Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Qantas And Their Relationship With The 777  
User currently offlineThe777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6672 posts, RR: 55
Posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13363 times:

Hi!

It's been mentoned recently that Qantas is yet again rumored to possibly be ordering the 777. Qantas was a part of the original group of eight airlines to consult Boeing on the desgin of the 777 and is the only airline of those eight yet to order it. Why is that ? Why, when they were a part of the design team, did they not order the 777 ? I know market conditions have changed several times but how come QF did not order the 777 in the mid-1990s ? Why would you be part of such a major aircraft program and then not order it ?

If one look at Qantas at that time, 1994-96, they still flew 747-200Bs and 74Ls. Perhaps an order at that time for 5-10 777-200ERs would have been a good idea ?

The777Man


Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly....CI, MU, LX and LH 777s
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyboysp From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13302 times:

At the time, QF were not in a strong financial position, unlike now. Introducing a new fleet type would have been expensive. They were able to get 3 second hand 744s which provide a safer option for them to expand.

Remember with other airlines involved with the design, the QF influence would have been diluted to a point, where perhaps that it no longer fit the role QF wanted.

[Edited 2008-09-01 22:54:29]


#proudtobeabulldog
User currently offlineTullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13297 times:

Quoting The777Man (Thread starter):
Why would you be part of such a major aircraft program and then not order it ?

ETOPS rules at the time limited the use of the 777 on South Pacific routes. QF got great deals on some used 744s from MH and Asiana in the late '90s following the Asian economic crisis and these were ideal for trans-Pacific flying until the ER arrived.

QF were also very busy in the mid '90s absorbing the Australian Airlines operation into the airline.

The main routes that would have been good for the 777-200ER were the European routes other than LHR and FRA. Unfortunately QF has always struggled to make any money on these routes and they are now abandoned.

The 777-200ER could have been used for Asian routes but they didn't go for it at the time and by time they looked at it again the A333 offered superior economics for these routes and QF got a great deal on the A333s when they ordered the A380.

[Edited 2008-09-01 23:02:45]

[Edited 2008-09-01 23:03:50]


717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,310,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,AT
User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5827 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13201 times:



Quoting The777Man (Thread starter):
Why, when they were a part of the design team, did they not order the 777 ?

They were one eighth of the design consulation group. It is a big assumption on your part to just assume that the design that was eventually frozen was suitable for QF needs. Obviously it was not very suitable for QF, because they didn't order it! Both Flyboysp & Tullamarine have given excellent reasons for why QF didn't order it.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineQantas787 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12918 times:



Quoting Gemuser (Reply 3):
Both Flyboysp & Tullamarine have given excellent reasons for why QF didn't order it.

Gemuser

And the fact they are now flying so many geriatric aircraft and having a mounting series of incidents, is a good reason why the clowns who didn't buy them then should be tarred and feathered!


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12900 times:



Quoting Qantas787 (Reply 4):
And the fact they are now flying so many geriatric aircraft and having a mounting series of incidents, is a good reason why the clowns who didn't buy them then should be tarred and feathered!

You could also argue, using that logic, that if the A380 was on time QF wouldn't have had those incidents either. I think it's a tad of a stretch.

The 777 would have been a good fit in QF's fleet but every time it has come down to ordering some they've either deferred the decision, then gone with Airbus with the A380/A330 combo and now they've gone for the 787. So I doubt that we'll ever see a 777 in QF colours especially with 65 787's on order.


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5827 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12719 times:



Quoting Qantas787 (Reply 4):
And the fact they are now flying so many geriatric aircraft and having a mounting series of incidents, is a good reason why the clowns who didn't buy them then should be tarred and feathered

What a silly statement!

1) If Airbus and Boeing had met their contractual commitments just about all the orginal A380 order of 12 would be in service and B787 would be arriving next month. Saying that they should have ordered the B777 before is irrelevent.

2) All Oz airlines will keep their aircraft 15 to 20 years, as they usually have, until the Federal government changes the tax laws.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8466 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12573 times:



Quoting Sydscott (Reply 5):
. So I doubt that we'll ever see a 777 in QF colours especially with 65 787's on order.

And with the A380 and 787 both coming late and the A350 still 10 years away, those 747s aren't getting any younger. The 777 could be the ideal interim lift option.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12487 times:

Why is it that on this forum people are consistently, and repeatedly ad nauseum, claiming to know what is better for Qantas, than Qantas does itself, regarding the 777?
The simple fact of the matter is that for whatever logistical reason, Qantas chose not to order it.
I would guarantee that Qantas had a very good reason indeed to decide it didn't suit their needs, based on an awful lot more information than those who claim to know otherwise are party to.


