Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
aemoreira1981 wrote:If I'm AR, I say...I want to wait until the 251t version of the A339 is ready and with ETOPS 330. (Air New Zealand flies to EZE with a B789 that has ETOPS 330.) Then an RFP comparable to the B789 is requested...and then the choice is likely between the A339 and the B789.
BTW, the two 238t and two 242t A332s are leased as well under sale-leasebacks, IINM.
seahawk wrote:They need the 787 to improve their network. The 3 versions available can cover their needs and works perfectly with the 737 fleet.
RainerBoeing777 wrote:I think the best option for AR to improve its wide-body fleet, is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner have the capacity and range for all missions in Europe, North America and the Pacific, between models -8, -9, -10 are ideal for the route network, the Boeing 787-8 would be ideal for routes such as New York, Barcelona and Mexico City, the Boeing 787-9 for routes such as Madrid, Rome and destinations in the Pacific (Auckland and Sydney) and the Boeing 787-10 to nearby destinations of high demand such as Miami
kevin5345179 wrote:A338 with 242t will do just fine
seahawk wrote:They need the 787 to improve their network
kevin5345179 wrote:aemoreira1981 wrote:If I'm AR, I say...I want to wait until the 251t version of the A339 is ready and with ETOPS 330. (Air New Zealand flies to EZE with a B789 that has ETOPS 330.) Then an RFP comparable to the B789 is requested...and then the choice is likely between the A339 and the B789.
BTW, the two 238t and two 242t A332s are leased as well under sale-leasebacks, IINM.
Why is 251t necessary ..... A332 has range rating 6850 nmi while A339 (242t) has range 6550 nmi and A338 (242t) has 7500 nmi. While the distance between EZE and JFK is only 5300 nmi for GC distance. I don't see any reason to buy higher MTOW as it increases landing fee ...... even the longest route is to FCO (IIRC) it is 6900 nmi and A338 with 242t will do just fine
Gemuser wrote:kevin5345179 wrote:aemoreira1981 wrote:If I'm AR, I say...I want to wait until the 251t version of the A339 is ready and with ETOPS 330. (Air New Zealand flies to EZE with a B789 that has ETOPS 330.) Then an RFP comparable to the B789 is requested...and then the choice is likely between the A339 and the B789.
BTW, the two 238t and two 242t A332s are leased as well under sale-leasebacks, IINM.
Why is 251t necessary ..... A332 has range rating 6850 nmi while A339 (242t) has range 6550 nmi and A338 (242t) has 7500 nmi. While the distance between EZE and JFK is only 5300 nmi for GC distance. I don't see any reason to buy higher MTOW as it increases landing fee ...... even the longest route is to FCO (IIRC) it is 6900 nmi and A338 with 242t will do just fine
It was stated in a previous thread that AR has said it's next long haul fleet must have the range to do EZE-SYD/MEL non stop. Syd is 6366 nm, MEL is 6277 nm, FCO is 6013.
The 251t version is preferable as you appear to be quoting "statute" miles, not "nautical" miles, at least for sector distances, assuming the range distances are also sm, the A338(242t) has a range of 6522 nm, with reserves and allowance for wind and diversions ( which would be substantial as there are no airfields on this track, IPC early in the flight & CHC later in the flight appear to be the closest) this is insufficient for SYD/MEL which would need between 7000 & 7500 nm.
Gemuser
aemoreira1981 wrote:Gemuser wrote:kevin5345179 wrote:
Why is 251t necessary ..... A332 has range rating 6850 nmi while A339 (242t) has range 6550 nmi and A338 (242t) has 7500 nmi. While the distance between EZE and JFK is only 5300 nmi for GC distance. I don't see any reason to buy higher MTOW as it increases landing fee ...... even the longest route is to FCO (IIRC) it is 6900 nmi and A338 with 242t will do just fine
It was stated in a previous thread that AR has said it's next long haul fleet must have the range to do EZE-SYD/MEL non stop. Syd is 6366 nm, MEL is 6277 nm, FCO is 6013.
The 251t version is preferable as you appear to be quoting "statute" miles, not "nautical" miles, at least for sector distances, assuming the range distances are also sm, the A338(242t) has a range of 6522 nm, with reserves and allowance for wind and diversions ( which would be substantial as there are no airfields on this track, IPC early in the flight & CHC later in the flight appear to be the closest) this is insufficient for SYD/MEL which would need between 7000 & 7500 nm.
