Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest F4PhantomRAAF2

Qantas should have bought the 777-200LR

Recommended Posts

Honestly I think Qantas would be better off with the 777-200LR than 'waiting' for the 787. The 777 is a wider aircraft and I think its nicer even than the 787. The 787 will be good at replacing the 767. I guess everyone is going like the US Defence Department these days, thinking a F-35 all in one will fix everything (massive delays and will it it ever get off the ground, apart from being a single engine fighter!). The 787 won't be either.http://travel.usatod...aa-dfw/139103/1If Qantas had bought 12-18 772LRs a few years back they would be in a winning position now. The 747 is a beautiful aircraft, but unless Qantas use it on the Cathay route or Singapore route, there is no point. The A380 is replacing the 747 and Dallas is just too far. Maybe keep 4 747s (like the 767s) for domestic use like Japan does. Fly in between Perth and Sydney, will be a gap filler in case of sports events etc and seasonal holidays.The A330 really has taken the lead in the Asian regional market, but the 777 is gradually clawing its way back on the competition. Malaysia flies its 777 into Perth now, but who is to say it don't go back to the A330 in winter?In Perth, almost every single International flight is an A330-300. Even Qantas. Why not fly the 747 to Tokyo and 'connect' it with other AA flights? While doing that comfortably Qantas can use 772LRs to fly to Dallas FW direct return without stopping in Brisbane.It is good they are flying to New York with the 747, but is it a game winner? Would it be better to have a AA777 to take tired passengers to NY in comfort?It seems like most airlines keep their birds close to home these days. I was told that Qantas are making their income from the domestic market in Australia, not International flights. That was the day before the A380 'popped' its engine.Daniel M

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I think you'll see Qantas keep its 744ERs (the only airline with 'em) for quite some time yet on international routes. Can't really see the merit of have an extended range 744 employed on the YMML-YSSY-YBBN shuttle.And doesn't the comfort in the back depend mostly on the airline's fit out? A big comfy chair with plenty of in-flight entertainment is as nice in a 744 as in a 772. Also, could a 772LR actually fly across the Pacific and stay within ETOPS restrictions? There's a lot of water between Fiji and the US west coast! :( I think the fleet managers at Qantas know what they're doing. If they wanted to swap some 789 orders for 772s I'm sure Boeing would be more than happy to oblige, and at a pretty good price too. Might even throw in a couple 747-:('s at a bargain price just to sweeten the deal (and get some badly needed orders for this bird) and take some attention off Qantas' A380s. Cheers, SLuggy

Share this post


Link to post

Yep that is true. The comforts in the cabin have absolutely nothing to do with Boeing or Airbus but is based on what each airline orders for their fleet. Many airlines like Air Canada have the same cabin interior on their Airbus and Boeing aircraft. It is the same with buses and other mass transit items. City of Toronto will outfit a bus with black and red interior and forward facing seats and the City of New York oufits the same bus with blue and yellow interior and more sideways facing seats.Bombardier makes trains and subways with different interiors for each customer as well. So when someone says the Boeing they were on was really cramped it has nothing to do with Boeing as it is the airline to blame. So next time you are on a Ryanair, don't blame Boeing for your discomfort, blame Michael O'Leary :(

