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?

Can't speak for LH but yes, the regulatory environment was unsuited to large twins at QF. Until July this year, Australian carriers were unable to apply for, let alone obtain, ETOPS approvals sufficient to operate routes such as JNB, SCL and DFW efficiently (VA's former MEL-JNB route had to fly a specific, and much longer, track in order to remain within the maximum permissible ETOPS).

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

LH bought the A340 also. I'm sure QF will hop on the 77X train with time unless they convert their remaining A380 orders to the A350 instead but I think they'll really need the capabilities of the 77X

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.

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?

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?

That's so weird, never realized that. But I guess it make sense because BA, AF, KLM have a bulked up 77W fleet and the ME3 will replace their fleet anyway. So really, the repeat customers are CX and ANA. I thought there would be more orders, but hey, it probably won't be long before we see a 77X in a slick new QF livery. Additionally, Delta might be interested some. I mean they didn't order the 77W or the 787, and the A350 is merely a 744 replacement. So I guess Delta would be the third holdout...

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.

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.

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.

I would say it was timing. They got the A346 for the role, when the 77W wasn't on the marked yet.

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

Unlikely, the last of QF's 747-400ERs was delivered in 2003, nearly six years before the GFC. Also, their model numbers are -438, the QF customer code, which would indicate that QF made the original order for them (not Alitalia).

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..

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..

QF have been so close to ordering according to a.net that in reality they were probably miles off.

The ETOPS requirements were too stringent for QF at the time, therefore a smaller sub fleet of 744ERs were better suited until the A380s started coming . I think QF will operate the 777X however I wouldn't expect the order to be placed for a year or two.

From memory QF ordered A380's, A330's and 747ER's a couple of years prior to entry in to service of the 77W. Back than the 77W had a brochure range of 7300NM, not the 7900nm advertised today. As such the plane had too much range for Asia and not enough range for US / JNB flights. When it was realised the 77W was a more capable aeroplane QF's fleet plan was,already set.

LH wanted to get rid of their last 747-200s in the early 2000s as fast as possible. The A340-600 was a perfect replacement for them, and since LH already used the A340 fleet extensively, they could easily integrate them into their fleet planning.

This also allowed MUC to continue to be a Airbus-only airport for Long-haul operations, while allowing growth at the same time.

However, I remember a quote from the LH CEO in the early 2000s where he said "if the 777 will become as they say, there will be a pressure on the Prices".

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?

The following post by member Stitch pretty much is the definite answer:

[quote Stitch]
As I understand it, QF's traditional long overwater route structure favored four-engined aircraft, both for performance and passenger safety/convenience (an IFSD did not require a diversion).

As twins proved themselves to be reliable, the "safety/convenience" argument carried less weight compared to the efficiency argument they offered over quads. Therefore, QF started to operate twins on missions to destinations around Asia previously served with quads, but continued to operate quads on the traditional "trunk" routes like North America, South America and Europe.

By the time QF decided to start adding twins, the A330-300 was more efficient than the 777-200 on medium-haul missions and QF didn't really need the extra range the 777-200ER offered, since the long-haul missions were the province of the 747-400 fleet. And by the time the 777-300ER proved herself as such a capable plane, QF already had 12 A380-800s on order with 12 options at favorable pricing and they were expecting to start receiving those A380s in less than three years. So the 777 family just didn't really fit into their route structure.

It's why I am bit hesitant about seeing an A350XWB order. The only real way it makes sense to me is if the A380-800 proves to be a failure for QF in that it offers too many seats and flies at load factors too low to make it efficient and therefore QF needs to purchase something smaller in their place.

And if QF is indeed sticking to a "hub centric" model out of SYD, then it seems to me they should be able to force enough people through SYD to keep those A380-800s at a profitable load factor and therefore the need for the A350XWB just is not there - as it just was not there for the 777

From:

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... 724725/#41
[/Stitch quote]


There really not much left to discuss about the past, now the possibility of future B777 orders is another matter.

