New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 158

777ER · Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:05 pm

Welcome to the 158th edition of the New Zealand Aviation Threads.

Link to the previous thread New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157 (by cchan Apr 18 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Gasman · Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:07 pm

Quoting 777ER (Thread starter):
Link to the previous thread New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Thread #157 was heaps of fun. We managed not to resolve:

a) whether WLG should be extended at all
b) if it does get extended, who should pay for it and
c) if there is any credible chance of expanding medium- long haul ops out of WLG.

My answers?

a) - Yes, for existing payload reasons (and to a lesser extent safety and diversion reasons)
b) - 20% taxpayers, 20% ratepayers, 60% Infratil.
c) - Over time, yes, and on niche routes utilising the 789.

Motorhussy · Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:51 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 1):

Quoting 777ER (Thread starter):
Link to the previous thread New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Thread #157 was heaps of fun. We managed not to resolve:

a) whether WLG should be extended at all
b) if it does get extended, who should pay for it and
c) if there is any credible chance of expanding medium- long haul ops out of WLG.

My answers?

a) - Yes, for existing payload reasons (and to a lesser extent safety and diversion reasons)
b) - 20% taxpayers, 20% ratepayers, 60% Infratil.
c) - Over time, yes, and on niche routes utilising the 789.

My answers…
A/ - Yes as above, but also as a diversion option to take the pressure off CHC when AKL is closed by weather/emergency.
B/ - The airport ownership is 2-thirds Infratil, 1-third council so asking Infratil to stump up any amount, the council (and therefore ratepayers) will have to come up with half that. And to accommodate my addition to A/ Central Govt contribution is valid.
C/ - by catering for A/ this will be possible and therefore more probable with next-gen wide bodies.

777ER · Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:36 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 1):
a) whether WLG should be extended at all
b) if it does get extended, who should pay for it and
c) if there is any credible chance of expanding medium- long haul ops out of WLG.

A) Yes. OHA isn't a suitable diversion airport and its obvious most aircraft don't carry enough fuel to reach CHC if the decision to not land at AKL is made not quick enough. Obviously A380/B744 size aircraft would still require OHA as the runway at WLG would never be suitable for a fully loaded aircraft that size. Extending the runway would remove any restrictions for current A320/B738 ops. Extending the runway would allow A321s on domestic with a good load as NZ is considering using them for domestic peak loads.
B) Infratil should be paying their share since they own the airport. Any investment by them would be returned in several ways.
C) Some current medium-long haul aircraft can use WLG like A330s/B763s and to some extent B777s, but the A321LR/A350B787/ would be perfect for opening WLG to any route up to long haul

aerohottie · Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:43 am

I am interested if anyone would know what runway length would be required for A321 or A321LR to operate tasman or pacific flights with a full pax load from WLG?
With A320s and B738's weight restricted already, I am curious how the A321 would get on.

Gasman · Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:18 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 3):
Obviously A380/B744 size aircraft would still require OHA as the runway at WLG would never be suitable for a fully loaded aircraft that size.

Well this what the discussions that were had in the 19080's were centred around that I alluded to in the last thread. Don't forget that as a diversion airport, the aircraft are well below their maximum landing weight. If extended to 8000', WLG could definitely be a viable diversion option for very large aircraft.

aerorobnz · Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:59 am

ZK-CIE has operated the first 2 days to/from WHK for those interested. I counted 10 passengers disembarking on the cameras at work. I reckon get in quick for the CV580. I reckon ZK-CIC might be a sub if the loads are that light for long.

Motorhussy · Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:38 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 1):
diversion reasons

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 2):
but also as a diversion option

Apologies Gasman, I didn't notice your reference until after I'd clumsily made mine.

zkojq · Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:48 am

I thought this was a nice gesture by Boeing, seen in the Herald this morning:

http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/air-nz...-75-years-2015043015#axzz3YnAQlPVv

It appears that there were two return 787 services to Sydney today. Where did they get the schedule time? Was a Perth flight operated by a 777 instead?

aerorobnz · Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:15 pm

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 8):
It appears that there were two return 787 services to Sydney today. Where did they get the schedule time? Was a Perth flight operated by a 777 instead?

