flydc10
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:20 pm

Qantas 744ER

Sun Mar 20, 2005 3:30 pm

HELLO

I WAS WONDERING WHY DID QANTAS ORDERED THE 747-400ER DID IT HELP THE AIRLINE IN ANY WAY, OPENING NEW LONG HAUL ROUTES OR IN SOME OTHER WAY.

REGARDS

FLYDC10
vivan nuestras aerolineas nacionales
 
KDTWflyer
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:51 pm

RE: Qantas 744ER

Sun Mar 20, 2005 3:32 pm

I think it made westbound LAX-MEL nonstops possible without payload restrictions although im not sure on this.
NW B744 B742 B753 B752 A333 A332 A320 A319 DC10 DC9 ARJ CRJ S340
 
flydc10
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:20 pm

RE: Qantas 744ER

Sun Mar 20, 2005 3:34 pm

THANX

BUT DIDN'T QANTAS OPERATE LAX-MEL BEFORE WITHOUT STOPS???? HOW MANY DAILY FLIGHTS CONNECT AUSTRALIA WITH THE US????

REGARDS
FLYDC10
vivan nuestras aerolineas nacionales
 
United Airline
Posts: 8773
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: Qantas 744ER

Sun Mar 20, 2005 3:56 pm

Yes they did... with the B 747-400 but with PAYLOAD RESTRICTIONS.

I think some of the B 747-400s still do LAX-MEL as well as LAX-SYD
 
airxliban
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:14 pm

RE: Qantas 744ER

Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:11 pm

the 6 744ERs were bought primarily for the LAX-MEL routing.

welcome to a.net, but stop writing in CAPITALS
PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Qantas 744ER

Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:16 pm

Where you run into payload restrictions is if you need an alternate for MEL and Avalon isn't suitable. Now you have to use SYD which requires a good amount of fuel. LAX-SYD is in the same boat, if not worse, since MEL is technically the closest airport. However, I believe and I might be wrong, it's my understanding that QF has an exemption to use a closer RAAF base close to SYD. It's only a "paper" alternate, thus reducing the amount of alternate fuel that needs to be carried.
Fly fast, live slow
 
bill142
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: Qantas 744ER

Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:56 pm

Why wouldn't AVV be a suitable alternative? It can handle 744's and I think all cargo flights goto Avalon instead of Tullamarine do they not? Only reason I can think of as to why AVV wouldn't be a good alternative is the lack of passenger handling facilities for international flights such as Immigration etc.

Also it is rumored Qantas got these aircraft for next to nothing in attempt by Boeing to stop them from buying the A380, which they went on to buy any way. And it a bit of a slap to the face for Boeing annouced both orders plus orders for A330's at the same time.

[Edited 2005-03-20 08:58:21]
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11864
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Qantas 744ER

Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:27 pm

I couldn't find the web link, but when the ER came out the big deal is it allows for some cargo to be carried on SYD-LAX. The regular 400, as noted, has some severe payload restrictions on that flight.

Does anyone know the allowed cargo on a 388 SYD-LAX (and vice versa) vs. 744ER? I'm not trying to start A vs. B, but I would like do know after pax and luggage the difference in cargo for that route and this seems to be the appropriate live thread.

Thanks,
Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Qantas 744ER

Sun Mar 20, 2005 6:46 pm

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 6):
Why wouldn't AVV be a suitable alternative?

I would think that it is highly likely that extreme weather that made MEL unusable would likely affect AVV. I would expect AVV to be suitable for other MEL closures eg blocked runways etc. There are even PAX facilities at AVV although not the immigration and customs services you could get at SYD.

Regards

Chris
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!