B772LR vs. A345

[Kwashiorkor]

I mentioned right airline because you used the term "right" airline.





...doesn't want to fly with by just choosing the "right" airline


Now if you're talking about aircraft then yes, there are passengers that will go out of their way and book a 777 flight rather than an A300 given that their schedules are flexible. But it is not the definitive factor that will decide whether a passenger will be loyal to an airline or not.

Well yes, apparently I made my point unclear . What I meant with my post was to say that if a passenger doesn't feel comfortable on a particular aircraft he might chose the airline with the aircraft he wants to fly with. In fact what you described in your last post .

At the end of the day, will it be profitable for an airline to fully cater to these passengers for these routes?

That's exactly the question, isn't it? If any airline finds out that this is economically feasible then I promise you that you can't say "Economy" as fast as an ultra longhaul plane is configured with normal economy. But that is really a difficult topic as I don't think any passenger will sit in that config for that long on his own will. But with the introduction of this type of ultra longhaul aircraft just beginning I guess we'll see it. I think that if the price is right you can just fill anything.

Boeing had to close the line because they were'nt getting Orders anymore. By the time LH Cargo requested for more units, it was too late and Boeing had already decided to drop the thingy. It was good business sense too because it was more costly for Boeing to maintain a separate MD-11 line in Long Beach that wasnt doing well.

Well yes, bad timing I guess. But with the B747-200 freighters slowly disappearing the MD-11F would be a perfect fit for many airlines. Any numbers on how much are still standing around unused which could be converted?

It has to have good uplift capability though (hence the A340 wont make for a good F conversion).

Well, the A340-300 has very good uplift capability. It can lift itself up quite easily . The A340-600 is a better performer, though. But I think that it just can't hold enough cargo for it being a good cargo aircraft. And imagine loading a container to the far back!

What about underfloor capacity of the 777, though? How many LD3 does it hold side by side? Not more than the A300 fuselage family, does it? Not an attempt to despise Boeing, just out of curiosity.

There are only 2 distinct A330 models

Err, well, I should have put that differently .

And they are prime for replacement hence the 787-3.

Yep and that's where I see Airbus having a problem. If the 787-3 gets as good as advertised then there would be nothing else than this aircraft to replace the ageing A300 fleets. Hopefully Airbus makes something out of its A350. With passenger numbers growing all the time I can see more and more of these bigger birds being used on the short routes. LH occasionally even sends a 747 FRA-MUC-FRA!

You might just get your wish (fingers crossed :d)

Let's see!

Truth is, Airbus stumbled on the A332 and they didnt even know then that it would be their best-selling widebody.

That's what I call lucky .

[ConcordeBoy]

Well, the A340-300 has very good uplift capability.

Actually, it has the worst payload density ratio of any western B-market widebody currently on the market.

The A340-600 is a better performer, though.

Not by much. It still has a worse PDR than anything its size would allow it to compete against (i.e., 777F, M11F, 742F, etc)

[Kwashiorkor]

@Concordeboy: Did you actually remark this:

It can lift itself up quite easily

Don't take everything so serious, man!

[James]

Truth is, Airbus stumbled on the A332 and they didnt even know then that it would be their best-selling widebody.[/QUOTE]

Is that why Airbus are doing the A350 like the A330 lol.

Regards
JAmes

[vojoboy]

...the MD-11F would be a perfect fit for many airlines. Any numbers on how much are still standing around unused which could be converted?

Got hold of this site from the Orders Forum and its quite good: MD-11 Production List

The A340-600 is a better performer, though. But I think that it just can't hold enough cargo for it being a good cargo aircraft. And imagine loading a container to the far back!

Stetched aircraft tend not to be good candidates for Cargo Freighters. Although you have higher available volume, its payload density would be lower than the base version.

What about underfloor capacity of the 777, though?

Check this Site

How many LD3 does it hold side by side? Not more than the A300 fuselage family, does it? Not an attempt to despise Boeing, just out of curiosity.

Typically, it can hold 32 LD-3 containers (i.e. 16 tandem LD-3 positions).

Hopefully Airbus makes something out of its A350. With passenger numbers growing all the time I can see more and more of these bigger birds being used on the short routes.

To be effective for short hops, A-market planes should have low MTOW and OEW. The A358 is too heavy to be a dedicated shorthaul plane.