There was no PER today. NZ103/104 was operated by NZE. NZ105/108 was NZG.

Gasman · Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:51 pm

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 8):
I thought this was a nice gesture by Boeing, seen in the Herald this morning:

Yes very nice - and with no obvious ulterior motive. It's not as though there are any imminent aircraft orders or something.

zkncj · Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:52 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 10):
Yes very nice - and with no obvious ulterior motive. It's not as though there are any imminent aircraft orders or something.

Top up 789 order? they did talk about getting up to an extra 10 last year....

Gasman · Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:49 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 11):
Top up 789 order? they did talk about getting up to an extra 10 last year....

Yeah possibly, and as we know the A350 salesman has been sniffing around......

777ER · Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:25 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 5):

Well yes that is true but WLG won't see them every time one is diverted I would say. Lighter loaded ones yes but not fully loaded ones

Quoting zkncj (Reply 11):

Extra B77Ws have also been quoted by NZs CEO

sunrisevalley · Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:55 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 13):
Well yes that is true but WLG won't see them every time one is diverted I would say. Lighter loaded ones yes but not fully loaded ones

The MLW of a 77W is ~ 251t , on the WLG runway 240t could be put down. I would think on most 77W city pair the weight at the end of the trip would be less than 240t. As an example MEL-AKL TOW would be typically around 238t so after 3 hrs TT the aircraft would be quite a bit less than the max 240t.

777ER · Fri May 01, 2015 12:18 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 14):

I was talking about B744/A380 sized diversions. WLG can certainly handle any B777 aircraft up to the limits for WLG ops

CHCalfonzo · Fri May 01, 2015 12:24 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 14):
The MLW of a 77W is ~ 251t , on the WLG runway 240t could be put down. I would think on most 77W city pair the weight at the end of the trip would be less than 240t. As an example MEL-AKL TOW would be typically around 238t so after 3 hrs TT the aircraft would be quite a bit less than the max 240t.

It's pointless considering MLW, landing distance is not the limiting factor when considering alternates. Field limited TOW will be the defining factor, and this is why WLG does not see more wide body diversions. There is no point diverting to an airfield you can land at and then have to leave all your passengers and cargo behind to take off again.

a7ala · Fri May 01, 2015 12:44 am

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 16):
It's pointless considering MLW, landing distance is not the limiting factor when considering alternates. Field limited TOW will be the defining factor, and this is why WLG does not see more wide body diversions. There is no point diverting to an airfield you can land at and then have to leave all your passengers and cargo behind to take off again.

Actually not right - almost all aircraft could take off from WLG's existing runway with max payload on a short sector to say AKL/CHC given the little fuel they would need. Remember the diverted aircraft just needs to get back to the destination where it was meant to go, not its origin.

CHCalfonzo · Fri May 01, 2015 3:27 am

Quoting A7ALA (Reply 17):
Actually not right - almost all aircraft could take off from WLG's existing runway with max payload on a short sector to say AKL/CHC given the little fuel they would need. Remember the diverted aircraft just needs to get back to the destination where it was meant to go, not its origin.

I didn't say they couldn't take off from WLG, I just pointed out that TOW is likely to be more limiting than LW.

Motorhussy · Fri May 01, 2015 3:33 am

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 18):

Quoting A7ALA (Reply 17):
Actually not right - almost all aircraft could take off from WLG's existing runway with max payload on a short sector to say AKL/CHC given the little fuel they would need. Remember the diverted aircraft just needs to get back to the destination where it was meant to go, not its origin.

I didn't say they couldn't take off from WLG, I just pointed out that TOW is likely to be more limiting than LW.

And of course it will be proportionately lighter due to the offloading of passengers and freight with WLG as final destination.

a7ala · Fri May 01, 2015 3:35 am

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 18):
I didn't say they couldn't take off from WLG, I just pointed out that TOW is likely to be more limiting than LW.

Presumably they would generally need to be able to land at MLW on wet runway particularly to get their pilots to agree to using it but they wouldnt need to take-off with anywheer near MTOW given the very short sector and the ability to distribute passengers by WLG's domestic services if processed @ WLG.