Gemuser

No Qantas were not even close to ordering the 77W, Way back I was fortunate enough to sit in on the sales pitch by both Airbus and Boeing when QF invited submissions for A: replace the 767 fleet with a growth model (larger aircraft) and B: replace the ageing 747 fleet. At the time there were still 742's and 743's in the fleet. To replace the 767, Boeing pitched the 764, (15 units) or the 772 (11 units) Airbus offered the A330, with 4x 200 and 9x 300. To replace the older 747's Boeing offered the 744ER and QF ordered 6 units as the first signing of the day. The Second signing of the day went to Airbus for the A330. I overheard JB talking to Dixon I think, "I'm glad we got the Airbus, we could have done it with any of the three but we wanted the A330 in the fleet". Then came the push for the A380, at the time Airbus was searching for launch with 50 orders but only had 38 to date and so pushed hard and QF signed 4 firm and 4 options. Airbus then dangled the carrot with a large discount to the A330 order if they signed for 12 firm A380's and ultimately they did just that. Boeing left happy with 6 744ers on the books and the A380 was officially launched. That is the closest that QF ever came to having the 777 in its fleet. Sure they looked at the 77W and even the 77L but the business case just wasn't there. Remember too that QF was a big customer for the 787 with 60 on order, however the extended delays and profits disappearing didn't put QF in a position to order anything, until quite recently and with the 787 imminent there seems little hope of seeing the 777 anytime soon.

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.

Hey ERJ135, my version of the QF story is slightly different... And comes directly from a Geoff Dixon interview in Australian Aviation magazine. I'm not sure whether the fine details are correct in your version or he magazine's version.... But here goes:
Boeing offered the 767-400ER AND the 777 AND the 747-400ER as a package deal. It was never the 767 OR the 777 for pure domestic.
Dixon said that the A380 was the only absolute certainty to be ordered at the time, and the deal Airbus offered was too good to be true to order the A330s as well as a single replacement for everything wide bodied below 747-400 size, as QF had by then decided to go with Boeing's 747-400ER offering to compliment the A380 and to provide an 'insurance' as such if the A380 suffered developmental delays or was cancelled. For everything else, It boiled down to one airframe (A330) versus two airframes (767-400ER and 777), plus perceived commonality advantages between the A380 and A330 versus none between the Boeing models.
Dixon was quoted as saying that the 767-400ER would've been better suited for the domestic operations and the 777 better suited for international operations, but QF decided that the A330 (and its deep discounting and cockpit commonality advantages with the A380) offered a better 'single plane' solution for domestic and international.
Qantas did come very very close to ordering 777-200ERs in the late 1990s/early 2000s but baulked after foreign exchange rates fluctuated (or something to that effect). The deal under discussion at the time was something like eight firm and six options.
Qantas then almost sealed a deal to lease / possibly buy the five Cathay Pacific 777-200s immediately after Ansett collapsed in 2001. This deal was quite advanced when QF pulled out and caused much 'disappointment' at Cathay Pacific. At the time, QF was trying to up capacity to absorb the traffic from Ansett ceasing to fly while Cathay, like almost every other airline in the world, was contracting capacity due to September 11. The fallout from the failed deal was I believe, one of the reasons for the ongoing coolness between the two airlines. I have this information first hand from someone close to me who was involved in the planning to introduce the type into the QF fleet at short notice.
Geoff Dixon was quoted in the Australian media upon retirement as saying that he regretted QF not buying the 777 in hindsight, but at the time, QF studies repeatedly said that the then current fleet plans eliminated the need for the type in the QF fleet.
As to QF buying the 777-8 or -9, I have no idea. Alan Joyce has always seemed to highlight the ULH ability of the -8, and seemed quite interested in it, but with him lately highlighting the A350 as much, I reckon it's 'game on'....
Personally, I hope the 777-8 gets the nod.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

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.

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:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

The senior skippers in LH held sway for a long time, and they didn't fancy crossing oceans on 2 engines. It may sound implausible, but that was one of - if not the - main reason why LH didn't jump on the 777 wagon. And we're talking the original A and ER models here. By the time those elderly gentlemen had retired, or had a minor change of opinion, LH was already deep into the A346. Which, let's not forget, is a perfectly capable aircraft which will make money for a well-run airline, using it the way it was intended: As a slightly lower capacity 747-200.

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.

Not just the A346. LH had already committed to the A340 platform back in 1986, before there was a 777. The movement to increase ETOPS to beyond 90 minutes only started some time in 1985 but it was only a few years later that it became widely acceptable. Too late for the A340 and for any airline that had already made a long term commitment to it.

jfk777 wrote:

While Lufthansa itself does not fly 777 some of the LH Group airlines do, Austrian and now SWISS fly them.

LH has ordered and has been flying cargo 777's for quite some time.

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.

The widebody twins overall and the evolution of ETOPS specifically, are responsible for the ending of the quads and trijets, regardless of manufacturer. The 767/A300/A310 ended the DC-8/707, the A330/B777 ended the A340/L1011/DC-10/747. And there's a very good chance that the 779/A350-1100 will end the A380.