That's what I call lucky .

Unfortunately in business, luck just wont do.

Is that why Airbus are doing the A350 like the A330 lol.

Regards
JAmes

Nope, Airbus is doing the A350 coz their proposed warmed-up A330 just didnt cut it against the 787.

[Kwashiorkor]

Got hold of this site from the Orders Forum and its quite good: MD-11 Production List

Wow, only very few MD-11 stored and a huge amount converted to freighters. Looks like we might run out of MD-11s in the near future .

Thanks for the technical info for the 777!

To be an effective for short hops, A-market planes should have low MTOW/OEW's. The A358 is too heavy to be a dedicated shorthaul plane.

I thought Airbus also planned to make a dedicated shorthaul version with lighter wings and this stuff? Not? Then this might turn out not too good for them.

Nope, Airbus is doing the A350 coz their proposed warmed-up A330 just didnt cut it against the 787.

Well, it has been the same for the 747 actually. The Advanced will be a major rework.

[James]

[QUOTE= Nope, Airbus is doing the A350 coz their proposed warmed-up A330 just didnt cut it against the 787. [/QUOTE]

I thought the A380 was against the 787.

Regards
James

[vojoboy]

I thought Airbus also planned to make a dedicated shorthaul version with lighter wings and this stuff? Not? Then this might turn out not too good for them.

Nope, nothing currently in the works. They offered SQ an A330 Lite a few years ago and SQ said no thanks! QF is not really satisfied with its weight reduced A332's for the MEL-SYD hops.

Well, it has been the same for the 747 actually. The Advanced will be a major rework.

Agreed although I think this current 747 proposed incarnate might be more competitive than we think.

I thought the A380 was against the 787.

Regards
James

Nope. The A388 is in a class of its own.

[TAP-A343]

Take IB: The fleet renewal decision on a technical basis favoured the superior 777 family- but ended up with ex-Swiss ordered A346's.

Are the GE90-115B's powerful enough to allow B773ER operations without weight restrictions to IB's very high or very hot destinations in Central and South America?

I believe the previous B777 engines were not.

Regards.

[vojoboy]

Are the GE90-115B's powerful enough to allow B773ER operations without weight restrictions to IB's very high or very hot destinations in Central and South America?

I believe the previous B777 engines were not.

Regards.

Technically they can, but as far as EO Ops are concerned, a few more lbs of thrust would still be needed (this is why EK has been asking GE for 125-130K thrust on the 115B's).

[TAP-A343]

Technically they can, but as far as EO Ops are concerned, a few more lbs of thrust would still be needed (this is why EK has been asking GE for 125-130K thrust on the 115B's).

Thanks for your info.

Do you think GE can push the 115B's to that level of thrust in a fairly economical way? I mean to provide for only the few airlines at moment that need them?

Regards.

[ConcordeBoy]

Do you think GE can push the 115B's to that level of thrust in a fairly economical way?

The engine has long since proven that it can sustain that amount of thrust...

...question is, could GE get it certified for such on all parameters-- i.e., not end up like PW's attempts at more powerful engines.

[TAP-A343]

The engine has long since proven that it can sustain that amount of thrust...

...question is, could GE get it certified for such on all parameters-- i.e., not end up like PW's attempts at more powerful engines.

And what would be the most critical parameters for certification?

Regards.

[BOEING777X]

Are the GE90-115B's powerful enough to allow B773ER operations without weight restrictions to IB's very high or very hot destinations in Central and South America?

I believe the previous B777 engines were not.

Regards.

GE had them running at 127K for hundreds of hours. Certifiying it is not a problem- EK has long barked about wanting more thrust- but then, EK isnt moaning about hot/high ops from DXB using cruddy A340's or lower powered 777A's, is it?

IB decision was forced- and you know it- thats why they now have the POSA346- because it cost them nothing.

[ConcordeBoy]

And what would be the most critical parameters for certification?

There's several certification criteria, and none hold more weight than the others, i.e. - either you pass them all, or you fail the cert.

That's what happened with PW, they got (what would've been) the PW4092 to proper thrust levels and decent SFC, but they failed miserably on emissions and thus had to restrict that engine and the MTOW of any plane operating with it.

Major disadvantage, which is why PW is essentially a non-factor among longrange 777 orders nowadays.