Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
LAX772LR wrote:Didn't fit their models at the time.
Lufty however, is a launch customer for the 779.
IINM, aren't they still the only airline not in Asia, to have purchased it?
BoeingVista wrote:I believe that QF actually ordered some but they were swapped to 747-ER's that were not taken up by Alitalia during the GFC
LAX772LR wrote:Didn't fit their models at the time.
Lufty however, is a launch customer for the 779.
IINM, aren't they still the only airline not in Asia, to have purchased it?
WIederling wrote:LAX772LR wrote:Didn't fit their models at the time.
Lufty however, is a launch customer for the 779.
IINM, aren't they still the only airline not in Asia, to have purchased it?
LH also had to "morph" a couple of 748 options into something useful.
Historically Lufty has an abundance of destinations that are hot and high
and LH Cargo coloads on the pax fleet intensively.
All detractors to buy 777. The type is a bit overhyped anyway.
BoeingVista wrote:I believe that QF actually ordered some but they were swapped to 747-ER's that were not taken up by Alitalia during the GFC
ZK-NBT wrote:BoeingVista wrote:I believe that QF actually ordered some but they were swapped to 747-ER's that were not taken up by Alitalia during the GFC
You believe wrong, QF certainly never ordered the 777, however AZ did have 744's on order which they swapped to 772's while VS took those 744's.
BoeingVista wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:BoeingVista wrote:I believe that QF actually ordered some but they were swapped to 747-ER's that were not taken up by Alitalia during the GFC
You believe wrong, QF certainly never ordered the 777, however AZ did have 744's on order which they swapped to 772's while VS took those 744's.
Ok ordered no, but were close to ordering..
KTPAFlyer wrote:Hello A.net,
As it seems, almost every major airline, and even a handful of smaller ones by the likes of PIA, Bangladesh, and TAAG, have sprung for the 77W- except for LH and QF. Is there any particular reason why the two decided against it? Notably, QF had the 74ER and LH has the 748, which are (almost) unique to each other. Does the 777 just not work for them in the past or what because LH has the X on order and QF has thawed slightly in the sense that 787's are coming. What gives?
WIederling wrote:All detractors to buy 777. The type is a bit overhyped anyway.
LAX772LR wrote:WIederling wrote:All detractors to buy 777. The type is a bit overhyped anyway.
....a 9-to-1 sales rate by 77W over its competitor, definitively says otherwise.
Talk is cheap, but sales/deliveries can't be denied.
mjoelnir wrote:LAX772LR wrote:WIederling wrote:All detractors to buy 777. The type is a bit overhyped anyway.
....a 9-to-1 sales rate by 77W over its competitor, definitively says otherwise.
Talk is cheap, but sales/deliveries can't be denied.
377 sold and delivered A340. A factor of 9 to 1 would give 3393 sold and delivered 777. The reality is 1,434 delivered 777 and 1,891 sold. You should have a look at your multiplication factor.
If one than starts to look at the fact that the A330-200/300 and 340-200/300 are a common frame with common wings, with different engines.
I f we look than at single models.
248 A340-200/300 against 510 777-200/200ER gives 1 to 2.1.
34 A340-500 against 59 777-200LR gives 1 to 1.7.
97 A340-600 against 679 delivered 777-300/300ER gives 1 to 7.6.
Take the next step all 777 included 777F delivered up to now 1,434. All 330/340 delivered up to now 1,824.
So who is producing the hype?
mjoelnir wrote:You should have a look at your multiplication factor.
jfk777 wrote:While Lufthansa itself does not fly 777 some of the LH Group airlines do, Austrian and now SWISS fly them. LH is buying 34 777-9 probably because the 747 is no more and they already fly 19 747-8's. Since LH went with the A340-300 as their DC-10 replacement, the A340-600 was next logical airplane for them. LH did go the long haul twin route with the A330-300. LH is late to long haul twin flying probably because in the early 1990's ETOPS limited their route system.
Softaero wrote:LH already had the A346 in their fleet, and thinks that the fuel savings of the 77W does not justify the cost of introducing another type.
jfk777 wrote:While Lufthansa itself does not fly 777 some of the LH Group airlines do, Austrian and now SWISS fly them.
Dutchy wrote:Overhyped by some, yes, but then again the B77W was responsible for the ending of the A346 line. But "how can an airline survive without the B77W line" is highly overrated indeed.
LAX772LR wrote:mjoelnir wrote:You should have a look at your multiplication factor.
You should've paid attention to what was actually being compared, before attempting to admonish anyone else.
Read it again, I said the 77W (source model of the 777 "hype") outsold its competitor 9:1. Nothing inaccurate about that.
mjoelnir wrote:Even if you take all ordered 777-300ER against the A340-600, you do not get to 9 to 1.
ThReaTeN wrote:Honest question: Why would ETOPS limit their route network more than it limited that of any other airline at the time? I can't immediately see any geographical reason for this (unlike the case of for example Qantas).
Gemuser wrote:The following post by member Stitch pretty much is the definite answer:
DeltaB717 wrote:Gemuser wrote:The following post by member Stitch pretty much is the definite answer:
With all due respect to Stitch, and I have a LOT of respect for him, the part of the story he's missed is that even if Qantas had seen an advantage on economics, passenger convenience, etc, Australia's regulatory position at the time (and, as I said in the first reply, that regulatory position only changed in July last year, and only then with a lot of lobbying by QF and VA) did not permit the use of twins on a lot of QF's route network. Only in the last 12-18 months have the Australian regulatory settings permitted beyond 180 minute approvals and polar operations for twins.
