Boeing planning a non-stop London-Sydney 777 test flight

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 11 Mar 2005, 12:37

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co ... 49,00.html

boeingnl · Post by **boeingnl** » 11 Mar 2005, 13:07

That's quite a distance... Saves a lot of time, NON-stop...

Post by **speedbird1** » 11 Mar 2005, 13:58

Good stuff for Boeing! How long would the flight time be then?
Also I bet Singapore and Dubai are pleased all those fees they are missing out on...!

Emirates

Knight255 · Post by **Knight255** » 11 Mar 2005, 17:17

Perhaps I missed this in the article, but could they make the flight with a full pax./fuel load and very bad headwinds???

Post by **speedbird1** » 11 Mar 2005, 17:28

I thought about the headwinds too, when I flew from KL to Sydney a few moths back, the flight was about an hour longer on the way to SYD than the way back.
I guess we'll soon find out after the tests.

Emirates

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 11 Mar 2005, 18:12

Travelling west from Melbourne or Sydney the 777-200LR would need a stop, but could fly Perth-London and London-Perth non-stop.

KT

website-info · Post by **website-info** » 11 Mar 2005, 18:14

mmm Perth-London, London-Perth very useful that given the only 2 orders are from PIA, maybe they plan new routes Karachi to UK via Perth

Tony

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 11 Mar 2005, 18:39

Knight255 wrote:Perhaps I missed this in the article, but could they make the flight with a full pax./fuel load and very bad headwinds???

Yes it will eventually be done with passengers and cargo on board. But the plane will have additional fuel tanks in the cargo hold. (it's all in the article

)

Going farther, quicker, higher etc... is great but there is a limit in my opinion. Being on a flight from Perth to London would be too much I think.
I even find the 18hour SQ A345 flights too long. But that's just my 2 cents.

Chris

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 11 Mar 2005, 19:08

Peter Gregg is in Seattle next week to discuss future plans for Qantas, they are looking at both the 777LR and 787.

That would be a BUM buster of a flight for sure.

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 11 Mar 2005, 21:39

They ought to have an onboard swimming pool and other amenities on such long flights!