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.

Even if you take all ordered 777-300ER against the A340-600, you do not get to 9 to 1.

mjoelnir wrote:

Even if you take all ordered 777-300ER against the A340-600, you do not get to 9 to 1.

Oh silly me, it's closer to 8-to-1.... it only outsold its competitor by 8 times over, instead of 9.

Hmm, well I guess that COMPLETELY changes the nature of how badly it obliterated its competition.

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).

Australia was one of the last countries to adopt such a long ETOPS rating. Even EDTO (as it is now called) 180 still would cause problems for SYD-DFW and make SYD-SCL and SYD-JNB impossible. So it comes down to why would Qantas order an aircraft that can't operate all of the flights that it needs to. With CASA now allowing 330min EDTO the 787 and A350 become viable aircraft for these routes.

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.

When LH committed to the A340 program, fuel costs weren't as much of a concern hence their fleet renewal with larger four engined aircraft. When the A346 and 77W evaluation came along, initially performance was expected to very similar and LH felt it would be better to add a derivative rather than a new fleet.

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.

Actually as I remember it the regulatory situation wasn't that simple. One of the main reasons CASA was so reluctant for extended EDTO was the opposition of the senior QF pilots and the senior staff within CASA Flying Ops, and where did most of such staff come from? QF, of course.

Also I think you are over stating the regulatory effects on QF networks. At EDTO 180 [which was approved] North America, Europe & Asia are all do able with just minor adjustments. South Africa would be more difficult, but do able, South America would have been impossible of course, but at the time we are talking about South America with a twin would not have been a serious consideration. So IMHO it all came down to the economic outcomes allowing for the slight [except South Africa] extra costs and QF inherent conservatism about operational matters [IMHO more power to that conservatism!] .

Of course things did officially change last year, I do wonder how easy it's going to be to actually implement it.

Gemuser

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.

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:

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.

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.

Would the 777-8 work with QF?

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.

My first post... please be gentle!

LH joint venture with DHL also operates 8 777F under the aerologic brand.

-----------

Flying for 40 (!) years now - Have an inactive ATP, however an active PPL - Lurking around here for 10+ years

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.

Boeing778X wrote:

Would the 777-8 work with QF?

Work for QF I don't know, but they are looking at it ...

http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-consider ... 350-900ulr

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.

If you read the post after yours, you find Alan Joyce's opinion:

"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."

It's an exciting future for QF!

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.

But I'm sure that's just because Boeing put together a really good marketing case.

Why did LH and QF never order? I think it just came down to timing and differences in strategy. Such is life.

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.

I'm not downplaying the success of the B777-300ER, but others shouldn't downplay the success of the A330-300. For an aircraft to enter service in 1994, and still be in production, and as popular as ever 22 years later is absolutely remarkable. It has absolutely smashed the B777-200ER out of the water in recent years. For what Airbus lost in the B777-300ER/A340-600 game, they made up for in the A330-300/B777-200ER game.

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.

It was more due to:

1) Age of the 744 fleet and superior 773ER economic performance.

2) inferior A346 economic performance

3) A380 size and subsequent market risk.

If the 773ER was IBM, what competing airplane was an analog to Apple?

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.

.

I am not sure we can count 77W as a peer for A330-300. 777-200ER is the one that should be compared against A330-300 as they have more similar capacity and capabilities. In that case, A330 managed to sell more even though they have been available for roughly the same time.

Regarding the model that has thoroughly out-classed its peers, A321 vs 737-900 has come to my mind. (Also NEO vs MAX-9 versions)

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.

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. 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.

SYD-SFO is doable with the A330-200. They could have explored many longer rates routes with the A330-200 if they wished to. SQ and TG didn't originally have the all C configuration, at first SQ had C64 Y117 before changing to C100. TG was never in an all J (it was C60 W42 Y113). QF have also had the 787 since 2013 (granted, later than we're talking) but they chose to send those to Jetstar rather than mainline.

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.[/quote]

SYD-SFO is doable with the A330-200. They could have explored many longer rates routes with the A330-200 if they wished to. SQ and TG didn't originally have the all C configuration, at first SQ had C64 Y117 before changing to C100. TG was never in an all J (it was C60 W42 Y113). QF have also had the 787 since 2013 (granted, later than we're talking) but they chose to send those to Jetstar rather than mainline.