WIederling wrote:Historically Lufty has an abundance of destinations that are hot and high
and LH Cargo coloads on the pax fleet intensively.
All detractors to buy 777. The type is a bit overhyped anyway.
OldAeroGuy wrote:With over 800 sales, the 777-300ER is presently the best selling twin aisle sub type of all time.
Doubt the airlines who have bought it agree with the overhyped description.
TWA772LR wrote:Slightly OT, why didn't QANTAS go for the A345/6? They were the closet competitors to the 777 at the time and would have given them more leeway to do SYD-SCL/JNB while getting around ETOPS and not having to fill a 744 or A380.
OldAeroGuy wrote:WIederling wrote:Historically Lufty has an abundance of destinations that are hot and high
and LH Cargo coloads on the pax fleet intensively.
All detractors to buy 777. The type is a bit overhyped anyway.
With over 800 sales, the 777-300ER is presently the best selling twin aisle sub type of all time.
Doubt the airlines who have bought it agree with the overhyped description.
Boeing778X wrote:Would the 777-8 work with QF?
Flyingsottsman wrote:Just my thought, at the time when every one else was ordering the 777s, Qantas was committed to the A380, and with the A330s they ordered they had their network covered. With the A380,330s, 767s at the time and of course the 747ers. QF's network was at that time and still today is covered well with the aircraft they use, A380's to Heathrow, and North America, plus San Francisco, and Santiago , LAX and JFK with 747ER's and A380s the A330s in South East Asia where would you have fit a 777 into the fleet? I think it goes down to how big the route network is, in Lufthansa's case even though their network is far larger that Qantas's once again they have 744s and the new 748i A330s and A340s to cover their network and they fly to over a dozen cities on 5 continents, where as QF only flies 5 cities in North America, one city in South America, 3 cites in Asia and that's not counting Jakarta, Singapore or Dubai and if you count the UK as part of Europe well that's 1 city and if you don't count the UK as part of Europe then they don't fly to Europe at all with their own metal and of cause on the African continent they only fly to Joburg.With the 787s coming on line soon I don't think there will be any need for the next variation of the 777 or the A350. I think at the time both carriers thought they didn't see the need for the 777 as their network was and is well covered with the aircraft they have.
And in the future any expansion QF does do, well that will be covered by the 787s.
"This is why we bought the 787-9, because it has that long haul capability, and why we’d like to have the 777x and the A350 long haul eventually... it completely changes the game for Qantas because it allows us to have a network we could only have dreamed of in the past, and offer our customers more direct destinations."
evanb wrote:OldAeroGuy wrote:With over 800 sales, the 777-300ER is presently the best selling twin aisle sub type of all time.
Doubt the airlines who have bought it agree with the overhyped description.
The 777-300ER and A330-300 have near identical sales.
DfwRevolution wrote:And the A330-300 has been available roughly a decade longer than the 77W. There's really no downplaying the historic success of the 77W. There is no historical comparison for a model that has so thoroughly out-classed its peers.
WIederling wrote:OldAeroGuy wrote:WIederling wrote:Historically Lufty has an abundance of destinations that are hot and high
and LH Cargo coloads on the pax fleet intensively.
All detractors to buy 777. The type is a bit overhyped anyway.
With over 800 sales, the 777-300ER is presently the best selling twin aisle sub type of all time.
.. due to aggressive marketing and binding that anecdotally to a "twin versus quad" story.
( like the 787 a well executed marketing war drive. no holds barred.)Doubt the airlines who have bought it agree with the overhyped description.
Yeah, sure, you don't get fired for buying IBM.
DfwRevolution wrote:evanb wrote:OldAeroGuy wrote:With over 800 sales, the 777-300ER is presently the best selling twin aisle sub type of all time.
Doubt the airlines who have bought it agree with the overhyped description.
The 777-300ER and A330-300 have near identical sales.
And the A330-300 has been available roughly a decade longer than the 77W. There's really no downplaying the historic success of the 77W. There is no historical comparison for a model that has so thoroughly out-classed its peers.
.
evanb wrote:TWA772LR wrote:Slightly OT, why didn't QANTAS go for the A345/6? They were the closet competitors to the 777 at the time and would have given them more leeway to do SYD-SCL/JNB while getting around ETOPS and not having to fill a 744 or A380.
One doesn't purchase an aircraft for one or two routes, just ask SQ and TG and their A345 purchases. The B744 is not that much bigger than the A346 and did the job they needed. Also, they didn't fly SCL back then, so it would have been purchasing for just one route.
TWA772LR wrote:One doesn't purchase an aircraft for one or two routes, just ask SQ and TG and their A345 purchases. The B744 is not that much bigger than the A346 and did the job they needed. Also, they didn't fly SCL back then, so it would have been purchasing for just one route. Having the smaller aircraft would've allowed them to experience the 787 effect, enabling them to fly to smaller cities. QF may have decided to launch DFW and SFO with the A345 had they had it, along with other routes. They also wouldn't have had to out in an all J configuration neither like SQ and TG.
TWA772LR wrote:One doesn't purchase an aircraft for one or two routes, just ask SQ and TG and their A345 purchases. The B744 is not that much bigger than the A346 and did the job they needed. Also, they didn't fly SCL back then, so it would have been purchasing for just one route.