Gasman · Fri May 01, 2015 8:47 am

Quoting A7ALA (Reply 20):
Presumably they would generally need to be able to land at MLW on wet runway particularly to get their pilots to agree to using it

I suspect this is more the issue. To make WLG a published diversion airport for long haul flights with unfamiliar pilots, you'd want more than the existing 6000' runway, even when it is possible to operate within the guidelines. Particularly when CHC is just another 30 minutes down the road.

nascarnut · Fri May 01, 2015 9:52 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 6):
ZK-CIE has operated the first 2 days to/from WHK for those interested. I counted 10 passengers disembarking on the cameras at work. I reckon get in quick for the CV580. I reckon ZK-CIC might be a sub if the loads are that light for long

CIC ended up operating service on Friday morning approx 3 hours late ex AKL due Convair breaking down in AKL.
CIC also operated Saturday service

Gasman · Fri May 01, 2015 10:05 pm

One of the more insightful articles from Grant Bradley

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/aviation/n...cle.cfm?c_id=556&objectid=11442081

So Airbus tells us we're tipped to become a world superpower, we feel great about ourselves and go out and buy a six-pack of A380s??

And just yesterday Boeing place a large "thank-you" ad in the New Zealand Herald. Could it be the manufacturers know something we don't I wonder?

[Edited 2015-05-01 15:08:46]

zkojq · Sat May 02, 2015 12:15 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 10):
Yes very nice - and with no obvious ulterior motive. It's not as though there are any imminent aircraft orders or something.

Regardless of ulterior motives or not, it looked much better than any other ads in the paper. The message was certainly more profound than any of the Herald's journalism in that edition.

Quoting gasman (Reply 12):
Yeah possibly, and as we know the A350 salesman has been sniffing around......

I hope Mr Leahy is successful!

Quoting gasman (Reply 23):

Maybe that's where the extra two 77Ws are coming from; NZ buys three ex Malaysia A380s for the AKL-LAX-LHR-LAX-AKL route which frees up two 77Ws. The thought of not having to go in a 3-4-3 77W would be enough to make me want to fly with NZ to LAX again.

If only.

sunrisevalley · Sat May 02, 2015 1:31 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 24):
The thought of not having to go in a 3-4-3 77W would be enough to make me want to fly with NZ to LAX again.

With respect, how many time have you flown the 77W to LAX in 3-4-3?

777ER · Sat May 02, 2015 1:43 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 23):

Talk about big dreams in that article! I do agree that New Zealand is in a fantastic location to take advantage of connecting traffic from Australia, Asia, Pacific Islands and North/Central/South America, so Airbus are technically correct.
An interesting piece from Airbus which I read in I think yesterdays Dominion Post was that by 2030 Airbus believes there will be an aircraft capable of easily handling AKL-JFK non stop.

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 24):
The thought of not having to go in a 3-4-3 77W would be enough to make me want to fly with NZ to LAX again.

But would you be happy to fly in an 11 across Y cabin on the A380?

Gasman · Sat May 02, 2015 1:50 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 25):
Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 24):
The thought of not having to go in a 3-4-3 77W would be enough to make me want to fly with NZ to LAX again.

With respect, how many time have you flown the 77W to LAX in 3-4-3?

I can't answer for OJQ, but I agree with his sentiments 100%. For me the answer would be once, and that was enough. It was every bit as distasteful as I was expecting. Aisle seat which felt narrow and I was constantly bumped as of course the aisles are too narrow as well as the seats. Also, the overall feeling of claustrophobia in the cabin was immense. The difference between this and 3-4-3 on a 744 (or A380) is like night and day. I will not fly this product again unless there is literally no alternative.

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 24):
Regardless of ulterior motives or not, it looked much better than any other ads in the paper.

777ER · Sat May 02, 2015 2:02 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 27):
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 25):Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 24):
The thought of not having to go in a 3-4-3 77W would be enough to make me want to fly with NZ to LAX again.

