evanb wrote:SonaSounds wrote:So this is still the case then. I've worked on route forecast before for various destinations, and this issue always comes up with twin engine aircraft based in Australia. While it is approved for pretty much the rest of the world it isn't approved down there although for many years I keep hearing it is supposedly about to be approved. SAA doesn't have to follow the Australian ETOPS rules which has always put Qantas and Virgin Australia at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to route cases like this.
Well, not that any of us know for sure, but the general consensus is that it's just a matter of time. Qantas has already published draft schedules of the PER-JNB A332 route so I think the consensus is correct.
Although this article is from 2014 it does express the ETOPS concerns for JNB & Santiago from SYD: http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... or-qantas/
I know this following article is NOT for the engine options QF went with but I wonder if this will raise any concerns with the Australian government changing the ETOPS ratings for twin engine planes: http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/0 ... -concerns/
If the ETOPS rating is not changed, route like SYD-DFW, SYD-JNB, and SYD-SCL would not be possible with a B789. PER-JNB might be doable with a 240min ETOPS A330 as that is about ~1600nm max range and I am not sure the plane ever gets further away than that from land given the GCR is 4,495nm. Would love to see these ETOPS limits finally lifted!