Let me dispel some wrong information posted very quickly by some people, for reasons I don't understand. Why not check the numbers before you object? If you had, you'd see the reality of the situation.
|Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 3):|
In an article that someone had on a thread that the 787's would be used on thinner routes like SEA or ORD.
And Adelaide to LAX
, and Brisbane to LAX
, etc. Read the article. And pointing out they will also use the 787 to smaller cities in the US directly once they get them doesn't do anything to the concept of running 773ERs to LAX
. It actually supports it, since it would take pressure OFF of the route, making the A380 less important year round, instead making it a 1 a day type aircraft for peak travel periods.
|Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 2):|
You guys are forgetting ETOPS issues.
The 773ER would be forced to fly a longer routing than the 744 does... and this route is growing, not shrinking. A 773 would be a slight reduction in capacity which is exactly the opposite to what we want.
No, you are guessing at these issues as reasons to dismiss the idea. But you aren't speaking from knowledge.
First, you didn't bother to look at the math.
18 744 LAX
flights a week is what they do now. 350 seats x 18 = 6300
that EQUALS 21 773ER flights a week in capacity, with MORE cargo space (by far) for those 773 flights. 300 x 21 = 6300. If the 773ER is set up with 325 seats, it has more capacity, but 300 is very roomy.
Second, there are not major ETOPS 207 restrictions from Australia to the west coast of the US, nor from NZ
or the south pacific. The route isn't longer, there are plenty of diversion airports. The section with the longest span between airports is between HNL
, and that is flown with 73Gs using ETOPS 180! A 773ER can do it.
is using the 772 from AKL
goes west of that, which is less of a worry as it is closer to more airports.
|Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 1):|
The MTOW of the 773ER is 660,000lbs versus 910,000lbs for the 744ER.
The MTOW is 775k for the 7900nm 773ER, the one QF
would order should they make that choice next week.
The 744ER WEIGHS more to go with that MTOW of 910k at 7650nm, and it holds more pax and baggage for those pax, and seats for those pax, but that is only proportional. The 744, also used LAX
, has a MTOW of 875k for 7250nm.
(if for some bizarre reason you think MTOW is the only factor that matters, 21 x 775k = 16275k, 18 x 875k = 15750k, 18 x 910k = 16380k. So total MTOW on the route, a meaningless number, is GREATER with the 773ER vs. the 744, and equal to the 744ER if they only used 744ERs on the route. But that again, means nothing. It's not the MTOW, but what you can do with it. Otherwise, the heavier 346 would be winning the battle...)
The 773ER is more capable.
The 744/ER is less efficient than the 773ER so needs more fuel weight, and yet it has a smaller cargo hold than the 773ER. Even the 744 has a smaller hold with far less range, the ER
has belly tanks which take up space, and if you were to use the 773ER on the SYD
route, you'd have more available free TOW to carry heavier cargo, as well as more space to carry big but less dense cargo.
Before you so quickly dismiss the concept, it would be nice if you guys looked at the FACTS.
Both the 346HGW and 773ER carry more cargo than either the 744 or 744ER. It's one major point of building the planes to begin with.
18 x 744ER = 101k cu ft. max with optimal pallet/container config
18 x 744 = 108k cu ft. max with optimal pallet/container config
21 x 773ER/346 = 147k cu ft.! (no voodoo to get there, either)
As for fuel to make the trips:
18 x 744 = 1030k gallons if you fill them up, needed for LAX
21 x 773ER = 1010k gallons if you fill them up, which you DON'T NEED TO DO
to fly LAX
, or LAX
for that matter.
(18 x 744ER = 1145k gallons if you fill them up, needed for LAX
flights for reference)
So, you can carry the same amount of TOTAL pax or more, with more cargo space and more cargo lift, using LESS fuel by running 21 773ERs a week rather than 18 744s LAX
You can also save more money and make more money by sending a daily 773ER on to JFK
vs. a 5x weekly 744, and even sending a 773ER on to Florida or Vegas a few times a week (or connecting with a 787 and sending that on to Florida daily).
In case everyone hasn't figured it out, this is why the sales of 744 pax versions ENDED as soon as the 773ER was offered, and why the 748 is needed in the first place for Boeing.
The 748 tips the scales back to make the 747 feasible. It has the same cargo capacity as the 773ER, it carries more people, and is more efficient than the 744. It would act as the more logical "upguage" aircraft for 773ER routes than the A380 would be, due to commonality with various aspects of the 773ER/787/744s already in service and soon to be in service.
Which is not to say that QF
will buy the 748, but it's there for the taking, and it would make equal sense for NH
for the same reasons stated.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.