Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777 For A340: Airlines' Change Of Heart?  
User currently offlineKochamLOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 301 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17810 times:

Why does it seem that the A340 seems to lose out to the 777.
I do not have any facts that prove one aircraft is more efficient than another.

Why have airlines like Air Canada, Qatar, Austrian, Singapore, etc - switched from an Airbus A340 product to a Boeing product?

With the A343, I heard unconfirmed posts from people that it was not as efficient as the 777-200. Is this also the case with the A346 vs. 777?

86 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTW741 From Liechtenstein, joined Sep 2004, 478 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 17645 times:



Quoting KochamLOT (Thread starter):
Why have airlines like Air Canada, Qatar, Austrian, Singapore, etc - switched from an Airbus A340 product to a Boeing product?

well OS actually didnt switch from 340 (and 330) to 777 - the 772s came into the fleet with the purchase of NG and the 330s/340s where easier to sell in order to generate money



TWA - we showed you how good we have been!
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7088 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 17566 times:



Quoting KochamLOT (Thread starter):
Why have airlines like Air Canada, Qatar, Austrian, Singapore, etc - switched from an Airbus A340 product to a Boeing product

Singapore switched from A343 to 777 to A333, Austrian got their 777s from Lauda Air and sold theri A333 because they would get a better price for them as for their 767s....so it is actually not that many airlines that switched from the A340 to 777.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 17308 times:



Quoting Columba (Reply 2):

Singapore switched from A343 to 777 to A333, Austrian got their 777s from Lauda Air and sold theri A333 because they would get a better price for them as for their 767s....so it is actually not that many airlines that switched from the A340 to 777.

But the 777 is just so much more efficient that most airlines bought it rather than the 340.

The 340 was really designed before ETOPS became wide-spread. Once it did, the 777 proved that a twin is quite safe and reliable, no worse than a quad. But far more fuel efficient. And also, having two engines instead of four decreases maintenance costs and total airframe weight.

But A won half that battle, because their A330 turned out to be the unexpected winner. They originally offered it as an adjunct to a 340 long-haul fleet. They had no idea that it would form the backbone of many carriers' long-haul fleets. And the plane is SO good that even the 787 is going to have trouble beating it within its performance envelope.

And if they strap some new engines under the wing (and there's PLENTY of clearance) that plane will be a truly formidable opponent to anything Boeing has to offer.


User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 17220 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
And the plane is SO good that even the 787 is going to have trouble beating it within its performance envelope.And if they strap some new engines under the wing (and there's PLENTY of clearance) that plane will be a truly formidable opponent to anything Boeing has to offer.

Absolutely. If I had an airline I'd much prefer to operate 2 engines than 4 on the grounds of cost but that A330 really is a bird that is difficult to beat.

And if you need to, just stick another couple of engines under it and off it goes again. Versatile, economical and beautiful. What more can you want.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 17125 times:



Quoting Babybus (Reply 4):

And if you need to, just stick another couple of engines under it and off it goes again. Versatile, economical and beautiful. What more can you want.

Well, originally, A was just going to do that. Strap new engines under the wing and call it the A350.

And SQ railed them and said "redo the fuselage!"

So they did. And the nose. And everything else. And it's not that much better than the A330.


User currently offlineAfterburner From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 17086 times:

Remember, Airbus A340-300, -500, -600 were designed, launched, and flown for the first time before Boeing 777-200ER, 777-200LR, and 777-300ER were respectively. So the 777s had the advantage, which is when they were designed, the technology that enables aircraft to fly ultra-long routes with only two engines had already been available.

User currently offlineGLA MD11 From France, joined Mar 2000, 277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 17088 times:



Quoting KochamLOT (Thread starter):
Why have airlines like Air Canada, Qatar, Austrian, Singapore, etc - switched from an Airbus A340 product to a Boeing product?

You actually forget Air France. They are also replacing their A343 with B777, officially "because they were a better fit to their needs". That made a lot of noise at that time, beecause Air France had the reputation to be tied to Airbus (for political national reasons) and proved it was not the case by ordering a large load of T7s.

They also started receiving A330s later and now use both. The A343 should be leaving the fleet soon (no more AF343 over Maho Beach...)  Sad


User currently offlineSwallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 17058 times:



Quoting KochamLOT (Thread starter):
Why have airlines like Air Canada, Qatar, Austrian, Singapore, etc - switched from an Airbus A340 product to a Boeing product?

