Agree that this is an absolute must-win for the 778.
With respect, why does it have to be a "must win"?
I'd stated that primarily with market confidence in the platform, in mind.
But I don't think they like the -8 that much.
...despite the lack of any official corroboration for that speculation.
And Boeing still have to improved the -8 capability to meet project sunrise demand.
You say that as if it's somehow Boeing's, and not Airbus', original offer that's been publicly rejected by QF-- when in reality, the inverse is true.
Which is still in drawing board.
Which gives them quite a bit of flexibility in adjustments......
Meanwhile, Airbus is all in with SQ and their A359ULR.
You mean, the only airline on the planet who's opted for that variant?
B778 on the other hand, just gonna ended up like B772LR
Since you're playing psychic, might I inquire as to the next Breeder's Cup winner?
few operated it, and most are gone.
Which is, of course, an utter falsehood.
The only 77L-operating airline to completely divest of that variant is EY.
DL, EK, QR, AC, AI, PK, ET, etc still operate them in their fleet.
Just like A345.
Where do you get this stuff?
B778 and B779 wouldn't give them the freedom to operate to cities like Rio or Capetown.
That's not a fact, that's just pure conjecture on your part.
Well the fact that Qantas doesn't have any B778 on orders kind of speak for itself, don't you think?
According to Boeing's own info the current range for B778 is 8,700 nautical miles. SYD-LHR distance is 9186 nautical miles, SYD-JFK is 8642 nautical miles. And of course, this is only a distance for the most direct routes. Taking weather, payload, the amount of fuel needed for diversions into considerations, we can all see that the standard B778 doesn't have enough range for it.
Of course Boeing is in talk as well in Qantas to improved B778 capability to meet Project Sunrise demand, but until now, it's still in the drawing board.
And of course Qantas has rejected both Airbus offer of A359ULR, that's why Airbus come up with A351ULR in the first place. But I don't see how any of this make any differences. If Qantas said no to the first proposal, doesn't mean they gonna rejected further proposal as well. Seems like you're making a wrong assumptions regarding my previous comment.
When I said flexibility, I'm referring to passengers capacity and commonality with the smaller model of A359. As I mentioned in previous comment, A359 and A351 combo would give them flexibility on operating routes to more cities because of the smaller capacity. While A351 have similar capacity to B778. A359 capacity is closer to B772ER. In order to operate B778 and B779, they have to make sure there is enough demand for it without sacrificing any frequency.
And did you know Airbus made it possible to convert the ULR version to the standard version for A350? This is another flexibility that Qantas could anticipate if the Ultra long haul flights fail. They could convert A359ULR back to the standard version. We presume, something similar would happen to the A351ULR as well.
And yes, Singapore airlines is the only one who operated A359ULR, doesn't mean that Qantas won't, I just don't understand why you think this would reduce the probability, especially since nobody order or operate the modified B778 yet.
I can't tell who's goona be the next Taylor Swift. But I could tell you who is the current Azealia Banks: A319neo, B737MAX7, A330-800neo and B777-8X.
All subject to change of course.
My bad, I mean A345, not B772LR. Most are gone. Only few actually operated it.
Well of course it was, but I don't think they could sustain Rio and Capetown with B778 don't you think. In fact, I would dare to say they would prefer B789 capacity instead of A359 or A351. Otherwise they have to sacrifice frequency or offer discounted ticket to fill up the demand.
Last edited by ewt340
on Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.