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12251 times:



Quoting Bill142 (Reply 7):
And with the A380 and 787 both coming late and the A350 still 10 years away, those 747s aren't getting any younger. The 777 could be the ideal interim lift option.



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 8):
Why is it that on this forum people are consistently, and repeatedly ad nauseum, claiming to know what is better for Qantas, than Qantas does itself, regarding the 777?

Nice one AirNZ!

You're right Bill that those 747's aren't getting any younger but I disagree. Over the next handful of years the bulk of the fleet can be replaced with A380's which, although late, now seem to be coming off the Airbus line at a relatively steady rate. Realistically the only one's that will remain in the QF Fleet outside of that timeframe are the 744ER's which are still new. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that QF exercises a handful more options in the next couple of years as A380 ops ramp up to allow a total replacement.


User currently offlineKrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11290 times:



Quoting Tullamarine (Reply 2):
ETOPS rules at the time limited the use of the 777 on South Pacific routes.

I vaguely recall Boeing trying to pass ETOPS 330 for the B77W, was that every accomplished? Wouldn't ETOPE 330 pretty much allow the B77W to fly unrestricted over the Pacific?

KrisYYZ


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10991 times:



Quoting Qantas787 (Reply 4):
And the fact they are now flying so many geriatric aircraft and having a mounting series of incidents, is a good reason why the clowns who didn't buy them then should be tarred and feathered!

If the reasons for tarring and feathering had to queue, the lack of purchase of the 777 would be way towards the back, if indeed it was allowed "queuing rights". ETOPS needs and restrictions seemed to be a major factor right up to the 787 purchase, even then I think there was some agonizing.

The current slew of problems should not be related to aircraft age. Getting newer aircraft should reduce maintenance, but might not teething troubles with new types well exceed age problems.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10530 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KrisYYZ (Reply 11):
I vaguely recall Boeing trying to pass ETOPS 330 for the B77W, was that every accomplished? Wouldn't ETOPE 330 pretty much allow the B77W to fly unrestricted over the Pacific?

In February 2007 the FAA allowed US-registered operators to fly commercial twins pretty much anywhere (there are a few restrictions around the Poles and a small area of the South Pacific) provided they carried certain on-board equipment and they had an in-flight shutdown rate of at or below 1 per 100,000 engine hours. However, that doesn't help QF since they are registered in Australia so they can't fly twins over the South Pacific and South Indian oceans.

The ETOPS-207 extension was sufficient to allow the 777 and A330 to cross the North Pacific, which left only about 5% of the planet not covered. Also, in addition to having an airframe and engine combination certified for a specific ETOPS, the operator needs a separate certification, as well.

So Boeing and Airbus could certify the 777/787 and A330/A350 to fly from Perth to Johannesburg or Auckland to Santiago, but the Australian and New Zealand aviation authorities could still deny QF and NZ the right to fly twins on those routes.


User currently offlineThe777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6672 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9058 times:

I have to say that it's amazing how quickly a thread like this goes slightly off topic and gets nasty.

I thank some people for the more insightful replies.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 8):
Why is it that on this forum people are consistently, and repeatedly ad nauseum, claiming to know what is better for Qantas, than Qantas does itself, regarding the 777?
The simple fact of the matter is that for whatever logistical reason, Qantas chose not to order it.
I would guarantee that Qantas had a very good reason indeed to decide it didn't suit their needs, based on an awful lot more information than those who claim to know otherwise are party to.

I didn't even claim that it would have been better for QF to order the 777; merely posed a question what led to QF not ordering it when they were a part of the design group.

What part of the design did Qantas contribute ?

The777Man



Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly....CI, MU, LX and LH 777s
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8692 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 8):
Why is it that on this forum people are consistently, and repeatedly ad nauseum, claiming to know what is better for Qantas, than Qantas does itself, regarding the 777? I would guarantee that Qantas had a very good reason indeed to decide it didn't suit their needs, based on an awful lot more information than those who claim to know otherwise are party to.

Why is it that people comment on politics and foreign relations if they are not elected officials with security clearances? Business isn't any different, is it?  Yeah sure

It doesn't take an insider to see the nature of Qantas' route network, what fleet planning decisions other airlines have made in simmilar situations, how successful those decisions have been, and the capabilities of different fleet options. Airlines are partially trying to predict their future needs when ordering a new fleet type and they certainly get it wrong at times. There's also human factors at work when airlines order fleet types as we know that some airline executives have pushed their own personal preferences.

