A further fleet acquisition in the works?
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=3780
Qantas eyeing 747-8 & 777LR
Moderator: Latest news team
Qantas eyeing 747-8 & 777LR
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
I believe that 777-200LR non-stop flights between Australia and London in both directions are possible for all but the winter months when the easterly headwinds reduce an aircraft's range in the Australia to London direction. Non-stop is possible in both directions between London and Australia year round.
Only during the winter months would a 777-200LR have to stop to refuel (about 1 hour lost) in the westerly direction; the return trip would be non-stop. This assumes a full load of passengers (200+). If Quantas reduced the passenger load to about 120 passengers, non-stop flight is possible in both directions year-round, but a light passenger load would require a hefty fare premium to make up the lost revenue.
In any event, the 777-200LR makes sense for Quantas since:
(1) It allows round-trip non-stop for most of the year with a good payload,
(2) Only during a few months would a 1 hour refueling stop be necessary,
(3) It permits a number of other long distance non-stop flights
(4) The plane has an excellent dispatch and reliability record
(5) The 777 series is a throughly modern aircraft with low maintenance and fuel costs - it saves money.
Only during the winter months would a 777-200LR have to stop to refuel (about 1 hour lost) in the westerly direction; the return trip would be non-stop. This assumes a full load of passengers (200+). If Quantas reduced the passenger load to about 120 passengers, non-stop flight is possible in both directions year-round, but a light passenger load would require a hefty fare premium to make up the lost revenue.
In any event, the 777-200LR makes sense for Quantas since:
(1) It allows round-trip non-stop for most of the year with a good payload,
(2) Only during a few months would a 1 hour refueling stop be necessary,
(3) It permits a number of other long distance non-stop flights
(4) The plane has an excellent dispatch and reliability record
(5) The 777 series is a throughly modern aircraft with low maintenance and fuel costs - it saves money.
-
chornedsnorkack
- Posts: 428
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
Well, they now fly the route with B747-400.vc-10 wrote:It has always been QANTAS (Caps because it is a shortening).
I hope QANTAS get some, and fly LHR-Perth etc. I soubt they would use them on the LHR-sydney route, it is too popular, and they have the A380 for that.
If they replace a few of their B747-400 flights with A380, with the same times, they would get a number of extra seats for each upgraded flight. So, it has been suggested that they might replace other flights with Boeing 777-200LR nonstops - so they would have the same number of total flights and seats.
big roundoff
the problem with really big airplanes such as A380 is that it gives airlines very litte flexibility due to the large Increments.
in other words, as soon as you get a few more people than fit on the airplane, you have a hard time finding enough to fit another increment (another A380). so you lose those extra passengers. or if you get them on another A380, you have too few on that plane to be profitable.
that's why they need to have a mix of A380 and smaller planes (like 787, 777LR) to fill those increments flexibly.
that's why the 767 came to dominate the North Atlantic in the age of the 747. it just offered the airlines more flexibility to scale the seats they offered more incrementally. and to get more flight times to accommodate different preferences of the flying public rather than just a few flight times. so all the airlines can offer a variety of times, which is so important especially for business people.
in my view, the next step up is the 777, 787 and 747-8 and these will dominate, with the A380 being relegated to shuttling passengers on the truly dense routes.
if i was an airline, i'd rather have a bunch of smaller planes than one monster plane that either cannot be filled or can't fill all the passengers.
in other words, as soon as you get a few more people than fit on the airplane, you have a hard time finding enough to fit another increment (another A380). so you lose those extra passengers. or if you get them on another A380, you have too few on that plane to be profitable.
that's why they need to have a mix of A380 and smaller planes (like 787, 777LR) to fill those increments flexibly.
that's why the 767 came to dominate the North Atlantic in the age of the 747. it just offered the airlines more flexibility to scale the seats they offered more incrementally. and to get more flight times to accommodate different preferences of the flying public rather than just a few flight times. so all the airlines can offer a variety of times, which is so important especially for business people.
in my view, the next step up is the 777, 787 and 747-8 and these will dominate, with the A380 being relegated to shuttling passengers on the truly dense routes.
if i was an airline, i'd rather have a bunch of smaller planes than one monster plane that either cannot be filled or can't fill all the passengers.