Gemuser
AR would need ETOPS 330 though for this...can this be done with ETOPS 240?
aemoreira1981 wrote:Air New Zealand flies to EZE with a B789 that has ETOPS 330.
Gemuser wrote:kevin5345179 wrote:aemoreira1981 wrote:If I'm AR, I say...I want to wait until the 251t version of the A339 is ready and with ETOPS 330. (Air New Zealand flies to EZE with a B789 that has ETOPS 330.) Then an RFP comparable to the B789 is requested...and then the choice is likely between the A339 and the B789.
BTW, the two 238t and two 242t A332s are leased as well under sale-leasebacks, IINM.
Why is 251t necessary ..... A332 has range rating 6850 nmi while A339 (242t) has range 6550 nmi and A338 (242t) has 7500 nmi. While the distance between EZE and JFK is only 5300 nmi for GC distance. I don't see any reason to buy higher MTOW as it increases landing fee ...... even the longest route is to FCO (IIRC) it is 6900 nmi and A338 with 242t will do just fine
It was stated in a previous thread that AR has said it's next long haul fleet must have the range to do EZE-SYD/MEL non stop. Syd is 6366 nm, MEL is 6277 nm, FCO is 6013.
The 251t version is preferable as you appear to be quoting "statute" miles, not "nautical" miles, at least for sector distances, assuming the range distances are also sm, the A338(242t) has a range of 6522 nm, with reserves and allowance for wind and diversions ( which would be substantial as there are no airfields on this track, IPC early in the flight & CHC later in the flight appear to be the closest) this is insufficient for SYD/MEL which would need between 7000 & 7500 nm.
Gemuser
mjoelnir wrote:Gemuser wrote:kevin5345179 wrote:
Why is 251t necessary ..... A332 has range rating 6850 nmi while A339 (242t) has range 6550 nmi and A338 (242t) has 7500 nmi. While the distance between EZE and JFK is only 5300 nmi for GC distance. I don't see any reason to buy higher MTOW as it increases landing fee ...... even the longest route is to FCO (IIRC) it is 6900 nmi and A338 with 242t will do just fine
It was stated in a previous thread that AR has said it's next long haul fleet must have the range to do EZE-SYD/MEL non stop. Syd is 6366 nm, MEL is 6277 nm, FCO is 6013.
The 251t version is preferable as you appear to be quoting "statute" miles, not "nautical" miles, at least for sector distances, assuming the range distances are also sm, the A338(242t) has a range of 6522 nm, with reserves and allowance for wind and diversions ( which would be substantial as there are no airfields on this track, IPC early in the flight & CHC later in the flight appear to be the closest) this is insufficient for SYD/MEL which would need between 7000 & 7500 nm.
Gemuser
The 242 t A330-800 will have a range of 7,500 nm, more than the 787-8 and slightly less than the 787-9. The 251 t A330-800 will manage over 8,000 nm quite a bit more than the 787-9.
Gemuser wrote:kevin5345179 wrote:aemoreira1981 wrote:If I'm AR, I say...I want to wait until the 251t version of the A339 is ready and with ETOPS 330. (Air New Zealand flies to EZE with a B789 that has ETOPS 330.) Then an RFP comparable to the B789 is requested...and then the choice is likely between the A339 and the B789.
BTW, the two 238t and two 242t A332s are leased as well under sale-leasebacks, IINM.
Why is 251t necessary ..... A332 has range rating 6850 nmi while A339 (242t) has range 6550 nmi and A338 (242t) has 7500 nmi. While the distance between EZE and JFK is only 5300 nmi for GC distance. I don't see any reason to buy higher MTOW as it increases landing fee ...... even the longest route is to FCO (IIRC) it is 6900 nmi and A338 with 242t will do just fine
It was stated in a previous thread that AR has said it's next long haul fleet must have the range to do EZE-SYD/MEL non stop. Syd is 6366 nm, MEL is 6277 nm, FCO is 6013.
The 251t version is preferable as you appear to be quoting "statute" miles, not "nautical" miles, at least for sector distances, assuming the range distances are also sm, the A338(242t) has a range of 6522 nm, with reserves and allowance for wind and diversions ( which would be substantial as there are no airfields on this track, IPC early in the flight & CHC later in the flight appear to be the closest) this is insufficient for SYD/MEL which would need between 7000 & 7500 nm.
Gemuser