With respect, how many time have you flown the 77W to LAX in 3-4-3?
I can't answer for OJQ, but I agree with his sentiments 100%

Fully agree also 100%. NZs 77W fleet being 3-4-3 was for me one of the main reasons why I decided to fly UA to LAX in February. When I last flew NZ to LAX I was sitting at the front of the Y cabin in the 2-4-2 seats thankfully but really didn't like how cramped the rest of the cabin looked.

zkncj · Sat May 02, 2015 5:42 am

If Airbus was to offer an decent deal on the 6x ex MH A380s, they could possibly work on AKL-LAX-LHR-LAX-AKL, and maybe even on AKL-SFO-AKL.

777ER · Sat May 02, 2015 5:58 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 29):

As much as it would be amazing to see NZ with A380s, if NZ was going to go back to twin deck aircraft, then the B748 is more suited to NZ. Sadly this will never happen as the B777s is NZs vehicle of choice.

Gasman · Sat May 02, 2015 6:51 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 30):
As much as it would be amazing to see NZ with A380s, if NZ was going to go back to twin deck aircraft, then the B748 is more suited to NZ. Sadly this will never happen as the B777s is NZs vehicle of choice.

I tried really, really hard to think of reasons why you're completely and utterly wrong but........... I failed.

777ER · Sat May 02, 2015 8:57 am

LAN Airlines may move to direct flights between Sydney and Santiago, skipping the current Auckland stop-over, some time after the airline's new Boeing 787-9 debuts on the route in September.

The South American airline and Qantas partner could also add Melbourne and Brisbane to its Australian map, wih the smaller Boeing 787-8 shuttling passengers to Auckland and then onto Santiago.

http://www.ausbt.com.au/lan-consider...ey-santiago-flight-on-boeing-787-9

zkojq · Sat May 02, 2015 9:25 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 25):
With respect, how many time have you flown the 77W to LAX in 3-4-3?

As someone tall, I'm pleased to say that since the airline's acquisition of 77Ws, I've successfully avoided flying long haul in them.

I've flown them plenty of times across the Tasman though. Four and a bit hours to Melbourne is quite enough.

The trouble now is that with more and more 77Es having the interior 'upgrades' completed, I'm going to have to start avoiding them too. The next tranche of 787s can't come soon enough.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 26):
But would you be happy to fly in an 11 across Y cabin on the A380?

Shhhh, don't give them ideas!

Quoting gasman (Reply 27):
Also, the overall feeling of claustrophobia in the cabin was immense. The difference between this and 3-4-3 on a 744 (or A380) is like night and day.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 29):
If Airbus was to offer an decent deal on the 6x ex MH A380s, they could possibly work on AKL-LAX-LHR-LAX-AKL, and maybe even on AKL-SFO-AKL.

Hypothetically speaking, I couldn't really see them taking more than three. On the other hand, I'm not sure they could be filled Trans-Tasman, so maybe one of the LAX flights would have to be brought forwards to a late morning departure (so as to avoid having the plane on the ground all day). That would make a better connection for the Perth flight. Presumably an additional frame would be needed for this though.

777ER · Sat May 02, 2015 9:44 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 33):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 26):But would you be happy to fly in an 11 across Y cabin on the A380?
Shhhh, don't give them ideas!

Don't think we need to be too concerned at this stage!

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 33):
Quoting zkncj (Reply 29):If Airbus was to offer an decent deal on the 6x ex MH A380s, they could possibly work on AKL-LAX-LHR-LAX-AKL, and maybe even on AKL-SFO-AKL.
Hypothetically speaking, I couldn't really see them taking more than three. On the other hand, I'm not sure they could be filled Trans-Tasman, so maybe one of the LAX flights would have to be brought forwards to a late morning departure (so as to avoid having the plane on the ground all day). That would make a better connection for the Perth flight. Presumably an additional frame would be needed for this though.

Only option there would be NZ6/5 changing and that removes their precious BNE/SYD/MEL and domestic from AKL connections

aerorobnz · Sat May 02, 2015 11:29 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 25):
With respect, how many time have you flown the 77W to LAX in 3-4-3?

