Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Wide Bodies For South African?  
User currently offlineBLIKSEM From South Africa, joined Jan 2008, 27 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8963 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There has been some speculation & chat on an aviation web site in South Africa called Avcom about South African considering Boeing wide bodies to replace their A346's. Does anybody have any more solid info on the subject?

[Edited 2012-05-02 10:56:29]

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinerl757pvd From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4676 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8926 times:

Can the LR do NYC-JNB? Any current routes that could not be done with a 77L? 77W?


Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1803 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8884 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 77L should be able to handle the 7,969 mi trip between JFK and JNB. Whether it incurs penalty on the JNB to JFK leg due to the altitude, someone else will need to answer.

The 77W could do it but I suspect it will take a decent weight penalty to make the trip.


User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1658 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8857 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 2):
The 77L should be able to handle the 7,969 mi trip between JFK and JNB. Whether it incurs penalty on the JNB to JFK leg due to the altitude, someone else will need to answer.

It can't be too bad - the 77L flies JNB-ATL daily and that's 470 statute miles longer than JNB-JFK.


User currently offlineBLIKSEM From South Africa, joined Jan 2008, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8824 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I understand that they are also looking to replace their A343's. Perhaps they might consider B787's.

User currently offlineETinCaribe From Ethiopia, joined Dec 2009, 734 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8757 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 2):
The 77L should be able to handle the 7,969 mi trip between JFK and JNB. Whether it incurs penalty on the JNB to JFK leg due to the altitude, someone else will need to answer.

I think there will be weight penalty as tire speed is the limiting factor, as it is in ADD. Though JNB is not as high as ADD, it is further from JFK than ADD is (7200 mi ADD-IAD) and the ET flight on 77L has to make a stop at FCO on the westbound leg.

However, DL flies JNB-ATL nonstop on a 77L as well, but not sure if they are weight restricted or not? And according to GC mapper, JNB-ATL is 8439mi so really long stretch.

Really good question, hope others have the answer.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31010 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8700 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Maybe they're looking at the 747-8?

It will hold more people than the A340-600 and it has four engines. It will lift a good bit more payload by weight than the A340-600, but it will come up a bit short on volume (both to having four less LD3 positions and needing to devote more LD3 positions to bags).


User currently offlineSA744 From South Africa, joined Nov 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7722 times:

I would love to see Boeing in SAA colours again, who knows what will happen, they will eventually have to upgrade the fleet and with the A340 not being built anymore im guessing we might see Boeing back in the mix. We will just have to wait and see as SAA usually do take time in making decisions....

User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7700 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Maybe they're looking at the 747-8?

It will hold more people than the A340-600 and it has four engines. It will lift a good bit more payload by weight than the A340-600, but it will come up a bit short on volume (both to having four less LD3 positions and needing to devote more LD3 positions to bags).

I can imagine that they are seiously considering that option.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineDALCE From Netherlands, joined Feb 2007, 1689 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7355 times:

and more 346's at the Horizon for LX 


flown on : F50,F70,CR1,CR2,CR9,E75,143,AR8,AR1,733,735,736,73G,738,753,744,319,320,321,333,AB6.
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8374 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7222 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 2):
The 77L should be able to handle the 7,969 mi trip between JFK and JNB. Whether it incurs penalty on the JNB to JFK leg due to the altitude, someone else will need to answer.

Delta's Johannesberg to Atlanta flight is about 500 miles longer, so JFK should be very manageable. SAA with a fleet of 777LR, 77W and 787-9 would be great.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7071 times:

Well Boeing said that they are talking with several airlines about the 747-8I. The 747-8I would offer several advantages. It is a bit larger than the A346 which they are currently using. SA could increase capacity without having to got to the A380 which might be too big for them. Secondly another advantage the better hot and high performance in comparision with the 77W.

I could see SA as a potential 747-8I customer !!



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2660 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7033 times:

I feel my artistic finger twitching.. 77L, 787 and 748i in SA colours... mmm....


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6945 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 12):
77L, 787 and 748i in SA colours... mmm....