Qantas did indeed have what they thought were good reasons for not ordering the 777. But in hindsight, that doesn't necessarily mean they were correct. Is it an a.net crime for the777man to ask what Qantas' reasons were?


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8661 times:



Quoting The777Man (Reply 13):
What part of the design did Qantas contribute ?

Nothing directly. Qantas was one of the reasons Boeing designated the "C-market" for an ULH variant, which eventually resulted in the 777-200LR. But by the time the 777-200X (later -200LR) was launched in 2000, Qantas was out of the picture.

I guess you could say Qantas is one of the reasons the base 777 variant is called the -200 since Boeing's early plans to fulfill the C-market was to shrink the 777 into the 777-100.


User currently offlineQantas787 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7725 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 8):
I would guarantee that Qantas had a very good reason indeed to decide it didn't suit their needs, based on an awful lot more information than those who claim to know otherwise are party to.

Do you agree with every single decision that Qantas management make, or just the ones that suit the way you think? Have they never made a mistake? You agree with them on this decision but if it suits not on others. I don't agree with them on this one. If thats OK with you? Of course I may be completely wrong on this and perhaps I am being selfish as I would like to be flying on them.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 8):
Why is it that on this forum people are consistently, and repeatedly ad nauseum, claiming to know what is better for Qantas, than Qantas does itself, regarding the 777?

I believe this is the first time I have entered the fray on this subject, and you will be pleased to hear the last.


User currently offlineEnviroTO From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7513 times:



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
Why is it that people comment on politics and foreign relations if they are not elected officials with security clearances? Business isn't any different, is it?

I think it is plenty different. Foreign relations and politics relates to what people want from their country. If you had said foreign intelligence then I might have agreed with you. If someone were to say that they would like Qantas to have 777s that is fine, but to say Qantas should be tarred and feathered, is incompetent, can't crunch numbers, etc without any access to the data and numbers they had at the time of the decision is nonsense. It is fine to have an opinion on what you would do, but it is a bit presumptuous to believe that a forum member with no access to a company's internal data would do better. Airline purchasing decisions are often based on a little more than whether or not someone likes an airplane.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
It doesn't take an insider to see the nature of Qantas' route network, what fleet planning decisions other airlines have made in simmilar situations, how successful those decisions have been, and the capabilities of different fleet options.

Is there a successful Australian international airline that it can be compared to? Is there any evidence that 777 automatically leads to success? An outsider can see which routes an aircraft is capable of handling but can't know all the financial data which is important in making informed decisions.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
Qantas did indeed have what they thought were good reasons for not ordering the 777. But in hindsight, that doesn't necessarily mean they were correct. Is it an a.net crime for the777man to ask what Qantas' reasons were?

They may have been incorrect to not buy the 777, but to claim they were incorrect is to imply that someone thinks they know better than someone who had access to all the data important to making a decision. The world is littered with airlines who have gone bankrupt or that have been restructured. If running an airline was as easy as reading aircraft stats and filling out a purchase order then the success rates of airlines in the industry would be higher and fleets would be newer.


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5827 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6836 times:



Quoting Qantas787 (Reply 16):
Do you agree with every single decision that Qantas management make, or just the ones that suit the way you think? Have they never made a mistake? You agree with them on this decision but if it suits not on others. I don't agree with them on this one.

Here I think you have a point!! No I don't agree with EVERY management decision, but to say that the "clowns who didn't buy them then should be tarred and feathered!" is a bit over the top when you have nothing other than personal opinion to back up your statement.

QF is often criticised here and elsewhere for being ultra-conservative, and sometimes it annoys the crap out of me too, but they are celebrating their 88th birthday this year, so they must be doing something right.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineQantas787 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6733 times:



Quoting Qantas787 (Reply 16):
you will be pleased to hear the last.

Sorry looks like second to last.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 18):
Here I think you have a point!! No I don't agree with EVERY management decision, but to say that the "clowns who didn't buy them then should be tarred and feathered!" is a bit over the top when you have nothing other than personal opinion to back up your statement.