Share this post


Link to post
Yep that is true. The comforts in the cabin have absolutely nothing to do with Boeing or Airbus but is based on what each airline orders for their fleet. Many airlines like Air Canada have the same cabin interior on their Airbus and Boeing aircraft. It is the same with buses and other mass transit items. City of Toronto will outfit a bus with black and red interior and forward facing seats and the City of New York oufits the same bus with blue and yellow interior and more sideways facing seats.Bombardier makes trains and subways with different interiors for each customer as well. So when someone says the Boeing they were on was really cramped it has nothing to do with Boeing as it is the airline to blame. So next time you are on a Ryanair, don't blame Boeing for your discomfort, blame Michael O'Leary :(
The Boeing 747-400 is a nice ride on Qantas I admit, but in this day of competition, why not fly it direct with a 772LR from Sydney to Dallas. While its true the airline chooses its fit outs, I have been on the CPA 773s and they are more comfortable (wider) than the SQ 772s. With an 772LR I assume Qantas would go the comfy Long Distance option (sensible when your competitors are ANZ and Virgin Australia and United/Delta and they all have 777s) and the benefit would be you get to where you are going faster, and in one hop. Air Canada flies its 772LR from Toronto to Sydney direct. I assume a 772LR would make it no problems to Dallas. (Air New Zealand flies a 772ER from Aukland to LAX)The thing is not many airlines (apart from EK) are flying their huge birds so far away from home (except to London for most MAJOR carriers-but even United fly a 772 to London). Because Dallas is so far away it makes sense.But maybe Qantas wants an excuse to keep its 747s flying. Mind you, I love the 747 a lot, it is a wonderful aircraft to fly. But after being on the 777s and seeing the amount of A330s populating Asia and even the US, it is becoming apparent that a smaller bird with comfort can do the job. Remember, you need to have the numbers to make it work. I assume Qantas will not mind flying a half empty Jumbo between LAX and DFW. AA will fill some seats, and maybe some new deals (and Oprah's advertising not that I find it good-but its generally good for Oz tourism) will get the birds some $. As I said, Qantas makes its money domestically, and is not like a diseased JAL requiring continuous Government bailouts. So they have some room to gamble. And maybe they are restructuring because they cannot fly the A380s to LAX? Anyone thought of that?Just fly the 747s to LAX and turn 'em round, and fly the 772s to DFW and JFK. AA can pick the domestic route up then with Qantas selling seats on AA flights. It sounds better because board an AA flight in Charlotte and go to DFW (example) then go direct to Sydney! How good is that! But the current regime is you would be lumbered with a stop in LAX. The plus side is the 772s are a reliable (but expensive to acquire) bird. Once you sit in a 777 you don't want anything else.Edit:One more bit of food for thought. JAL was the biggest operator of the 747 yet is now totally retiring them. I think this says something. Especially when Japan has so many outbound tourists.Singapore Airlines has about 7 Jumbos (down from 27) while Cathay still maintains its fleet.In any case, I hope the accountants in Qantas keep a close eye on ops to the South West and New York. People in New York generally don't go direct to Australia (so begs the question why a 747 on the route?-possible to cover for the A380 engine stuff up). Because Australia doesn't have a huge population, I think a large size aircraft is not feasible unless it is used frequently on a route like LAX, Singapore, Hong Kong, Bangkok etc etc. Put the 747s into Asia from YSSY, and the A380s to London from Asia.Daniel

Share this post


Link to post

Try sitting in an A380! Excellent!Peter Sydney Australia

Share this post


Link to post
Try sitting in an A380! Excellent!Peter Sydney Australia
Hi Pete,The A380 is a nice aircraft, but I still think it is still going through a proving process. The engines (Trent 900s) are a good example. I was not comfortable after take off on Singapore's bird, yet I always love flying and never have had a problem in the sky! The A380 to me isn't as trustworthy as a 777.Qantas cannot use the A380 on the LAX route right?Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Qantas cannot use the A380 on the LAX route right?Daniel
I believe they restarted the A380 YSSY/YMML - KLAX flights a couple of weeks ago. Does anyone smarter than me (which would mean most of you :( ) know if any breed of 777 can fly the Fiji - US sector and remain within ETOPS requirements? I've got a hunch they couldn't, even tho range may not be an issue.Cheers, SLuggy

Share this post


Link to post
I believe they restarted the A380 YSSY/YMML - KLAX flights a couple of weeks ago. Does anyone smarter than me (which would mean most of you :( ) know if any breed of 777 can fly the Fiji - US sector and remain within ETOPS requirements? I've got a hunch they couldn't, even tho range may not be an issue.Cheers, SLuggy
I stand corrected, apparently with ETOPS207 the route is JUUUUUST do-able.Cheers, SLuggy

Share this post


Link to post
I stand corrected, apparently with ETOPS207 the route is JUUUUUST do-able.Cheers, SLuggy
That may be a problem with the 772ER but I think the 772LR would have little problem satisfying ETOPS.

Share this post


Link to post

I will also admit the 747-400 is my favourite and as I am posting this I am at a gate waiting to board an Air New Zealand 747-400 :( We board in the next 10 minutes so I was bored and decided to see what was happening in the old AVSIM :( I prefer the 747-400 to the new 777 so I will fly these while I still can

Share this post


Link to post
I will also admit the 747-400 is my favourite and as I am posting this I am at a gate waiting to board an Air New Zealand 747-400 :( We board in the next 10 minutes so I was bored and decided to see what was happening in the old AVSIM :( I prefer the 747-400 to the new 777 so I will fly these while I still can
After you enter a Cathay 777-300 through their business class (not first class) you won't want to see another 747, ever.They are so spacious and roomy. That is why there is an upper deck on the new 777s which are large crew rest areas.Air Canada is another airline that have replaced their 747s with the 777-300ERs.