I see no need for the 77L.....the 787 can do most of the desired missions just fine  



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2660 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6876 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 13):

Just going by what people are talking here, I'm not talking about real life possibilities, just fanciful ideas.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6820 times:

SA just took delivery of some A330s if I recall correctly so no real need for the 787 right now, but on the other hand Boeing could offer SA a sweet deal on 747-8Is and 787s.

I doubt that SA will jump on the 777 wagon now, so if they replace their A346 soon I believe the 747-8Is seems to be the most logical choice.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineSA744 From South Africa, joined Nov 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6738 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 15):
Quoting columba (Reply 15):
SA just took delivery of some A330s if I recall correctly so no real need for the 787 right now, but on the other hand Boeing could offer SA a sweet deal on 747-8Is and 787s.

I doubt that SA will jump on the 777 wagon now, so if they replace their A346 soon I believe the 747-8Is seems to be the most logical choice.

Well i hope so remember when they stopped flying the 744 it was because of "high fuel burn", so if the 748i is better on fuel then maybe they will consider it or they might order A350( i know they said they were partial to airbus the political circumstance i dont know, but decision might rest on whoever is CEO by the time fleet renewal comes along.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8374 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6737 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting columba (Reply 15):
SA just took delivery of some A330s if I recall correctly so no real need for the 787 right now, but on the other hand Boeing could offer SA a sweet deal on 747-8Is and 787s.

I doubt that SA will jump on the 777 wagon now, so if they replace their A346 soon I believe the 747-8Is seems to be the most logical choice.

SAA has two levels of long haul that could be handled by two different plane types. The European flights which are about 10-11 hours can be flown be A330-200 and then longer flights to the USA, Brazil, EZE, Peking, HKG and Australia which a 777 can handle, A 748 would be nice but perhaps too big for SAA.


User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7584 posts, RR: 43
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6431 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 11):
I could see SA as a potential 747-8I customer !!
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 17):
hen longer flights to the USA, Brazil, EZE, Peking, HKG and Australia which a 777 can handle, A 748 would be nice but perhaps too big for SAA.

I think (and this is only my opinion) that the 777-800X (and maybe the -900X) would be better options. I know we are still a long way from them becoming a reality, but I could see SA more interested in those than in the 748i. Let's not forget the A350-900XWB either.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31010 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6406 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 18):
I think (and this is only my opinion) that the 777-800X (and maybe the -900X) would be better options. I know we are still a long way from them becoming a reality, but I could see SA more interested in those than in the 748i. Let's not forget the A350-900XWB either.


With ETOPS-330, SA could fly anywhere from JNB with a twin (though missions to Australia would be longer due to having to fly an ETOPS-240{?} route). However, they all likely will encounter some type of field performance limits out of JNB that would impact payload due to single-engine out.

The A380-800 and 747-8 wouldn't have these issues, however with such a small A340-600 fleet, I wonder if either plane would really match well with their traffic patterns.

[Edited 2012-05-04 10:27:23]

User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2660 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6383 times:

Here we go, itch well and truly scratched

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/8572/saaboeings.png



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6286 times:

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 18):
I think (and this is only my opinion) that the 777-800X (and maybe the -900X) would be better options. I know we are still a long way from them becoming a reality, but I could see SA more interested in those than in the 748i. Let's not forget the A350-900XWB either.

It's all about the single-engine performance out of JNB. This is why SA favoured the A340 series initially.

I'm going with the B748i for SA.



Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7584 posts, RR: 43
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6137 times:

Quoting gingersnap (Reply 21):
It's all about the single-engine performance out of JNB. This is why SA favoured the A340 series initially.

I'm going with the B748i for SA.

I understand that, but twin-engined aircraft are getting more and more advanced, and the next generation long-haul aircraft such as the 777-X and the A350XWB will most likely have better performance ex-hot and high airports than the current 777 and A330 families.

The 748i would give the range to fly to Australia, NY, etc., comfortably, but isn't it too big? After all, SA decided to retire its 744s and leave the A346 as the largest plane on the fleet. The 748i would represent an jump in seating capacity that perhaps SA does not need. If the 777-800X and the A350-900XWB can fly the same missions with less fuel burn, wouldn't they be a more sensible choice?



