 'The Australian.' http://www.theaustralian.news
89 Ikramerica : But it's still wrong! So what's the point? it reads as if different papers just reworded the same incorrect information. The 787 has a range up to 88
90 Post contains images NAV20 : As I suggested earlier, I think the mention of Perth is the key, Ikramerica. Whatever Sydney-siders may think, Perth is also in Australia.   It's al
91 Post contains links Zeke : Been in the press, and on this site before, a simple search would have found it http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn.../details?ArticleID=2005/dec05/
92 Shamrock_747 : The only fact stated by The Australian is that Willie Walsh, BA's CEO, has been at TLS looking at the aircraft Airbus have on offer, including the A3
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...
Etihad To Fly Non-stop To Singapore posted Wed Jun 13 2007 05:58:57 by EtihadAirways
TAM To Fly Non-stop To JFK In October posted Fri Apr 8 2005 16:36:24 by Neo
Singapore Airlines To Fly Non-Stop To New York posted Tue Jun 1 2004 00:21:11 by Squirrel83
Air Transat To Fly Non-stop To Rome posted Sun Feb 11 2001 00:04:31 by Airtime
AF To Fly Non Stop LYS-EWR In 05? posted Mon Sep 20 2004 17:14:52 by Skyteam10001
It's Official, CX To Fly Non-stop HKG-JFK posted Wed Mar 10 2004 10:50:51 by Cathay Pacific
Can The A380 Fly Non-stop To LHR From Oz? posted Fri Jun 28 2002 02:48:44 by Ctang
Could A B777/200ER Fly Non-stop To..... posted Sun Sep 23 2001 23:30:21 by Airblue
China Airlines To Fly Non-stop TPE-FRA From August posted Tue May 22 2001 00:46:26 by Jiml1126
Next City In China To Get A Non-stop To Europe? posted Thu Jun 30 2005 23:15:33 by UpperDeck79