Add EK and QR to that list. EK did not take their 18 strong 346 order and QR allowed their options to expire. Both have ordered droves of 77Ws.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
But A won half that battle, because their A330 turned out to be the unexpected winner.

And B won the other half with the 77W. The 333 and 77W are excellent twins and both are doing well in the sales department. The 333 is finding new homes at SQ and EK.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
And the plane is SO good that even the 787 is going to have trouble beating it within its performance envelope

That is sobering considering the 332 is powered by the CF6 and T700 which are bleed enabled. The CF6 is two generations removed from the GEnx ( or is it one generation with the GE90 in between). The 787 beats the 332 mainly coz of better engine SFC.



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10807 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 17042 times:

Change of heart? Certainly not. Its the icecold killer brains of the beancounters which brought up the 77W and bury the A340.

Quoting Afterburner (Reply 6):
Remember, Airbus A340-300, -500, -600 were designed, launched, and flown for the first time before Boeing 777-200ER, 777-200LR, and 777-300ER were respectively. So the 777s had the advantage, which is when they were designed, the technology that enables aircraft to fly ultra-long routes with only two engines had already been available.

Well said. And lets not forget that in the 787 vs A350 race it will be the other way around. Unfortunately this time Airbus seems to offer the less good looking airplane.


User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1714 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 17004 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
And SQ railed them and said "redo the fuselage!"

They were not the only one. EK did too, and LH as well according to rumors. And they did well to listen. 100 A350XWB's for EK, that order would have gone to Boeing if Airbus had stuck to the original design.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
And it's not that much better than the A330.

But the A350XWB will replace to the A340, not the A330.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10807 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 16976 times:



Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 10):
But the A350XWB will replace to the A340, not the A330.

Both, but a least the A330-300.


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6957 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 16906 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
But the 777 is just so much more efficient that most airlines bought it rather than the 340.

Oh no, not again.... *sigh*
Over what kind of mission profile? The 777 isn't ALWAYS more efficient than the 340...



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 97
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 16688 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Once it did, the 777 proved that a twin is quite safe and reliable, no worse than a quad. But far more fuel efficient.

Personally, I think that this thinking doesn't do the 77W justice.
I'm content that a well designed twin should have some economic advantage over a similarly well designed quad, but not as great as the 77W/L over the A340NG.
For me, the biggest difference came about from the way the 77W/L comfortably exceeded their targetted performance, rather than because they were "just another twin"..

We've talked about the change in economic environment before, too. When the A345 and A346 were being ordered in droves (which once upon a time they were), fuel was cheaper, and the capital cost was a more significant factor.
IMO the A345/6 sold initially because they gave airlines a GREAT return on their investment. They were substantially cheaper to produce, and buy, than the 77W, and this offset the modest extra operating cost from the higher fuel burn.

But fuel became expensive, AND the 777 dramatically exceeded expectations, reversing the economic equation almost overnight.
IMO if fuel went back to $20 per barrel and stayed there ad-infinitum, the A345/6 would sell again ..... (well, not NOW, because of the existence of the A350XWB, but..  Smile )

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
And SQ railed them and said "redo the fuselage!"

Gustav Humbert said that it was the loss of the QF order, specifically, that prompted work to begin on the A350XWB..

Quoting Swallow (Reply 8):
The 787 beats the 332 mainly coz of better engine SFC.

Very, very true.
I am a fan of CFRP barrel construction, but its overall effect on the economics of the airframe have been dramatically overstated on here, IMO.
A 787-8 is barely 3 tonnes lighter than a similarly sized (and more payload capable) A330-200

It's still worth having, btw, but double-digit SFC improvement blows that into the weeds..  Smile

Rgds


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 16660 times:



Quoting KochamLOT (Thread starter):
I do not have any facts that prove one aircraft is more efficient than another.

You may not have those facts, but the airlines do. Especially for the 777 longer range family vs. the A340NG family.

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 12):
Over what kind of mission profile? The 777 isn't ALWAYS more efficient than the 340...

It's enough so that on all missions an airline flies, the aggregate cost of the 777 longer range is much lower than the A340NG, which is why airlines have stopped buying the A340NG, and some are ridding themselves of it.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 16565 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The problem really is not that the economics have been dramatically overstated, but that the wrong economic aspect is the one that is constantly being harped upon.

