QANTAS looking at the 787-8I AND 777 (BUT)

[Cam L]

Nicely said.

[Bernie P]

Well, this opened up a can of worms I didn't expect to see...

BACK on topic, IF they were to get these birds, would there be the possibility of follow up orders of passenger variants perhaps? I would love to see a 77W and/or 747-8I in the fleet (with OR without a roo on the tail)!

[Cam L]

Do you mean as in seeing how they work as freighters and then possibly getting some for the mainline fleet??

Whats the queue for a 747-8i/f like these days anyway?

Could they get one soonish?

[Cam L]

Oh great we are again off topic [] So i will refer you to an article by Will H.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/wi...or-qantas.html

Quote:

"So why is the 777-300ER not right for Qantas? For Air NZ, the 777-300ER is the largest aircraft they need going forward. Qantas, however, needs more capacity. Enter the A380, an aircraft Qantas has consistently filled to Los Angeles, Singapore, and London. Offering the 777-300ER, an aircraft with fewer seats, on key and slot-restricted routes is not justified."

Hmmm.....

[Ryan K]

Originally Posted by Cam L

Amen!

It looks sooooooo bad.

I'm pretty sure we all know a cargo aircraft when we see one.
See exhibit 1 below. Definitely a cargo plane. Why? Maybe because it has FREIGHT written after the Qantas bit.


Exhibit 2. Not a cargo plane.


Would a kangaroo really make a difference to distinguish between divisions of an airline???

Personally, i would keep the roo.

I'd keep the roo as well. It's obvious it's a cargo plane, even the average punter can see this! A distinct lack of windows makes the point pretty clear.

[Mike W]

Originally Posted by Cam L

Offering the 777-300ER, an aircraft with fewer seats, on key and slot-restricted routes is not justified."

Hmmm.....

Now, if I remember rightly, QF fly to other Airports than LHR and LAX that aren't slot restricted, or do not need 500 (whatever) seats. I guess that explains the 747s, 330s, 767s and even 738s(trekking over to NZ, Noumea, etc.)

I'm sure even a large Airline like Qantas could find a place for what is turning out to be, an amazing aircraft (77W)

[Gareth U]

Originally Posted by Nigel C

it may be flying for Qantas (just like Atlas do), but it's not a Qantas plane (they're just the registered operator), therefore no Roo.

As far as I can tell, it is no different to a Jetconnect 737 or QantasLink Dash 8 - it is operated for Qantas by a wholly owned subsidiary. The NJS 717 wet lease is in Qantas colours too (though it is Qantas who leases the aircraft for NJS to operate I believe).

[Max C]

But the Dash 8's clearly say 'QantasLink' and don't have 'Spirit of Australia' written on it while being NZ registered!

[Dale C]

Quote:

"So why is the 777-300ER not right for Qantas? For Air NZ, the 777-300ER is the largest aircraft they need going forward. Qantas, however, needs more capacity. Enter the A380, an aircraft Qantas has consistently filled to Los Angeles, Singapore, and London. Offering the 777-300ER, an aircraft with fewer seats, on key and slot-restricted routes is not justified."

Am I the only one to query this?
Surely, the 77W could have been used effectively in QF's route structure. MEL/BNE-LAX, SYD-SFO and SYD-SIN-CDG come to mind. Many 744s around the world have been replaced by 77Ws and I think the 77W/380 combo at QF would have been a very good one. 20+yo 744s need replacing and their fuel bills get higher and higher by the day. If NZ put a higher proportion of premium seats on their 77Ws compared to their 744s, then, so to could have QF. The 77W is a staggeringly relaible and efficient machine. QF could have and should have used them effectively.

[Greg W.]

Originally Posted by Jon Harris

but PLEASE put the 'roo back on the tail - what the hell is that plain red tail??? It looks cr@p!

I agree. With no kangaroo and just the red tail, it looks like something resurrected from the bone yard at Marana, AZ.