Just 3 or 4 times with a couple more to add this month, when either I had no option, or didn't have the time to take the long way back. I am the guy who flies via asia to go to the USA under most circumstances. JFK-NRT-AKL on NH/NZ in 27h or even JFK-FRA-SIN-AKL on SQ is preferable to NZ in 22-24h..

Quoting 777ER (Reply 32):
LAN Airlines may move to direct flights between Sydney and Santiago, skipping the current Auckland stop-over, some time after the airline's new Boeing 787-9 debuts on the route in September.

If that happens I think it likely AKL might keep a direct 788 flight. The decision to go direct after 30 years cost AR dearly, and they had a very capable 342 aircraft too. The benefits are certainly there, but sometimes the higher costs of ULH outweigh that too. LA carry good cargo loads for both SYD and AKL, and top their passenger numbers SYD-SCL with AKL-SCL. The stop still serves a good purpose for LA I think..

777ER · Sat May 02, 2015 11:54 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 35):
via asia to go to the USA under most circumstances. JFK-NRT-AKL on NH/NZ in 27h or even JFK-FRA-SIN-AKL on SQ is preferable to NZ in 22-24h..

How much do those routings normally cost?

aerorobnz · Sat May 02, 2015 12:18 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 36):
How much do those routings normally cost?

A sample fare in Sep. AKL-JFK rtn $3800 vs $2700 on NZ the same days. I usually play with a fare more than just buying a straight rtn fare, but gives you some idea of the sums involved.

Jetstar315 · Sat May 02, 2015 12:20 pm

NZ could take all 6 A380s and use them on AKL-LAX-LHR, AKL-SFO-AKL, AKL-SYD-LAX or AKL-MEL-LAX and AKL-JNB. Yahoo!!

sunrisevalley · Sat May 02, 2015 12:21 pm

The A380 would kill LAX-LHR for NZ in my view . 500 plus seats versus ~ 340 seats . The A380 works for ~ 80% load factors but its low payload as a percentage of MTOW ( ~12.5% versus the 77W at 16% ) makes it a real gas guzzler as the number of occupied seats falls off. With a small fleet an operator needs to have enough sectors that are good for ~ 450 seats each time it is put in the air. EK and SIN with big fleets can smooth the load percentages out.

aerorobnz · Sat May 02, 2015 1:51 pm

The kind of fuel load the a380 used sin-akl is just about identical to 2x 77w and less seats...
The a388 for NZ is the wet dream of someone with no idea of realworld aircraft economics. For NZ the sums are skewed hugely in favour of 77X/77W. The A380 is designed exactly for markets that are the opposite of NZL.

CHCalfonzo · Sat May 02, 2015 2:17 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 40):
The kind of fuel load the a380 used sin-akl is just about identical to 2x 77w and less seats...
The a388 for NZ is the wet dream of someone with no idea of realworld aircraft economics. For NZ the sums are skewed hugely in favour of 77X/77W. The A380 is designed exactly for markets that are the opposite of NZL.

It would not be "about identical" to two 77W, that's just silly. Saying an aircraft which weighs much less than twice a 77W, with similar generation engines to a 77W, requires twice the fuel is absurd. By my back of an envelope calculations the A380 and 77W in SQ configurations should burn roughly the same amount of fuel per seat mile, therefore an A380 is cheaper to operate than two 77Ws when all costs are considered.

I absolutely agree with you that the A380 is not the right aircraft for a NZ based airline due to the dynamics and size of the NZ market, but to insinuate that fuel efficiency is the prime reason is clearly not a valid argument.

sunrisevalley · Sat May 02, 2015 3:52 pm

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 41):
By my back of an envelope calculations the A380 and 77W in SQ configurations should burn roughly the same amount of fuel per seat mile,

I would concur with that with all seats filled. But if load factors are taken into account, as these drop off the 77W fares better than the A380 because of its better payload to TOW ratio. Worth noting an IATA study showed that the engine maintenance cost per year for a wide bodied aircraft with three or more engines was $3.24m and with two engines $2.10m

Planesmart · Sat May 02, 2015 7:23 pm

The possibility of Air NZ ever operating an A380 is extremely remote. The only unlikely possibility, is if EK decided to fly A380's direct to Auckland, and offered Air NZ a QF comparable JV.

mariner · Sat May 02, 2015 7:36 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 40):
The a388 for NZ is the wet dream of someone with no idea of realworld aircraft economics.

