Buried in this article about ANZ coming from the IATA meeting in Sydney, its CEO says the carrier is in the early stages of looking into a replacement for its 8 777-200ER. The airline wants the replacement aircraft type to be able to fly nonstop from Auckland to destinations on the east coast of North and South America, such as New York and São Paulo.

http://atwonline.com/iata-agm-2018/air- ... unded-787s

Seems like the A350 platform (particularly the A359) would be a solid contender, despite a shift away from commonality.
Closest in size to the B77E and there is the option of the ULR also available.

The B777X also isn’t bad, but even the B778X would be a bump in capacity from the current-gen B772. They could however achieve some sort of commonality with their existing B787 and B77W fleet.

The A359 would be perfect. I'm surprised that ANZ was able to stretch the B789 to Chicago.

Runway28L wrote:

Seems like the A350 platform (particularly the A359) would be a solid contender, despite a shift away from commonality.
Closest in size to the B77E and there is the option of the ULR also available.

The B777X also isn’t bad, but even the B778X would be a bump in capacity from the current-gen B772. They could however achieve some sort of commonality with their existing B787 and B77W fleet.

NZ has a very diverse fleet usage, between long haul flights to the Americas, these aircraft operate to Asia and AU. Unless growth is desperately needed I’m not sure the extra weight of the 778 & 779 is. I would personally would love to see the 359 and 350-1 going to NZ.

359:
Open - GRU, EWR, LIM(?)
Take over- IAH, ORD, SFO, YVR, EZE

With the free 789 boosting frequency into Asia - HND, NRT,PVG,SGN,KIX.

Would love to see the ANZ livery on the A350. Perfect candidate too. Could very well be why MSN 1 is in Wellington doing short runway trials.

They will need to be looking at a 77W replacement in a few years - probably the 779, so wouldn't a 778 make more sense and that would also mean a common widebody pilot pool - all being qualified on both the 789 and 778/779.

A 778 would appear to be their best choice here.

kaitak wrote:

They will need to be looking at a 77W replacement in a few years - probably the 779, so wouldn't a 778 make more sense and that would also mean a common widebody pilot pool - all being qualified on both the 789 and 778/779.

A 778 would appear to be their best choice here.

That and the fact that the 778 is projected to carry more payload at range than the 359/ULR and the 779 compared with the 35K. It should not be forgotten that cargo is big money for NZ and important to New Zealand. The ability to carry more cargo further may offset the additional operating weight of the 77X models over the 350 models.

Many on A.Net speculate that NZ will go for the 350 series as they are lighter aircraft which offers additional flexibility allowing them to move from LH to Trans Tasman without carrying the additional weight around of the 77X. Boeing's solution to this would be to offer the 78J for T-T routes as well as high density leisure which obviously shares commonality with their existing 789 fleet.

Under this proposal I could see the fleet being as follows.

789 -Thinner Long Haul East Asia / West Coast SA
78J -High Density Leisure (DPS/HNL/NAD/PPT/RAR) and Trans-Tasman
778 -ULH (GRU/CHI/NYC)
779 -High Density Long Haul (HKG/LAX/SFO/TYO)

Lastly, my understanding is QF is pressuring both OEMs for more payload and more range for their own ULH aspirations. The fact that the 359/ULR and the 35K are already flying puts the 350 series at a sight disadvantage vs the 778 which hasn't left the drawing board. It seemingly allows Boeing to tinker with the aircraft with greater ease "while on paper" than Airbus with established aircraft that are probably more reliant on PIPs at this stage. Perhaps we'll see a split scimitar 359ULR to squeeze a few more miles.

77H

Wouldn't a 777X-sized aircraft be too large for an airlines like New Zealand, although they did previously operate 747?

c933103 wrote:

Wouldn't a 777X-sized aircraft be too large for an airlines like New Zealand, although they did previously operate 747?

While they replaced the 744 with the 77W (mainly because that was all you could get - apart from the A388 at the time).

Over the last couple of years the trend has been to upsize at NZ.

B1990 - phased out and services taken over by Q300s
733 (133 seats) - phased out an replaced by 171 seat A320s
763 (232 seats) - phased out an replaced by 313 seat 789s.

NZ could of replaced the 763s with 788 (they we're originally getting the -8, but swapped out for the -9).

NZ ordered the 7E7-8 at the same time they order the 77E fleet.

kaitak wrote:

They will need to be looking at a 77W replacement in a few years - probably the 779, so wouldn't a 778 make more sense and that would also mean a common widebody pilot pool - all being qualified on both the 789 and 778/779.

A 778 would appear to be their best choice here.

A35K? NZ don’t allow currently a common pilot pool across 777/787. This may change in future.

77H wrote:

kaitak wrote:

They will need to be looking at a 77W replacement in a few years - probably the 779, so wouldn't a 778 make more sense and that would also mean a common widebody pilot pool - all being qualified on both the 789 and 778/779.

A 778 would appear to be their best choice here.