Share this post


Link to post
After you enter a Cathay 777-300 through their business class (not first class) you won't want to see another 747, ever.They are so spacious and roomy. That is why there is an upper deck on the new 777s which are large crew rest areas.Air Canada is another airline that have replaced their 747s with the 777-300ERs.
I've flown an Air Canada and an Air New Zealand 777's. I liked them, but I've never flown the Cathay Pacific yet.The reason why I like the Air New Zealand 747's so much is I've been flying on those fairly regularly since the late 1980's. It is nostalgic for me like how some folks love an old Mustang or something like that.For the record it was a fantastic flight other then the two goofs sitting behind me that got drunk on their duty free booze. They were arrested when we arrived. But that is something the airline can't help. Other then that another great flight in the old 747 :(

Share this post


Link to post

The majestic 744 is being phased-out for passenger service for, what else, economic reasons, specifically fuel cost. The design factors that make the 744 old are:

  1. Too-high cruise requiring excessive wing sweep of 37.5º (makes wings heavier) as the 744 design dates from a time when the Speedbird (Concorde) still "reigned supreme" and everybody else better speed-up to as close as possible to just under Mach 1.0.
  2. Four engines (excessive weight due to low intake-area to engine casing ratio and due to pylon weight, and excessive drag, again due to low intake area to engine casing ratio) because more powerful engines were not available at the time the 744 was designed.
  3. Poor engine fuel efficiency due to low air bypass ratio as compared to today's engines (higher bypass engines cannot be installed due to runway clearance (FOD) restrictions).

So the 744s are going to freight and being replaced by the 772LR (31.6º wing sweep), with the Worldliner variant the longest-range commercial aircraft at 9,395 nm (that's 85% to the other side of the World!) with its 3 extra fuel tanks.Eventually the 772 will be replaced by the 789 when...... passengers find-out plastic floats better than aluminum! :-)And of course because the 789 is lighter (32.2º wing sweep), sleeker (notice the more pointy nose and curved windscreens) and best for last, the lower drag raked wingtips (are better at reducing wing-tip vortex: To a certain degree at the wing-tips the airstream flows towards the fuselage, so the raked wing-tip shape is designed to keep the airstream striking the wing leading edge "head-on" i.e. at 90º to the leading-edge.)The 789 is also lighter and cheaper to maintain because forever gone is the engine accessory drive: Only a generator for electric wing and nacelle de-ice and cabin pressurization and A/C (previously all bleed-air) and electric-driven hydraulic pump for those systems still needing hydraulics, like landing gear extension/retraction.789 sporting its Pointy Nose:809259677_fe4621b28e.jpg789 with Raked Wing-Tips:wingsweep.jpgBlue-Fin Tuna (See the Tail):Can do up to 50 knots! With raked Tail-Tips as designed by Mother Nature several million years ago and without the aid of CFD - Computational FLuid DynamicsBluefin%20Tuna.jpgCheers,- jahman.

Share this post


Link to post
The majestic 744 is being phased-out for passenger service for, what else, economic reasons, specifically fuel cost. The design factors that make the 744 old are:
  1. Too-high cruise requiring excessive wing sweep of 37.5º (makes wings heavier) as the 744 design dates from a time when the Speedbird (Concorde) still "reigned supreme" and everybody else better speed-up to as close as possible to just under Mach 1.0.
  2. Four engines (excessive weight due to low intake-area to engine casing ratio and due to pylon weight, and excessive drag, again due to low intake area to engine casing ratio) because more powerful engines were not available at the time the 744 was designed.
  3. Poor engine fuel efficiency due to low air bypass ratio as compared to today's engines (higher bypass engines cannot be installed due to runway clearance (FOD) restrictions).

So the 744s are going to freight and being replaced by the 772LR (31.6º wing sweep), with the Worldliner variant the longest-range commercial aircraft at 9,395 nm (that's 85% to the other side of the World!) with its 3 extra fuel tanks.Eventually the 772 will be replaced by the 789 when...... passengers find-out plastic floats better than aluminum! :-)And of course because the 789 is lighter (32.2º wing sweep), sleeker (notice the more pointy nose and curved windscreens) and best for last, the lower drag raked wingtips (are better at reducing wing-tip vortex: To a certain degree at the wing-tips the airstream flows towards the fuselage, so the raked wing-tip shape is designed to keep the airstream striking the wing leading edge "head-on" i.e. at 90º to the leading-edge.)The 789 is also lighter and cheaper to maintain because forever gone is the engine accessory drive: Only a generator for electric wing and nacelle de-ice and cabin pressurization and A/C (previously all bleed-air) and electric-driven hydraulic pump for those systems still needing hydraulics, like landing gear extension/retraction.789 sporting its Pointy Nose:809259677_fe4621b28e.jpg789 with Raked Wing-Tips:wingsweep.jpgBlue-Fin Tuna (See the Tail):Can do up to 50 knots! With raked Tail-Tips as designed by Mother Nature several million years ago and without the aid of CFD - Computational FLuid DynamicsBluefin%20Tuna.jpgCheers,- jahman.