I've spoken with a number of 787 customers and what sold them on that plane in the end was that they will be able to fly these things darn near forever if they wish thanks to the significantly superior wear and fatigue characteristics of CFRP. A 787-8 may only weight three tons less then an A330-200, but it will serve in the inventory multiple lifetimes longer. And that means it is many hundreds of millions of dollars cheaper to operate, because you don't need to replace it.



Now, I know many will say "will that doesn't matter, because something better will come along and airlines will replace their 787s with it". Trick is, that might not be the case. The 787 incorporates just about every "cutting-edge" system and technology out there, and as Astuteman astutely notes, it's arguably about as good as an A330-200 which was designed a decade ago.

Same with the A350XWB - a cutting-edge package that can't out-haul or out-fly the ER models of the 777, to say nothing of the LR model. But, like the 787, it offers better fuel burn thanks to newer engines and - more importantly, in my opinion - better maintenance and longer "useful life" thanks to it's CFRP construction.

Airbus' customers demanded that the A350 be made from CFRP before they demanded it be made bigger. Personally, I am of the opinion Airbus went bigger because they felt they could "cap" Boeing with the A350XWB about as effectively as Boeing "capped" Airbus with the 777. By offering a plane that never really needs replacement (especially if you can easily change the engines and software electronics), then you effectively grab a monopoly on that market.

Boeing may very well never launch a clean-sheet 777RS because the market may not be there for it. Same reason why Airbus might never launch a clean-sheet A330RS. What we may very well see if "variations on a form" where the "787NG" gets a new wing and powerplant while still keeping the basic fuselage dimensions (outside of length) ala the A340-500/A340-600. Especially since CFRP (and barrel-construction) will allow longer stretches then Al without as much weight growth because you don't require as much material to maintain strength and bending resistance. And Airbus might just slap new engines on the A330 and call it a day.


Yes, we point and laugh at airlines like AA and NW that fly their DC-9s for four decades, but what if there was no real penalty to do so? What if the airframe maintenance costs plateaued after 10 years and remained effectively flat forever afterward? What if every decade you could slap a more economical engine on? What if the control systems could be updated every five years to improve performance and efficiency in some flight-regimens (or all of them after a few successive updates)?


And yes, one could wonder what would happen to Boeing and Airbus if they sold planes that never needed replacing, but fact is some will through accident or hull loss. And you'll have new customers entering the market. And maybe some customers like SQ just have depreciation schedules that make new planes more economical to own so they keep buying new ones every decade even if they don't need them.

But those companies effectively just scale back production to meet that demand. The real engineering genius and talent goes into designing and building a moving line factory that can build anything from an A318 to an A389 or a 736 to a 748 as needed.

As spotters, it's gonna suck when the world widebody fleet in thirty years time is composed of three families - the A380, the A350XWB and the 787 - but aviation is a game of economics just like any other business...


User currently offlineSwallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 16475 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
It's enough so that on all missions an airline flies, the aggregate cost of the 777 longer range is much lower than the A340NG, which is why airlines have stopped buying the A340NG, and some are ridding themselves of it.

Well, you rightly said that some airlines are getting rid of the 340. Two of the largest 777 operators, SQ and EK are holding onto their 345s. In SQs case, Boeing has tried to get them to replace them with the 772LR without success.



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 16440 times:



Quoting Swallow (Reply 16):
Well, you rightly said that some airlines are getting rid of the 340.

Yes, i did say some. Some are getting rid of their A340NG in favor of 777 longer range. AC, QR, etc. Others are waiting for 787 or A350s instead. But it is quite unlikely that when the 787 and A350 enter service, airlines will hold onto their A340s for much longer. In contrast, the 777 longer range series will fly concurrently with these newer planes for years…



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 16392 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Swallow (Reply 16):
Well, you rightly said that some airlines are getting rid of the 340. Two of the largest 777 operators, SQ and EK are holding onto their 345s. In SQs case, Boeing has tried to get them to replace them with the 772LR without success.

Because SQ has found Economy Class passengers won't fly ~18 hours sitting-up no matter how comfy you make it for them. And TG is learning that lesson, as well.

As such, the extra capabilities of the 777-200LR are wasted because you can't put in any more lie-flat Business seats because both planes have similar total cabin floor areas. And with each of those seats full and bringing in five figures of revenue, that nicely masks the fuel-burn delta of the A340-500 vis-a-vis the 777-200LR.