That and the fact that the 778 is projected to carry more payload at range than the 359/ULR and the 779 compared with the 35K. It should not be forgotten that cargo is big money for NZ and important to New Zealand. The ability to carry more cargo further may offset the additional operating weight of the 77X models over the 350 models.

Many on A.Net speculate that NZ will go for the 350 series as they are lighter aircraft which offers additional flexibility allowing them to move from LH to Trans Tasman without carrying the additional weight around of the 77X. Boeing's solution to this would be to offer the 78J for T-T routes as well as high density leisure which obviously shares commonality with their existing 789 fleet.

Under this proposal I could see the fleet being as follows.

789 -Thinner Long Haul East Asia / West Coast SA
78J -High Density Leisure (DPS/HNL/NAD/PPT/RAR) and Trans-Tasman
778 -ULH (GRU/CHI/NYC)
779 -High Density Long Haul (HKG/LAX/SFO/TYO)

Lastly, my understanding is QF is pressuring both OEMs for more payload and more range for their own ULH aspirations. The fact that the 359/ULR and the 35K are already flying puts the 350 series at a sight disadvantage vs the 778 which hasn't left the drawing board. It seemingly allows Boeing to tinker with the aircraft with greater ease "while on paper" than Airbus with established aircraft that are probably more reliant on PIPs at this stage. Perhaps we'll see a split scimitar 359ULR to squeeze a few more miles.

77H

NZ don’t operate like that certainly not at the moment, most long haul flights arrive early am depart late pm and have time to do a trans Tasman pacific island service during the day, some days see up to 11-12 777/787 services on short haul! The 78J is a chance imo to replace the 789’s on the leisure routes like PER/HNL/PPT/DPS/SGN/KIX however some of those are seasonal and would only need about 5 frames plus maybe 1-2 more for some trans Tasman. It was said at some point that they wanted flexibility in the fleet for all aircraft to fly all routes, bar the ULH ones.

I agree freight is big for NZ, I’m not to sure how much a part the heavier 77X on short haul will play in this order.

I imagine their 777s aren’t that old, no serious rush for a decision. But would be nice by the end of calendar 19

smi0006 wrote:

I imagine their 777s aren’t that old, no serious rush for a decision. But would be nice by the end of calendar 19

ZK-OKA is 12.7YO delivered in late 2006, the rest of the 77E's we're delivered over the next couple of years.

The 77E's are now becoming the oldest aircraft in the fleet, which currently don't have replacement ordered.

For example the ATR72-500s are currently being replaced by ATR72-600s, and the A320CEOS delivered between 2004-2007 start to get replaced this year with A320/321NEO's.

12-14 years old seems to be the new exit target that NZ currently has for there fleet.

778/779....
The talk is mere froth to get a discount from Boeing. They are not going for Airbus in a million years...

ps. Happy to be proven wrong however!

dcajet wrote:

Buried in this article about ANZ coming from the IATA meeting in Sydney, its CEO says the carrier is in the early stages of looking into a replacement for its 8 777-200ER. The airline wants the replacement aircraft type to be able to fly nonstop from Auckland to destinations on the east coast of North and South America, such as New York and São Paulo.

http://atwonline.com/iata-agm-2018/air- ... unded-787s

This is the 787-9 they already have. Seems illogical to bring another fleet type into the mix for a few ULH routes, which your current fleet can already fly.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The A359 would be perfect. I'm surprised that ANZ was able to stretch the B789 to Chicago.

AKL-ORD is not a LONG route by 787-9 standards...

AKL-DOH 7,848 nm 16:28 hours
LHR-PER 7,829 nm 16:26 hours
AKL-NYC 7,665 nm 16:05 hours
AKL-ORD 7,111 nm 14:56 hours

oldannyboy wrote:

778/779....
The talk is mere froth to get a discount from Boeing. They are not going for Airbus in a million years...

ps. Happy to be proven wrong however!

Why not, NZ have ordered Airbus narrowbodies so I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't order Airbus widebodies.

Will be an interesting contest, one I really look forward to. NZ surely won't look at the 77E replacement in isolation, a future 77W replacement will be considered. So I expect an order including options/conversion rights for the larger model of either A350 or 777X.

While the A359 seems perfect as 77E replacement, will the A35K be a perfect future 77W replacement? Not sure, but it would be logical for Airbus to pitch a (to be launched) A350-1000 ULR version to NZ. The 77X would be a more seamless transition from NZ's current 777 fleet.

Honestly I thin they'll go 778. With Qantas probably taking it too and ANZ saying they'll benefit from Sunrise, the 778 would be the ideal aircraft for them and they could do AKL-JFK/YYZ/GRU with ease. They could also launch flights to the ME and the aircraft would allow the 779 to be brought in as a 77W replacement in the future. They can offset capacity by increasing legroom in Y to 32'' for ULH ops and maybe adding a larger J seat.

NZ's strategy, like QF's, now seems to be to go for point-to-point for long-haul destinations as far as possible - passengers seem to prefer non-stop and they can get higher yields on routes where they don't face direct competition.

