Am I the only person that believes Qantas made a huge blunder by not investing in the Boeing 777 for its fleet? The capacity, range and fuel economy of the Boeing 777 makes it simply unbeatable in its class and would've been a fantastic asset to the world's second-oldest airline.

I certainly like its looks better than the A330's, but from what I gather the 330's pretty close in terms of the economics...

Am I the only person that believes Qantas made a huge blunder by not investing in the Boeing 777 for its fleet? The capacity, range and fuel economy of the Boeing 777 makes it simply unbeatable in its class and would've been a fantastic asset to the world's second-oldest airline.

 

I don't think Qantas needs the 777 in their fleet. They have orders for the 789 which is very comparable to the 777 in terms of range and fuel economy with just a smaller payload. That and the A388 (even though I don't like the looks of her in the least) is also comparable to the 777.

For many of the long haul routes the A380-800 serves Qantas well. For example at EGLL, which is slot restricted, using the 380 makes far better use of the slot than sending a 777-300ER. They know EGLL-YSSY is just at the limit of the range of even the 777-200LR so that does not work and again the 200LR can carry far fewer people. The A330 is a solid aircraft and works well for Australia-Asia flying.

The A330 is pretty good for what Qantas needs especially considering the fact that its a 767, not a 777 competitor and you gotta love the A330 in Qantas colors, the curves on her are gorgeous. While the 777 is a great plane its not a great fit for every airline and I'm sure QF has strongly considered the airplane but decided the 787 and A380 are better suited for their ops.

I remember reading that if Qantas didnt buy the A330 then the airline would have to wait longer for the A380, so Qantas and Airbus made a deal.

i think they should of replaced their A330's (jetstar) and should not have gotten A330's, but 777. Maybe even replace their REALLY EARLY 767's with 772's(ER)

For many of the long haul routes the A380-800 serves Qantas well. For example at EGLL, which is slot restricted, using the 380 makes far better use of the slot than sending a 777-300ER. They know EGLL-YSSY is just at the limit of the range of even the 777-200LR so that does not work and again the 200LR can carry far fewer people. The A330 is a solid aircraft and works well for Australia-Asia flying.

QANTAS, nore any airline fly direct to Sydney from London. Its not possible even with an empty 777-200LR, even Perth is pushing it (though various UK/AUS airlines are showing interest). BA operate the 777 on behalf of QANTAS on most flights to london now with connections in Hong kong or Singapore,

Example: I'm flying to london In December. Perth - HK A330(QANTAS) and HK-Londom 777(BA).

QANTAS, nore any airline fly direct to Sydney from London. Its not possible even with an empty 777-200LR, even Perth is pushing it (though various UK/AUS airlines are showing interest). BA operate the 777 on behalf of QANTAS on most flights to london now with connections in Hong kong or Singapore,

Example: I'm flying to london In December. Perth - HK A330(QANTAS) and HK-Londom 777(BA).

 

Im sure a 777-200LR flew direct Brussels-SYD with fuel to spare, no weight though...

QANTAS, nore any airline fly direct to Sydney from London. Its not possible even with an empty 777-200LR, even Perth is pushing it (though various UK/AUS airlines are showing interest). BA operate the 777 on behalf of QANTAS on most flights to london now with connections in Hong kong or Singapore,

Example: I'm flying to london In December. Perth - HK A330(QANTAS) and HK-Londom 777(BA).

Go look at boeings website, with pax a 200LR can go Between LHR- SYD. It is in its range. Sign your name to, it is a fourm rule.

Go look at boeings website, with pax a 200LR can go Between LHR- SYD. It is in its range. Sign your name to, it is a fourm rule.

 

Well his forum name is his actual name.

Well his forum name is his actual name.

Rules are rules, it still needs to be signed.

Rules are rules, it still needs to be signed.

 

Can we stop with the uneeded moderating here please? His name is there according to the rules. They do not say that a neame needs to be in the post. He is following the rules.

Can we stop with the uneeded moderating here please? His name is there according to the rules. They do not say that a neame needs to be in the post. He is following the rules.

From the rules: "1) ALL USERS MUST SIGN THEIR FULL NAME TO POSTS." :Smug:

From the rules: "1) ALL USERS MUST SIGN THEIR FULL NAME TO POSTS." :Smug:

 

His name is Oliver Cooksey. Show me where it says in either the AVSIM forum rules or PMDG forum rules that prohibits names being used for usernames.