Virgin Australia's first 773ER breathes life....photo incl.

[Jon Harris]

Have to agree about the Y+ seats - nowhere near as good as Virgin Atlantic or QF - but the personal reading light looks good. They look very similar to Air NZ Y+ seats.

The business product looks nice - it should do well. Overall probably a better product offering than QF's J class.

[Shameel Kumar]

Originally Posted by Jon Harris

They look very similar to Air NZ Y+ seats.

Ever since we found out that V Australia would not be an international LCC, I've had that image and impression that VA's offerings would be similar - if not identical - to NZ's. And now we can see that VA's Y and Y+ offerings are nearly identical to NZ's, with their J-class seating being the big suprise by not having the herringbone layout featured on VS, NZ, AC, CX and others.

Does anyone know the seat count for VA's 77Ws, and how it compares with QF's 744ER seat count?
I ask this because I'm wondering whether VA decided to offer fairly 'standard' Y+ seats and deciding against the higher-density herringbone layout for Business as a means of saving some weight. Eventhough the 77W has a greater payload over the 744ER, maybe VA really does want to cash in on the lucrative cargo-hauling market, and considering that the trip to the US westcoast is fairly close to the 77Ws max-range, every bit of extra cargo that can be hauled would be beneficial and profitable.

And another reason why I think VA's keenly focusing on saving weight for additional cargo capacity is because their check-in baggage limit is 25kg per bag, whereas QF and other airlines flying to USA allow 32kg per bag (this limit refers to Economy passengers). So with a 7kg per bag decrease, and guess-timating around 250 Y-class passengers, that's a weight saving of ~3,500kg. No additional revenue carrying 3,500kg in baggage, but definitely extra revenue carrying 3,500kg worth of cargo.


I dunno, ...just a thought.

[Andrew McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by Shameel Kumar

Ever since we found out that V Australia would not be an international LCC, I've had that image and impression that VA's offerings would be similar - if not identical - to NZ's. And now we can see that VA's Y and Y+ offerings are nearly identical to NZ's, with their J-class seating being the big suprise by not having the herringbone layout featured on VS, NZ, AC, CX and others.

Does anyone know the seat count for VA's 77Ws, and how it compares with QF's 744ER seat count?
I ask this because I'm wondering whether VA decided to offer fairly 'standard' Y+ seats and deciding against the higher-density herringbone layout for Business as a means of saving some weight. Eventhough the 77W has a greater payload over the 744ER, maybe VA really does want to cash in on the lucrative cargo-hauling market, and considering that the trip to the US westcoast is fairly close to the 77Ws max-range, every bit of extra cargo that can be hauled would be beneficial and profitable.

And another reason why I think VA's keenly focusing on saving weight for additional cargo capacity is because their check-in baggage limit is 25kg per bag, whereas QF and other airlines flying to USA allow 32kg per bag (this limit refers to Economy passengers). So with a 7kg per bag decrease, and guess-timating around 250 Y-class passengers, that's a weight saving of ~3,500kg. No additional revenue carrying 3,500kg in baggage, but definitely extra revenue carrying 3,500kg worth of cargo.


I dunno, ...just a thought.

I think you'll find Shameel that there won't be much room for cargo after they get 300 odd pax and luggage in - they'll be cramming every litre of fuel into the things to make the Pacific non stop, especially on the west-bound leg!

[Shameel Kumar]

Originally Posted by Andrew McLaughlin

I think you'll find Shameel that there won't be much room for cargo after they get 300 odd pax and luggage in - they'll be cramming every litre of fuel into the things to make the Pacific non stop, especially on the west-bound leg!

Hmm.. good point Andrew.

But what's interesting is the fact that the 77W, when compared to a 744 (non -ER) has a higher max. structural payload, and when focusing specifically on the 6,500nm LAX-SYD route, the 77W maintains its payload advantage.
Then factor in the likely lower seat-count of VAs 77W in comparison to QFs 744s and there's even more weight saved for VA.

In fact, this topic really got me thinking, so I decided to do some research and a few calculations to get a rough idea of how VAs 77W will stack up against QFs 744. Below is a summary of my calculations:



N.B: The negative red figure for the QF 744 at 7,200nm means that 15,134 lbs. would have to be sacrificed from the Total Pax Weight (so about 55 passengers using my weight average of 275lbs.).


First time I've ever tried to do these sort of calculations about aircraft weights and payload and so forth, so I'm bound to have made an error or two. Also, these are very simplified calculations based purely on information from the Boeing and QF websites, no complicated algorithm, so don't crucify me if I'm a bit off. I just decided to do this so as to gain a general idea of the relationship between different weight factors of an aircraft and the route it operates, and to see how the 77W stacks up against the 744.