Agreed, it was too general a statement to make electronically, as it was generally said tongue in cheek. I am actually a bit of a fan of Dixon purely because being a business owner myself, I like the way he tries to do things bare boned. Replace "clowns etc" with perhaps in hindsight, a mistake.
I am sure Qantas wouldn't have such a skeletal service to Europe if they had the correct equipment to do it. i.e. 777. Emirates et al have proven there is a need, so possibly Qantas could have plugged a few holes here and there.

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 17):
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
Why is it that people comment on politics and foreign relations if they are not elected officials with security clearances? Business isn't any different, is it?

I think it is plenty different. Foreign relations and politics relates to what people want from their country. If you had said foreign intelligence then I might have agreed with you. If someone were to say that they would like Qantas to have 777s that is fine, but to say Qantas should be tarred and feathered, is incompetent, can't crunch numbers, etc without any access to the data and numbers they had at the time of the decision is nonsense. It is fine to have an opinion on what you would do, but it is a bit presumptuous to believe that a forum member with no access to a company's internal data would do better. Airline purchasing decisions are often based on a little more than whether or not someone likes an airplane.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
It doesn't take an insider to see the nature of Qantas' route network, what fleet planning decisions other airlines have made in simmilar situations, how successful those decisions have been, and the capabilities of different fleet options.

Is there a successful Australian international airline that it can be compared to? Is there any evidence that 777 automatically leads to success? An outsider can see which routes an aircraft is capable of handling but can't know all the financial data which is important in making informed decisions.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
Qantas did indeed have what they thought were good reasons for not ordering the 777. But in hindsight, that doesn't necessarily mean they were correct. Is it an a.net crime for the777man to ask what Qantas' reasons were?

They may have been incorrect to not buy the 777, but to claim they were incorrect is to imply that someone thinks they know better than someone who had access to all the data important to making a decision. The world is littered with airlines who have gone bankrupt or that have been restructured. If running an airline was as easy as reading aircraft stats and filling out a purchase order then the success rates of airlines in the industry would be higher and fleets would be newer.

Nicely pontificated EnviroTO


User currently offlineAFGMEL From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 747 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6585 times:

My two cents worth. Early 90s Australia (not alone) was in recession. On top of which, Qantas at the time was solely a 747 operator and only international. As has been mentioned, the intergration of Australian Airlines would be complicated enough, but easier to manage keeping domestic and international separate until the dust had settled. Introducing a new type would not have made good sense. All conjecture, I should ask my contact though.


B 727-44/200 732/3/4/8/9 767-3 742/3/4, 772/3, A319/20/21 332/333 342/3 , DC3/4/10, F28/50/100, ATR72
User currently offlineCupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 837 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6530 times:



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
what fleet planning decisions other airlines have made in simmilar situations, how successful those decisions have been,

a very valid point. But you cant compare apples with oranges (apologies for the cliche). I am not sure of the exact figures but I know the Singapore government has a much more friendly (to SQ) law when it comes to aircraft depreciation. QF doesn't enjoy such friendly legislation. As a previous poster has noted until this changes QF will continue to hold onto aircraft until the 15-20 year mark.



Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
User currently offlineAlangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6237 times:



Quoting AFGMEL (Reply 20):
My two cents worth. Early 90s Australia (not alone) was in recession. On top of which, Qantas at the time was solely a 747 operator and only international. As has been mentioned, the intergration of Australian Airlines would be complicated enough, but easier to manage keeping domestic and international separate until the dust had settled. Introducing a new type would not have made good sense. All conjecture, I should ask my contact though.

Qantas had been operating 767s since 1985. Qantas and Australian Airlines were merged in 92/93 and passengers were very excited to find that Qantas 767s were being used on domestic routes like MEL-OOL.

The medium range 777 would have been too big for Australian domestic routes at that time. The 777-200ER would have been good for some Australia to Asia routes, though Cathay operate A330s on similar length routes ( Cathay is another airline that has never operated the 777-200ER, all of their 777-200s are medium range.) Cathay's view was that there was no need to carry extra metal around to carry similar loads.

Though, I think it would be true to say the A330s would not have been ordered if they had not been part of a package with the A380s.

For routes to Europe, it is interesting that Asian carriers like SQ and MH made many of their routes other than London 777s ports. SQ did not really use 777s to increase frequency into FCO and ATH. Qantas have had some reservations about flying twins over the Himalayas to Europe, and I wonder if Qantas still has those reservations, because it would affect the justification for adding 77Ws if Qantas does not use those planes to Europe.


User currently offlineAFGMEL From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 747 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5832 times:



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 22):
Qantas had been operating 767s since 1985.

