Qantas and 777/A380

[Will H]

Originally Posted by Ross Corrigan

I for one would love to see Qantas flying the 777 but would it make sense to have so many types of aircraft in the fleet?

Well it seems QF would add the 777 or 350, so either way they're going to introduce a new type. With them already having the largest 787 order on Boeing's books, adding 350s wouldn't make sense, especially when you also consider if QF purchased the 777-300ER, they could easily add the 777-200LR for you know what.

I reckon a 10% fuel burn efficiency improvement in the -300ER could be applied--maybe not as strongly--to the -200LR as well.

Non-stop Oz-UK is a key advantage QF would have over SQ, and one SQ couldn't replicate without a major industry shakeup.

[Paul C.]

I'd feel safer in a plane with a metal fuselage, not a plastic one (like the 787). Even though plastic could be quieter, metal is almost always the way to go. So the 777-300ER would be a great addition. And even the slightly smaller A340-600 could be an option too. The A340 is very quiet to fly on. I also went on a Qantas A330-300 VH-QPA and found it pretty quiet too, I slept well because of that.

[Andrew McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by Paul C.

I'd feel safer in a plane with a metal fuselage, not a plastic one (like the 787). Even though plastic could be quieter, metal is almost always the way to go. So the 777-300ER would be a great addition. And even the slightly smaller A340-600 could be an option too. The A340 is very quiet to fly on. I also went on a Qantas A330-300 VH-QPA and found it pretty quiet too, I slept well because of that.

Plastic??? (through to the keeper...). Won't be flying much in 30 years then Paul, huh?

Despite it quietness and comfort, the A345/A346 uses ~20% more fuel than the comparable 77L/77W in a thinner tube (8 abreast vs 9), hence the nearly single figures orders for the type in recent years. Many airlines are phasing out their A345/346s in favour of 777s (e.g. SQ, TG, CX), while others are cancelling or deferring orders for them (Kingfisher, VS).

[Montague S]

Originally Posted by Paul C.

I'd feel safer in a plane with a metal fuselage, not a plastic one (like the 787). Even though plastic could be quieter, metal is almost always the way to go.

you'd be stunned to know that the composite fibre shell of the 787 is actually stronger than any "metal" shell...

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-DE8LZcZgn4

[Josh F]

How will the composite perform in an aeroplane crash? Will it shatter?

[Rhys Xanthis]

Originally Posted by Josh F

How will the composite perform in an aeroplane crash? Will it shatter?

Thats another thing all together, there have been concerns that it could shatter, and also any fire could lead to some pretty nasty chemicals being released. Concerns in a crash that if a fire started, breathing could get very difficult due to the gases coming from the airframe.

We had a discussion some time ago about composites etc, but i think that was on the old board.

[D Chan]

Originally Posted by Will H

With them already having the largest 787 order on Boeing's books, adding 350s wouldn't make sense, especially when you also consider if QF purchased the 777-300ER, they could easily add the 777-200LR for you know what.

what about the issue that was stated on some forums / media about Qantas trying to get Boeing to develop the 787-10? Boeing is not committed to it and some airlines might go 350 just because the -10 has not / may never be offered by Boeing.

Originally Posted by Will H

Non-stop Oz-UK is a key advantage QF would have over SQ, and one SQ couldn't replicate without a major industry shakeup.

the problem with flying such a long distance non-stop, as you may be aware, is that you're burning more fuel (e.g. climb) to 'carry the fuel required to fly non-stop' for such a long distance. Then there's the wind factor. Thirdly there's the issue of how much pax and cargo one could carry on the route (very likely the number of pax would be restricted) - so flying non-stop oz-uk is still a very difficult proposition and it might be 10 or 15 yrs before we can do it economically

[Rhys Xanthis]

Problem with the -1000 is it wont be available til well into the next decade...a replacement might be a bit more pressing for QF, especially if they believe fuel will be an issue.

[Andrew McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by D Chan

what about the issue that was stated on some forums / media about Qantas trying to get Boeing to develop the 787-10? Boeing is not committed to it and some airlines might go 350 just because the -10 has not / may never be offered by Boeing.

The problem with the -10 is that Boeing is reluctant to commit to it because of, A) it's busy getting the -8 and -9 issues sorted and these aircraft to market, B) it will undermine sales of the 777, C) it will require a redesign of several major elements such as the landing gear, and, D) there is currently no engine available for it as the -9's Trent 1000 may not be able to be grown out to the estimate 85K+ lbs thrust required for the -10.

I guess the final decision will be based upon how much market pressure airlines like EK and QF can bring to bare on Boeing, whether the market for the 777-200ER starts to dry up, and whether Boeing has the engineering capacity to do it along with the 747-8I/F, the delayed 787-3, a reported 777X, and of course, a 737 replacement. Likewise, Airbus is fully comitted with its A330-200F, possible A330-300F, the A350-800/900 program, and then the A380-900 and A380F, and somewhere in there they have to start work on an A320 replacement, so I doubt we'll see a 787-10 or an A350-1000 until 2018 at the earliest.

Cheers

[Will H]

Originally Posted by D Chan

the problem with flying such a long distance non-stop, as you may be aware, is that you're burning more fuel (e.g. climb) to 'carry the fuel required to fly non-stop' for such a long distance. Then there's the wind factor. Thirdly there's the issue of how much pax and cargo one could carry on the route (very likely the number of pax would be restricted) - so flying non-stop oz-uk is still a very difficult proposition and it might be 10 or 15 yrs before we can do it economically

QF is on the record saying they can do LHR-SYD non-stop year-round but can only do SYD-LHR 7 months out of the year if they don't want to reduce payload (IIRC).

If Boeing is suggesting a 10% efficiency in the -300ER, it's reasonable to assume some of that can be carried over to the -200LR, which would only need a slight nudge to operate the five months, one-way it presently cannot.