On the whole though, it seems as though you're right Andrew, VA's 77Ws won't get much cargo in their belly for the long-trip across the Pacific, though it's still clear that the 77W is the more capable aircraft in nearly every aspect - only being beaten by the 744 in seat count of course. Any advantage the QF 744s have in terms of higher yields (due to higher seat count) would be negated by the 77Ws ability to haul more freight...and then where the 77W really pulls ahead of its older sister is in terms of much better fuel-burn, especially on a 13+ hour flight.

No suprise really that VA chose the 777-300ER (not to mention the gazillion other airlines who have put in an order for this gorgeous aircraft!)

[Andrew M]

The Y+ product looks very much like NZ which is OK but NZ's Y+ will be changing in 2010 to be similar to QF

Y+ now needs to be like QF domestic J or like JQ's star class.

Sorry VA but you have missed the mark on the Y+ product and the skybed doesn't do it for me

As for the range of the bird. I am sure VA have done the maths and have a little bit more knowledge than most of us on here

When AC flew the 777-300ER YVR-SYD they blocked around 40 seats or so, in order for the plane to make the distance without a fuel stop. Now they fly the 777-200LR exclusively on this route they can fill her right up. No idea about the cargo loads on these flights though

YVR-SYD 7757 mi
LAX-SYD 7488 mi

[Shameel Kumar]

Originally Posted by Andrew M

The Y+ product looks very much like NZ which is OK but NZ's Y+ will be changing in 2010 to be similar to QF

Y+ now needs to be like QF domestic J or like JQ's star class.

Eventhough I'm not a Y+ flyer, simply adding an extra few inches to legroom, and providing a little extra service here and there is a good concept (as shown by the flying success of NZ's Y+), things do progress, and I agre that with this Y+ offering VA will be left with an inferior premium economy product compared to QF and NZ. Nonetheless, it's slowly becoming apparent that VA will cater more to leisure travels..and also, the fact that at the moment they're only going after established routes where there is more than enough demand, eventhough their Y+ product would be older, they'll still get more than enough passengers in their Y+ cabin.

As for the range of the bird. I am sure VA have done the maths and have a little bit more knowledge than most of us on here

Only a little bit more knowledge.. hmm..

I just did those calculations for my own curiosity.. of course I'm not questioning VA's decisions or anything in that regard.. just an aviation enthusiasts comparison of VAs 77W and QFs 744.

When AC flew the 777-300ER YVR-SYD they blocked around 40 seats or so, in order for the plane to make the distance without a fuel stop. Now they fly the 777-200LR exclusively on this route they can fill her right up. No idea about the cargo loads on these flights though

YVR-SYD 7757 mi
LAX-SYD 7488 mi

It's hard to use that AC 77W flight as a yardstick for evaluating how the 773ER would handle a SYD-USA/Canada westcoast routing.
The thing is though, the 77W has a stated maximum range of 7,930nm miles, while the 747-400 has a stated range of 7,260nm. The thinking I have is, if QF are able to operate to SYD-LAX/SFO with 747-400s which have a lower range than the 777-300ER, then it stands to reason that VA should be able to operate to LAX with even more cargo than the QF 744s do because they can trade that extra range advantage of the 77W into extra cargo. Also, considering the fact that the 777-300ER is 22 percent more fuel-efficient than a 747-400 per payload tonne (as stated in a Boeing press release), VAs 77Ws will be able to carry less fuel, which again means more cargo potential.

But as I said, I'm not trying to create an argument... I was just curious about how the 77W stacks up against a 744 in terms of payload/range (stemming from Andrew McLaughlin's assertion that VA won't have much room for cargo), so I did some research and calculations...and I just thought I'd share it with everyone here. That's all.

Just quickly on that AC 77W exmaple. It's important to know that, AC's 77Ls have a total seatcount of 270, while their 77Ws carry 349 seats (so AC's 77Ws have 30% increase in seatcount). The 77L's length is 63.7m, while the 77Ws is 73.9m (so the 77Ws floor area is 16% greater than the 77L). So it's clear that ACs 77W have an unproportional increase in seatcount and hence weight (of course due to additional economy seats). This unproportional increase is multiplied due more economy passengers leading even more baggage weight, the weight means even more fuel need and so on and so on.... so it's difficult to compare the 772LR and 773ER. The longer distance of YVR-SYD makes it even more difficult to judge how VA's 77W will operate to LAX and back.

Nonetheless, very fascinating delving into all these numbers and comparing aircraft!