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1475 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5989 times:

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 22):
I understand that, but twin-engined aircraft are getting more and more advanced, and the next generation long-haul aircraft such as the 777-X and the A350XWB will most likely have better performance ex-hot and high airports than the current 777 and A330 families.

There can be some minor adjustments made but other wise better hot/high perf equels more thrust needed. More thrust equals higher fuel burn and heavier engine.

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlineSA744 From South Africa, joined Nov 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5849 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
With ETOPS-330, SA could fly anywhere from JNB with a twin (though missions to Australia would be longer due to having to fly an ETOPS-240{?} route). However, they all likely will encounter some type of field performance limits out of JNB that would impact payload due to single-engine out.

Well it does not look like they will be flying to OZ soon , as the code share with QF is not going to be renewed. Apparently the A343 fuel light starts beeping as it reaches PER... is this true?


25 speedbird128 : Lights beep these days? Airbus more advanced than i previous thought. JNB - ATL is tow restrcted to tyre rotation speed limit...
26 Post contains images PlymSpotter : Very unlikely, unless they have not tanked enough fuel. Dan
27 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : I'm hoping they choose the B-747-844 (SA's Boeing customer code) too. BTW, airplanes fly in nautical miles, not statute miles. The GC distance ATL-JN
28 Post contains images BLIKSEM : I'm hoping they choose the B-747-844 (SA's Boeing customer code) too. I saw a recent article in a South African aviation magazine quoting the South A
29 KC135TopBoom : How much revenue does SA make on belly cargo on their WBs?
30 BLIKSEM : I have no idea of SA revenue on belly cargo on their WB's but, I would guess it to be substantial, especially on their US and China routes, which are
31 cv990coronado : I don't see any comments regarding pilot training and fleet commonality. As far as I know SAA will have an all Airbus fleet apart from a couple of fre
32 Stitch : I think the only real reason SA would consider the 747-8 is because no twin could effectively/economically perform the mission (due to field performa
33 KC135TopBoom : This is why I asked the question on belly cargo. For a combined pax and cargo load, the B-747-8I seems to be the best fit. For a twin, then the B-77W
34 boeingrulz : Many of us 'old timers' from southern Africa have a specail place in our hearts for Boeing planes flying for SAA. I flew SAA 727's between Angola and
35 EddieDude : I suppose SA could lease a few 77Ls and 77Ws as an interim solution while they wait for 789s and 777-800/900Xs. So, question, has SA issue a RFP to B
36 SA744 : Not sure really. I dont know if it is Imminent.Maybe the new CEO will surprise us.
37 AirbusA6 : Why the rush to replace their A346s anyway, it's not as if they're that inefficient, and I can't imagine the resale value for them would be that great
38 EddieDude : Thanks. I understood from a separate thread that such an RFP had been issued or was coming soon.
39 KC135TopBoom : SA currently has about 24 WBs in its fleet, all Airbuses, plus another 5 A-342s is storage. The entire SA WB and NB fleet has an average age of about
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...
The New Business Class For South African? posted Tue Sep 27 2005 20:30:18 by Myk
Transcon Wide-bodies For US, Ever Again? posted Mon Jun 13 2005 22:35:57 by DCAflyboy
Boeing Trying To Change South African's Choice posted Tue May 21 2002 14:07:49 by Reggaebird
Wide Bodies Down South posted Mon Feb 21 2000 03:35:11 by Panaman
Wide Bodies For The DL Shuttle posted Fri Apr 23 1999 16:21:40 by DeltAirlines
Air France - KLM Looking For 100-150 Wide Bodies posted Wed May 26 2010 02:50:58 by keesje
15 South African Crew Arrested At LHR For Drugs posted Tue Jan 20 2009 10:33:35 by RussianJet
MAS Looking For 110 New Planes: 55 Wide-bodies posted Mon May 28 2007 17:59:20 by Jimyvr
South African Gets $1 For Air Tanzania posted Sat Sep 9 2006 01:48:33 by ETStar
Fresh News For The Aer Lingus Wide Bodies Order? posted Mon Jul 24 2006 14:48:58 by FCKC