Ah, you're quite right, my bad memory. I even flew MEL (or was it SYD) - NAN (or was it VLI) in 1987 in a brand new one. Shows how good my memory is.



B 727-44/200 732/3/4/8/9 767-3 742/3/4, 772/3, A319/20/21 332/333 342/3 , DC3/4/10, F28/50/100, ATR72
User currently offlineKent350787 From Australia, joined May 2008, 980 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5704 times:



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 22):
Qantas had been operating 767s since 1985.

VH-EAJ City of Wollongong, August 1985 - I was at it's naming ceremony and then flew to Brisbane. Probably still have the certificate at my folk's place....


25 Gemuser : This is certainly a debatable point. I don't think that the B777 would have saved a significant part of the European network, IMHO it's too big & exp
26 The Coachman : And if QF hadn't have ordered the A330 when the A380 was ordered, would they be running the flights to PEK and PVG? Or downsized their NRT flights to
27 Qantas787 : Great idea Gemuser, but with Qantas' conservative business planning I don't see it happening. Shame.
28 Gemuser : Yer most likely right, but yer never know! Gemuser
29 Bill142 : Maybe with a New CEO and a Chairman which still has the new car smell QF might change its "Whinge and win" attitude to "Let's compete with these moth
30 VH-BZF : The QF board had a deliberate policy in place to age the fleet - as stated previously, depreciation rates in Australia made it too unattractive not t
31 Aussie747 : I thought the avge age of it's current fleet was 9.3 years. So thats not that much change
32 Flyboysp : So , would it be a safe bet to say, it's only a matter of when, and not if ,for the 777?
33 DavidByrne : What I read into it was that the A350 and the 777ER were both possibilities, but that only one would be chosen. If it's the A350, then that means the
34 KrisYYZ : I was under the impression that ETOPS certs are internationally recognized, I had no idea that some countries may still impose further restrictions.
35 Stitch : Yes. France, for example, has (had?) temporarily pulled AF's ETOPS-180 certificate after they had those multiple in-flight shutdowns on their 777s.
36 Stitch : I see no reason why QF would not add the A350 down the road if it met their needs - though they seem to expect the family to do everything and then s
37 Post contains links SunriseValley : Stitch, Australia have adopted a EDTO standard which covers such operations. The following link covers the detail. N.Z. are working on one which will
38 Stitch : Ah, very cool. Thank you. So now twins should officially be allowed to safely and reliably roam the world.
39 OldAeroGuy : While this rumor was widely circulated, it never happened. The DGAC did not revoke AF's ETOPS-180 approval.
40 SunriseValley : [quote=Stitch,reply=38]Ah, very cool. Thank you. So now twins should officially be allowed to safely and reliably roam the world. thumbsup The $64 que
41 Stitch : The Boeing 777 was approved for ETOPS-180 by the FAA during her certification, so every 777 built delivered to a US operator had/has ETOPS-180 Type A
42 OldAeroGuy : No, all the 777's they had would have ETOPS-180 approval, not just those that were delivered after the one year operating period since all 777's were
43 Trex8 : don't the japanese have some weird restriction on etops
44 Stitch : So they had the ETOPS-180 Type Approval, but the JAA would only issue an ETOPS-120 Operator Certificate to the airline for the first year of experien
45 OldAeroGuy : To be specific, the 777 Bill of Materials as initially delivered was sufficient to support an ETOPS-180 approval, but the JAA would only issue an ETO
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...
Qantas And Their New Airbuses (332 And 380) When? posted Tue Dec 18 2007 19:21:37 by QantasHeavy
Qantas And Their 747s posted Tue Aug 29 2006 03:30:52 by FL370
Air Wisconsin And It's Role With The New US posted Wed Sep 28 2005 20:43:48 by ATWZW170
Delta ATL-LAX With The 777? posted Fri Mar 14 2003 02:35:34 by Soku39
Those Who Have Lost Their Job With The Airlines posted Thu Oct 4 2001 23:42:43 by Brian_ga
Qantas Rules Out The 747-8I And The 777. posted Thu Mar 13 2008 04:33:56 by Thorben
LH Are The 777 And 787 In Their Future? posted Sun Oct 30 2005 22:45:33 by Georgiabill
Qantas And The 777, How Soon? posted Mon Sep 19 2005 00:08:43 by Georgiabill
Qantas And The 777 posted Tue Mar 15 2005 14:02:21 by Razza74
Qantas And The 777 posted Fri Feb 20 2004 02:47:40 by QF744