So there is no economic reason for SQ to buy the 777-200LR compared to soldiering on with their A340-500s until they can get their 787-9s which will most likely replace them on those ULR missions in an all-Business Class configuration (they'll give up some seats, but that just allows them to raise fares and it washes out in the end).


User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 16317 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
So they did. And the nose. And everything else. And it's not that much better than the A330.

Again proving what an exceptional aircraft the A330 is. Even small design changes (as you call them) make it very attractive to airlines. Compare that to Boeings 748i offerring, basically the same as the vintage 747 model, and the international aviation world is turning their nose up at it.

The A330 is truelly a marvellous plane.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 97
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 16225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
I've spoken with a number of 787 customers and what sold them on that plane in the end was that they will be able to fly these things darn near forever if they wish thanks to the significantly superior wear and fatigue characteristics of CFRP

 checkmark 
Following my earlier comment, it's perhaps ironic that I suspect this is the most UNDERSOLD attribute of the CFRP frame on here - perhaps more relevant than the weight, or the maintenance. Who knows.

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 16145 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Babybus (Reply 19):
Again proving what an exceptional aircraft the A330 is. Even small design changes (as you call them) make it very attractive to airlines. Compare that to Boeings 748i offerring, basically the same as the vintage 747 model, and the international aviation world is turning their nose up at it.

To be fair, if the current market for VLAs was measured in a hundred per annum instead of a dozen, the 747-8I would be selling decent enough.

After all, even the 767 and A340 are having some decent sales years as of late, even though many believe they're not worth even turning the existing ones into beer cans, much less buy new.  Wink


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2793 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 15983 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
I've spoken with a number of 787 customers and what sold them on that plane in the end was that they will be able to fly these things darn near forever if they wish thanks to the significantly superior wear and fatigue characteristics of CFRP.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 20):
Following my earlier comment, it's perhaps ironic that I suspect this is the most UNDERSOLD attribute of the CFRP frame on here - perhaps more relevant than the weight, or the maintenance. Who knows.

Excuse me for a dumb question: is this a proven fact or still an assumption that remains to be proven?

The background of my question is that in many industries there have been new materials which were sold as “ground breaking” but after some years in practice they turned out to have problems, which were not foreseen.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks ago) and read 15852 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting N14AZ (Reply 22):
Excuse me for a dumb question: is this a proven fact or still an assumption that remains to be proven?

CFRP's wear and fatigue properties are well-known in a variety of industries, including aerospace.

As such. both Boeing and Airbus have significant bodies of evidence to back up their claims and the airlines themselves have their own experiences with CFRP structures in their current planes to support those views to the point that they accept it to be true and use it as one of the decision factors.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks ago) and read 15830 times:



Quoting N14AZ (Reply 22):
Excuse me for a dumb question: is this a proven fact or still an assumption that remains to be proven?

As Stich says, it's proven.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 22):
The background of my question is that in many industries there have been new materials which were sold as “ground breaking” but after some years in practice they turned out to have problems, which were not foreseen.

CFRP isn't a new material...it's been in aerospace for decades. What's new on the 787 is the amount and location of the CFRP, but that doesn't do anything to change the material properties.

Tom.