[Andrew McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by Shameel Kumar

Just quickly on that AC 77W exmaple. It's important to know that, AC's 77Ls have a total seatcount of 270, while their 77Ws carry 349 seats (so AC's 77Ws have 30% increase in seatcount). The 77L's length is 63.7m, while the 77Ws is 73.9m (so the 77Ws floor area is 16% greater than the 77L). So it's clear that ACs 77W have an unproportional increase in seatcount and hence weight (of course due to additional economy seats). This unproportional increase is multiplied due more economy passengers leading even more baggage weight, the weight means even more fuel need and so on and so on.... so it's difficult to compare the 772LR and 773ER. The longer distance of YVR-SYD makes it even more difficult to judge how VA's 77W will operate to LAX and back.

Not quite right on the floor space calculation there Shameel - while the W is only 16% longer than the L, ALL of that extra length is in the cabin, so I think you'll find it's probably closer to 25%-30%.

The other consideration is that, while not all -200LRs are created equal, the general tendency is for them to sacrifice some pax/cargo for the aux fuel tanks in order to get the extra range and to provide extra pax space for the long 17+ hour flights. There are few -200LRs with seating for more than 270 pax, while most -200/-200ERs seat around 300ish.

Cheers

[Shameel Kumar]

Originally Posted by Andrew McLaughlin

Not quite right on the floor space calculation there Shameel - while the W is only 16% longer than the L, ALL of that extra length is in the cabin, so I think you'll find it's probably closer to 25%-30%.

I'm a little confused Andrew...
As you correctly stated, the entire difference in length between the 77W and the L is that of a fuselage stretch...and that length difference is what I quoted in my post (73.9m vs 63.7m). So in terms of floor space, all factors are the same except for that additional length... so if the length is increased by 16%, then shouldn't the floor space also increase by that same percentage?
All I was really trying to get at with the AC 77L and 77W comparison is that the 77W is an unproportional increase in capactiy and therefore an unproportional increase in weight..and when it comes to aircraft, any increase in weight has a multiplier effect in terms of reducing range. So Andrew M's direct comparison between AC's 77L and 77W is fairly misleading due to this weight-multiplier effect.

The other consideration is that, while not all -200LRs are created equal, the general tendency is for them to sacrifice some pax/cargo for the aux fuel tanks in order to get the extra range and to provide extra pax space for the long 17+ hour flights. There are few -200LRs with seating for more than 270 pax, while most -200/-200ERs seat around 300ish.

Good point, and I agree that there are barely (if any) 772LRs which have a similar seatcount to a 772ER for that sole reason of giving the aircraft some extra legs.
But the point you bring up about the 772LRs auxiliary fuel tanks doesn't really apply because no airline has actually opted for the 3 optional auxiliary tanks (strange but suprisingly true). In terms of fuel capacity, the L has the same standard capacity as the W. In terms of MTOW, the L is only 9,000lbs shy of the W. So the only key factors which make the 772LR a more capable aircraft than the 77W are, firstly it's OEW is obviously lower than the W (due it being a smaller aircraft) which then has a positive multiplier effect on its range, also because airlines realise that demand for these 17+ hour flights isn't very high, so they can outfit their aircraft with lesser seats..and hence be able to haul more cargo in the belly.

What an aircraft the 772LR...but the 77W's still my favourite by just a whisker!


What'll be really interesting is payload/range comparison between the VA 77W and the QF A388.

[Andrew McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by Shameel Kumar

I'm a little confused Andrew...
As you correctly stated, the entire difference in length between the 77W and the L is that of a fuselage stretch...and that length difference is what I quoted in my post (73.9m vs 63.7m). So in terms of floor space, all factors are the same except for that additional length... so if the length is increased by 16%, then shouldn't the floor space also increase by that same percentage?

I said all the extra length is in the cabin, not just the fuselage. I don't know the exact figures, but lets say the W is 10m longer than the L, just about all of that 10m is devoted to pax space and amenities, as it all goes into the cabin. So, if the cabin is, say 35m long on the L, it'll be 45m long on the W, or about 28% longer. The rest is radome, flight deck, and tail cone which are more or less common to both aircraft.

Good point, and I agree that there are barely (if any) 772LRs which have a similar seatcount to a 772ER for that sole reason of giving the aircraft some extra legs.
But the point you bring up about the 772LRs auxiliary fuel tanks doesn't really apply because no airline has actually opted for the 3 optional auxiliary tanks (strange but suprisingly true).

I think you'll find EK has on some of theirs.

[Nick W.]

I heard somewhere that these aux tanks are relatively easily fitted and de-fitted, and hence quite a few airlines have them on hand if need arises, but that's just what I heard...