Good post. But the 'plastic' has caused a few problems, especially with the wings? They are not plastic are they?Carbon Fibre has proven to be disastrous on the F/A-18s. A bird that cannot even do Mach 2 has had all sorts of problems with its CF.Myself Iwould stick to the traditional Aluminium until any problems get found on the 789s. I waited a while on the A380 and it still had problems. Unproven technology will always be a wait and see. The Boeing 747 was already proven by the 707. And for almost 50 years the 747 has been a good very easy to fly and trustworthy bird.Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Good post. But the 'plastic' has caused a few problems, especially with the wings? They are not plastic are they?Carbon Fibre has proven to be disastrous on the F/A-18s. A bird that cannot even do Mach 2 has had all sorts of problems with its CF.Myself Iwould stick to the traditional Aluminium until any problems get found on the 789s. I waited a while on the A380 and it still had problems. Unproven technology will always be a wait and see. The Boeing 747 was already proven by the 707. And for almost 50 years the 747 has been a good very easy to fly and trustworthy bird.Daniel
Thanks, Daniel! :-)The 789's wings are mostly carbon fiber. The CF gives the wings the torsional rigidity necessary to keep the raked wingtips from twisting the wing (thus altering angle of attack of the outer panels) with disastrous results (i.e. high-speed wing aeroelastic flutter). See this
!My main concern with CFRP - Carbon-Fiber Reinrced Polymer, is delamination from lightning: Gone is the aluminum skin covering everything, so gone is the Faraday Cage! Now the electrical conductors (carbon fibers) sit inside the plastic: As lightning hits the carbon fiber vaporizes and explodes the plastic, significantly weakening the structure, similar to when lightning hits a tree, vaporizes the water in the veins and the wood explodes. Then after your aircraft disintegrates in midair, it's still 6 miles down to the ocean. Then after you make it to the water, if you survie, there's still sharks! And if the sharks don't get you, there's always hypothermia. And if the hypothermia doesn't get you, you still have to swim 3,000 nm to the nearest continent! :-)Cheers,- jahman.

Share this post


Link to post
Thanks, Daniel! :-)The 789's wings are mostly carbon fiber. The CF gives the wings the torsional rigidity necessary to keep the raked wingtips from twisting the wing (thus altering angle of attack of the outer panels) with disastrous results (i.e. high-speed wing aeroelastic flutter). See this
!My main concern with CFRP - Carbon-Fiber Reinrced Polymer, is delamination from lightning: Gone is the aluminum skin covering everything, so gone is the Faraday Cage! Now the electrical conductors (carbon fibers) sit inside the plastic: As lightning hits the carbon fiber vaporizes and explodes the plastic, significantly weakening the structure, similar to when lightning hits a tree, vaporizes the water in the veins and the wood explodes. Then after your aircraft disintegrates in midair, it's still 6 miles down to the ocean. Then after you make it to the water, if you survie, there's still sharks! And if the sharks don't get you, there's always hypothermia. And if the hypothermia doesn't get you, you still have to swim 3,000 nm to the nearest continent! :-)Cheers,- jahman.
Even a 100 nm swim wouldn't be very nice. Even 20nm can make your skin so soft its quite easy to tear it off.........I think we can call this the 'green rush to block drilling'. Why? Well if we allowed drilling for oil without regulation, our fuel would probably cost around 20-30 cpl (not including stupid Government taxes!!!). The whole of Alaska's North slope is locked up so the enviro-##### can feel 'happy'.I would prefer less environmental controls and more safety as in aluminium airframes and wings!!I will stick to the 777s.Mind you I would love to see what a refitted 767 (2-3-2 in economy) would be like, if they could raise the height of the cabin a bit. But the 777 is so nice. I don't think the 789 is as wide as the 777 either.Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Even a 100 nm swim wouldn't be very nice. Even 20nm can make your skin so soft its quite easy to tear it off.........I think we can call this the 'green rush to block drilling'. Why? Well if we allowed drilling for oil without regulation, our fuel would probably cost around 20-30 cpl (not including stupid Government taxes!!!). The whole of Alaska's North slope is locked up so the enviro-##### can feel 'happy'.I would prefer less environmental controls and more safety as in aluminium airframes and wings!!I will stick to the 777s.Mind you I would love to see what a refitted 767 (2-3-2 in economy) would be like, if they could raise the height of the cabin a bit. But the 777 is so nice. I don't think the 789 is as wide as the 777 either.Daniel
Delta flies their 777-200LR into Sydney from LAX.Daniel

Share this post


Link to post