25 N14AZ : OK, thanks for the explanations and sorry for my critical question - I was involved in a case where a technology well established in an industry was
26 Mandala499 : What I quoted didn't mention it was the 340NG (which is now a bit of a dead duck)... I was actually thinking about the 343... and the 772ER... But ye
27 SEPilot : Well, I was going to say something about less maintenance, but Stitch beat me to it and said it much better than I could have. Be assured that airlin
28 Xxcr : its not a change of heart, its just the cost of operating them and such. the 777 has 2 enignes as oppose to 4, and that lowers cost in maintenence, fu
29 Astuteman : More than maintenance, I heard Stitch talk about Longevity - and I heard myself agree with him.... Rgds
30 Olle : How much will the long life be worth of the A350 and B787 when or if A and B learn their lessons and make MKII and MKIII or new airliners that are eve
31 Jfk777 : WRONG, that is the simplistic opionion. A343 were replaced by 777-200ER, some derated for regional use & others for routes to Europe. 777-300ER have
32 YULWinterSkies : Do you have facts for this? AFAIK, no 777 ever replaced a 343 at AF, apart for maybe a handful (2 frames which were returned to lessor, one write-off
33 Stitch : The trick is, how much better can they make them? As Astuteman and I noted in another thread, for all their advancements in technology and materials,
34 NASCARAirforce : The A340-200/300s seemed underpowered - hence the jokes about it running on 4 APUs or using the curvature of the earth to get airborne. I am not sure
35 XT6Wagon : QFT. This is the heart of the A340 Vs 777 debate. I will add that making the higher MTOW package MANDITORY on the A340NG sunk its own sales with seve
36 KochamLOT : How do airlines like LH, SAA and Virgin regard their quad birds then? Are they secretly wishing to have ordered the 777 or A330? LH of course has take
37 Boeingdotcom : Although I maybe a Boeing Fan, IMHO Airbus did a great job designing A340/330. After all, they are the first to design the longest plane (A340-500) an
38 Stitch : Well an A330-300 lacks the range of an A340-300, so no reason to be upset there. And if you operate from "hot and high" airports, the quads do have a
39 Francoflier : I've been following your logic about airlines keeping these aircrafts 'forever' which would hence make then more economical to own and operate. But I
40 Goldorak : not so soon. AF will still fly the A343 for several years. The B744 will leave the AF fleet before the 343.
41 Jambrain : Depends if a 2 sub family 787 with 2 wings 2 engine and 2 undercarriage can really stretch from 220 - 400 seats or is that 2 aircraft? Roll on the ne
42 Post contains images Astuteman : I think my gripe is that we were all encouraged to jump on the "the structure will be 20% lighter" bandwagon. I think the reality has been that, alth
43 Mandala499 : If I remember correctly, the A343 and 772ER initial role was identical (the 772 being the -9V-SQ* batch)... the regional role is done by the -SR* ser
44 Tdscanuck : No. If you cross engine generations (e.g. an A300 to an A380) the quad is probably more effficient. However, at equal technology levels, larger engin
45 Boeing747_600 : The 787 has not beaten ANYTHING yet, except on paper. The engine SFCs are not the ultimate deciding factor. Put the bird in the air and put some ACTU
46 Travelhound : Not sure if it is representative, but looking at some DC9's from the 1980's I was amazed to see they only had around 35 - 40 thousand hours with simi
47 SEPilot : Well, I equate maintenance costs with longevity; you can fly almost any plane as long as you want as long as you're willing to do what is required to
48 Mandala499 : And going further, CASMs aren't the only thing they look at. The ultimate thing is the Margin per Available Seat Mile and Margin per Available Ton Mi
49 Astuteman : Well Said. Not laughing at you, my friend. But I remember very recent times when there was an intense focus on the A380's cost side alone, with the e
50 Columba : Where did I say anything about the 77W, the A333 and the 77W are hardly comparable in size so it is logical that the A333 will never replace the 77W.
51 Zeke : I think that is a common fallacy that 777 fans keep saying, in many cases the A343 will lift more payload over a longer distance than the 772ER, but
52 Columba : Hapag Lloyd A310 glider
53 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : Bulk of all replacements has always been caused by efficiency deficites of the older planes. This will not change. The remaining life may only have i
54 Astuteman : If I recall correctly, at this stage in its development, the 787 showed that sort of large gap, too. I get your point, but the popcorn bag is still f
55 Rheinwaldner : I really don't want to bash any plane thus I want to seriously consider your hint. I admire the 787 for its concept which created a overwhelming mark
56 Mandala499 : Just stating the obvious (which seems to be too far out of some people's minds)... A classic case where the 777-200 is too much of an airplane for th
57 SEPilot : What I am going by is all of the crashes that I could find that were caused by an engine since the beginning of the jet age. This includes engines fa
58 Zeke : No, what you have seen is that the early engine technology was less reliable than todays engines. You will see the same sort of correlation with toda