I think I have a reasonable grasp of real world airline economics, but I don't see anything wrong with the occasional wet dream.

mariner

Gasman · Sat May 02, 2015 9:02 pm

The economics of the situation - much as I have tried many times to persuade myself otherwise, strongly suggest that the next large aircraft for NZ will be the 778 or 779.

Unless.................. a crtical mass of pax start leaving NZ and flying EK, QF, SQ partly because of their "prestige" image, part of which is conferred by the existence of a VLA in the fleet.

There is no "feel good factor" associated with travelling on a 777. It is an utterly boring tube with wings and only two engines. Patricularly in NZ's config, it doesn't manage to brainwash any passenger into believing they are someone who is going places. The business class product that one day, maybe, the average pax aspires to take a trip on has a privacy-lacking herringbone config which, true to NZ form is still cramped. NZ try and push your buttons with jokesy safety videos, hobbits, and gimmicky skycouches; whereas EK do it with a global network, huge, mysterious looking A380s, a killer entertainment system and the existence of first class showers and suites. My point is that even if you are only flying Y - there is some tangible value in the prestige factor that surrounds you.

This all goes out the window when there is a cost differential of course - no-one is going to pay much more money for some ill defined "legacy factor"; but the point is NZ charge premuim legacy fares. It is almost always possible to travel cheaper to Europe on EK than NZ (and usually also QF and SQ).

So, if NZ one day start not filling their 77Ws as easily as they'd like as another full EK A380 departs AKL, they might start to consider that the economics of an A380 carrying 400 pax beats that of a 77W with only 240.

ZKSUJ · Sat May 02, 2015 9:19 pm

Should have gone with the 748i, nuff said. Small enough to not have the problems of the 388 and big enough to be a big aircraft (what it is, unlike trying to pretend the 77W is) . Fuel economy is good from what I hear. Fleet of up to 10, AKL-LAX-LHR, AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO, SYD-LAX. Posibility of opening up LHR via Asia again if the mindset of managment change again is there with that number. Ahh well, if only...

I personally can see NZ operating twin deck aircraft again, not for quite a while but who's to say with all this growth around the 777 will not become too small (which some would argue it already is with 3-4-3 seating shoved in it to increase seat numbers)

Gasman · Sat May 02, 2015 10:36 pm

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 46):
Should have gone with the 748i, nuff said.

Yes. I was agog when they bypassed the 748i. At the time I thought they must know what they were doing, that they were basing the decision based on economies that I was neither privvy to nor capable of understanding.

However, with the passage of five years or so I am still agog. Transpacific passenger numbers have, if anything, increased since the 744's heyday. At least one person (moi) has been driven away from NZ and the lack of a VLA in the fleet was a contributing factor. Unfortunately now, to switch to the 748i would make less sense than it did 5 years ago.

Mr AirNZ · Sat May 02, 2015 11:08 pm

One must remember to look below the cabin floor to understand why the 77W outclasses both the 748 and A380 for an Air New Zealand type operation. The 77W has the volumetric space and capacity to pile in the freight. 30 tonnes of freight is not uncommon. The other two models discussed simply do not have the space to fit in the freight due to their hull shapes.

It's not my analogy but others on this site have asked why doesn't Boeing build a combi anymore. The answer is they do, it's the 777-300ER. Fill the main deck, fill the holds and go.

ZKSUJ · Sat May 02, 2015 11:24 pm

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 48):
One must remember to look below the cabin floor to understand why the 77W outclasses both the 748 and A380 for an Air New Zealand type operation.

That's a good point. Personally think the 748 and 777 would compliment each other rather than oppose each other in an operation. I understand it's different fleet types though but hey, we have 2 types of 777 with 2 engine types etc... But from purely a uninformed PAX point of view, I'd pick the 747 any day

Anyway, what is a QR 340 doing in AKL?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net