Last 747 reconfig done

[moa999]

A perfect fit for a 777 or 787 I would have thought...

Totally different aircraft.
777-300/300ER -- 74m long - 386-450 pax (3/2 class)
787-800 -- 56m long - 240-260 pax (3/2 class)
data from wikipedia
380-800 -- 73m =u/d - 525-644
747-400 -- 71m +u/d - 416-524
330-300 -- 64m long - 295-335
330-200 -- 59m long - 253-293

The 777 is a massive aircraft that is the two-engined near equivalent of the 747.
The 787 is a much smaller aircraft

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Totally different aircraft.
777-300/300ER -- 74m long - 386-450 pax (3/2 class)
787-800 -- 56m long - 240-260 pax (3/2 class)
data from wikipedia
380-800 -- 73m =u/d - 525-644
747-400 -- 71m +u/d - 416-524
330-300 -- 64m long - 295-335
330-200 -- 59m long - 253-293

The 777 is a massive aircraft that is the two-engined near equivalent of the 747.
The 787 is a much smaller aircraft

True. Perhaps 777 = SIN, 787 = NRT.

 

[mannej]

Don't forget the 772 for arguments sake

 

[ajw373]

Don't forget the 772 for arguments sake

Yep between 310 and 400 depending upon layout, so between an A330-300 and 777-300.

Now ComeFlyWithMe don't take this as a personal attack, but reading this and other boards it really surprises me what people think the mission of a 787 really is. I read it that most people thinks it is going to be the perfect machine for every route. When in fact it is a smallish a/c that is designed as a 767/A300 replacement in terms of capacity but with very long range. Now sure some airlines will fly it long distances on niche routes, but for the most part you will find operators sticking with their 777's or A380's on these routes as they tend to have heavier loads and on lighter loads even with the 787's fuel savings the crew costs will be high per seat. Bit like the issues carriers have had running A340-500 long distances. Also the 787 does not have the space to offer a 4 class layout to the same standards as 777/A380. The 787 however will come into it's own on much shorter routes where frequency can be used to overcome capacity or on thin routes.

I have always maintained that Qantas not ordering the 777 because it was too big for most of their routes was the right decision. The 787 however is the ideal aircraft for Qantas and their Asian aspirations, as well as for some of the longer thinner routes, such as DFW, but alas for the time being Qantas isn't getting them, and even when they were they were primarily slated for domestic 767 replacement. So am really scratching my head on this one.

 

[markis10]

I have always maintained that Qantas not ordering the 777 because it was too big for most of their routes was the right decision. The 787 however is the ideal aircraft for Qantas and their Asian aspirations, as well as for some of the longer thinner routes, such as DFW, but alas for the time being Qantas isn't getting them, and even when they were they were primarily slated for domestic 767 replacement. So am really scratching my head on this one.

I think AJ raising the 777 subject at the AGM was a hint, they have to be looking at a solution given the lead times on the more popular options are long. It's also interesting to watch how much the 777 presence has increased over the last 6 months in Australia, mostly with Asian carriers upgrading their A330 ops!

 

[ajw373]

I think AJ raising the 777 subject at the AGM was a hint, they have to be looking at a solution given the lead times on the more popular options are long. It's also interesting to watch how much the 777 presence has increased over the last 6 months in Australia, mostly with Asian carriers upgrading their A330 ops!

Just because the opposition does it doesn't mean it is right for Qantas. Bearing in mind the opposition come from their home ports that are hubs to elsewhere whereas Qantas is flying more point to point traffic. This is the reason airlines like SQ, CX etc can offer far greater frequency etc on routes than Qantas can ever hope for. However if the traffic was 100% point to point then it would be reasonable for equipment and frequencies to match.