59 Caribillo : I feel that this forum is heavily sales oriented, when the real business is in the AfterSales. A and B sale planes only to create a running park to s
60 SEPilot : Actually, none of them were "early" technology. As I recall there were only three that involved actual catastrophic failure (British Midlands was one
61 Baroque : I was forgetting that one. Zeke might care to comment if a quad could have survived this if one out of the four had an uncommanded deployment of reve
62 SEPilot : Yes, he did; however the official finding was that the deployment would cause a 25% lift loss on the wing where the reverser deployed, and could be e
63 NCB : CFRP has not been used in aerospace since that many decades. You will find difficult to name civilian transport aircraft types that do have major com
64 Abba : Isn't that somewhat of an irrelevant comparison as the 787 has much more range (or at least was supposed to have being a B market plane while the 330
65 SEPilot : Boats have been built from fiberglass for at least 60 years; my 1962 Cessna 182 had fiberglass fairings that are still in good shape. The difference
66 AirNZ : Be assured that airlines would not change types without solid economic reason for doing so. Also, you can judge the relative economics of the various
67 MD-90 : Why do you think Boeing wouldn't make a dedicated widebody similar to the 787 but with a wider fuselage for greater capacity at some point between no
68 SEPilot : Boeing is going to make a 777/747 replacement at some point, which will probably be a mostly CFRP conventional twin larger than the 777 (and the A350
69 Kukkudrill : Very minor issue but I don't see how this can be possible. Whenever you buy a new asset, depreciation starts eating into your profits whereas an old
70 SEPilot : Depreciation does not eat into profits; making payments eats into profits. Depreciation allows you to recapture some of those payments by saving on t
71 Abba : No - that would not be 783. It still has the same basic structure as the rest of the family. That means that the A300 is still significantly lighter
72 EPA001 : I remember flying SIN-KUL and back with a B777-200 which was filled at 30% at best. Such short flights hardly bring any revenue for SQ or any other a
73 NCB : I understand your way of thinking but it is alot more complicated than that. We're not talking about a fiber glass airplane nor CFRP boats. Take the
74 Baroque : It is indeed. Perhaps a design suited to Light Classics would have been better than one designed for Heavy Rock(s). You could point out that the beha
75 Francoflier : That's not a valid example. The rudder broke because the load subjected to it was far greater than design specification and certification threshold.
76 DocLightning : Stitch, I agree that, to some degree, we are seeing that this particular technology is approaching an asymptotic limit; there will always be room for
77 Kukkudrill : This is a side issue, but if you buy a new plane for $50 million you do not charge the $50 million against profits straight away because at that poin
78 NCB : Of course but that proves that the material is not unbreakable. Also, what we will never know is whether that part broke because of a single overload
79 Post contains links and images Rheinwaldner : All true, the 783 sold not so good because it failed to achieve the 15%-20% weight reduction. It is not designed as A market model. I think that a ca
80 Viscount724 : And at some airports with terrain-clearance issues following an engine failure. But many of those passengers are probably connecting to SQ longhaul f
81 EPA001 : But if they had an A321 or B737-900 or so, it would even bring more profit to SQ. The connecting flight will of course be done with the B777, B747 or
82 Viscount724 : SQ should have kept their four 757-200s (which they disposed of almost 20 years ago) for use on short regional routes. However, some airlines, especi
83 747400sp : The B787 is supposed to have much better performance than an A330. The 787 is faster ( Mach 0.85 compair to A330 Mach 0.82 cruising speed), the 787 i
84 Mandala499 : Will be does not mean it is... But SQ charges an extortionate amount for those short haul flights anyways, that they might make money with just 30% f
85 EPA001 : Thanks for your informative reply Mandala499. Now the B777 from SIN to KUL and back makes a bit more sense to me. Of course it was very enjoyable for
86 SEPilot : Any new material has its unknowns; but composites have been around long enough and used in enough different applications that I consider the risk min
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...
Northwest Possible Change Of Heart posted Sat Nov 15 2003 07:30:42 by NLINK
777 For Ethiopian Airlines? posted Sat Aug 3 2002 14:50:06 by Airmale
AA Has Change Of Heart With Regards To JFK-Ontario posted Fri Feb 22 2002 22:49:21 by STT757
Reduction Of Flights To Venezuela For US Airlines posted Mon Oct 27 2008 22:09:03 by Mariodgf
Video: Change Of 777 Engine In 6 Hrs! Awesome! posted Tue Dec 4 2007 14:10:47 by 797
Change Of Route For Austrian posted Thu Mar 18 2004 07:38:56 by QF744
Two Airlines Change Equipment For Afghanistan posted Tue Jun 17 2003 09:37:03 by Airmale
777's Routes For These Airlines posted Sat Apr 26 2003 22:37:39 by Fly_emirates
Overflying Of Iraq Legal For Some Airlines? posted Wed Jan 1 2003 21:26:26 by Airplanetire
Air India Opt For A340-00 And 777-200 posted Wed Dec 4 2002 15:31:46 by Airmale