why no T7 on kangaroo route?

heathrow · Post by **heathrow** » 04 Oct 2005, 19:50

I have my British Airways highlife magazine here with me, and it reads that the T7 has a greater range than the 747. So, If QF flies a 747, why does BA also do this? COuldn't it be better used on another route?

Andries · Post by **Andries** » 04 Oct 2005, 19:56

Maybe because a 747 can accomodate more passengers than a 777 ...
I don't see any other possible reason.

Greetz,

Andries

heathrow · Post by **heathrow** » 04 Oct 2005, 19:59

yes, but i cant believe that 4 flights a day, maybe more, need a 744 on ALL of them.

Andries · Post by **Andries** » 04 Oct 2005, 20:03

I am sure that BA knows what it's doing. If the demand is big enough, I can't imagine them replacing a 747 with a 777, meaning that they also lose some incomes and thus make less profit.

If it would be better (cheaper) for them to deploy a 777 instead of a 747 and still make the same or more profit, I am sure they would if they could !

Don't forget Australia used to be an English colony ...

Greetz,

Andries

heathrow · Post by **heathrow** » 04 Oct 2005, 20:39

of course BA knows what its doing! I wouldnt doubt for a second that a 13 years old had a better opinion on their airline. But there are 5 flights a day. 3 by QF, 2 BA. BA must be able to shift some of their traffic from one of those flights. I just think it might help them out with other routes.

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 04 Oct 2005, 20:54

They certainly put the B747 on that route because of capacity (being pax and/or cargo).

Chris

sab319 · Post by **sab319** » 04 Oct 2005, 21:15

The 747 is used because of the high loadfactors and the fact they don't need the T7's range on the route because it can't fly UK-Australia non-stop either and would have to make a stopover too and since the 2 legs of the flight are ideal to be flown with a 747 they use it...

Humberside · Post by **Humberside** » 04 Oct 2005, 22:08

Theres more than the UK-Australia traffic. There is the UK-Stopover and Stopover-Australia traffic too. This easily warrants B747's. Think how big the LON-BKK or LON-SIN market is alone

Bowlie · Post by **Bowlie** » 04 Oct 2005, 23:29

It isn't simply a question of why don't they put an aeroplane on the route but how many aeroplanes they would need!

Consider LHR-SYD block to block 21h35m. Ground stop at SYD around 8 hours.
SYD-LHR block to block 23h05m Ground stop at LHR around 14 hours.

To operate a daily flight each way you would need a minimum of four aircraft.

With that investment (and remember 5x daily flights mean 20 aeroplanes) I'd operate the biggest suckers I could find.

vc-10 · Post by **vc-10** » 05 Oct 2005, 20:54

The only reason is demand. Australia is a popular destination for people here in England

n5528p · Post by **n5528p** » 07 Oct 2005, 11:36

vc-10 wrote:The only reason is demand. Australia is a popular destination for people here in England

I agree. OS uses the T7 for the VIE - KUL - SYD route, but there is less demand from VIE to SYD, although sometimes the T7 is filled to the last seat.

Regards, Bernhard

lastrow · Post by **lastrow** » 07 Oct 2005, 11:55

hi,
I wondered why nobody has mentioned that Qantas already uses their "Longreach" Jumbos, known as the 400ER version of the 747 which has a basic range of 7670nm - the "original 400" offers 400nm miles less. taking that, the 772ER (7730 with 115 pax less), 773ER (7800 with 50 pax less) do not make much difference in range - Boeing mentions them for the London-Singapore route as well.

Only the 772LR would make the difference - with the penalty of more than 120 pax less.

-lr

PS. Is this true that the 773 has significantly more cargo space than the 774?

Aviation24.be

why no T7 on kangaroo route?

why no T7 on kangaroo route?

How many aeroplanes would you need