That has implications for aircraft type. They want to be able to open new destinations. They will want to get build each new route up to daily. They need to be careful with risk and with capital. On top of that they have a different business model from carriers such as QF and SQ: they don't have enough premium traffic to sustain low-density configurations such as QF's 236 seat 789. So for ULH routes to the Americas they need more payload/range than the 789 can offer.

Put those factors together and at the very least you have to assume the 359/35K are in play - lower acquisition cost, lower trip cost, greater flexibility than a 778/779 combo. That could change if the 77X comes in with a sharply better seat-mile cost. With the much higher empty weight and (so far) low volume of sales that's not easy to see.

Interesting to see how this plays out.

Does Chicago need the 777-8X? It's already slated to get the 789 nonstop.

The 777-8 & 777-9 combination offers ANZ the flexibility they need for the dense routes to LAX & LHR plus the ultra long range to new destinations in Brazil. North American east coast and midwest cities could be flown by 787-9 or 777-9 depending on the demand. ANZ will have some 16 hour flight but unlikely to have 19 hour flights, hey if JFK is 16 hours away where are they going to fly for 19 ?

New Zealand is 1,000 miles closer to the USA then Australia. Those two hours are a big difference in flying when your compare Sydney or Auckland to JFK;

B778X winner in this option

oldannyboy wrote:

778/779....
The talk is mere froth to get a discount from Boeing. They are not going for Airbus in a million years...

That's what people said back in 2002...then the airline ordered A320s. All these years later their domestic and short haul fleet is entirely Airbus.

Probably not a coincidence the A350-900 is doing short-runway testing at Wellington this week.

The A350 is a mighty fine plane, but the 789 is extremely robust. It's flying distances that the 350 is not, currently. The 789 has amazing range and payload capabilities and if look 5-10 years down the road (likely when NZ would be taking delivery of these replacement planes), it's very likely the 789 will have improved even further (weight reduction, engine PIPS, aerodynamic improvements, etc). I don't know which plane will end up being best for NZ, but to say the A350 automatically makes more sense is ludicrous.

The 778/9 will certainly be heavier, but boy it will haul a ton!

FriscoHeavy wrote:

The A350 is a mighty fine plane, but the 789 is extremely robust. It's flying distances that the 350 is not, currently. The 789 has amazing range and payload capabilities and if look 5-10 years down the road (likely when NZ would be taking delivery of these replacement planes), it's very likely the 789 will have improved even further (weight reduction, engine PIPS, aerodynamic improvements, etc). I don't know which plane will end up being best for NZ, but to say the A350 automatically makes more sense is ludicrous.

The 778/9 will certainly be heavier, but boy it will haul a ton!

The 789 has had 2 extra years on the market (on top of being the 2nd variant to enter service where the A359 was the launch variant), and most of those routes longer than the A359's maximum have been launched in the last 2 years. Ask the question 2 years from now, and compare the 789 now to the A359 then, the picture will look a little different. Those improvements you cite for the 787 will likely be forthcoming for the A350 as well.

MrHMSH wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

The A350 is a mighty fine plane, but the 789 is extremely robust. It's flying distances that the 350 is not, currently. The 789 has amazing range and payload capabilities and if look 5-10 years down the road (likely when NZ would be taking delivery of these replacement planes), it's very likely the 789 will have improved even further (weight reduction, engine PIPS, aerodynamic improvements, etc). I don't know which plane will end up being best for NZ, but to say the A350 automatically makes more sense is ludicrous.

The 778/9 will certainly be heavier, but boy it will haul a ton!

The 789 has had 2 extra years on the market (on top of being the 2nd variant to enter service where the A359 was the launch variant), and most of those routes longer than the A359's maximum have been launched in the last 2 years. Ask the question 2 years from now, and compare the 789 now to the A359 then, the picture will look a little different. Those improvements you cite for the 787 will likely be forthcoming for the A350 as well.

Wasn't the A350 somewhat delayed to get it where it is now in terms of performance?

Stitch wrote:

Probably not a coincidence the A350-900 is doing short-runway testing at Wellington this week.

I've lived in NZ before but can't say i'm familar with Air New Zealands ops.

Do they operate widebodies from Wellington?

Why not just buy 10 more 789’s?

Arion640 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Probably not a coincidence the A350-900 is doing short-runway testing at Wellington this week.

I've lived in NZ before but can't say i'm familar with Air New Zealands ops.

Do they operate widebodies from Wellington?

They don't now. But WLG used to handle QF's 747SP and NZ's 747-200.

gregn21 wrote:

Why not just buy 10 more 789’s?

They may very well end up doing just that, but it is always prudent to review all viable options.

While (really, the German "weil" fits here also) we're all just speculating, my bet is on a hefty order of A350s.

A359 and maybe some ULR to replace the 77Es, then later A35Ks to replace 77Ws.

I don't see a need for a 779-size plane in their fleet.

tigerotor77w wrote:

I don't see a need for a 779-size plane in their fleet.

The 777-9 is not appreciably larger than the 777-300ER. The floorspace delta is about 5% and natural growth could cover that. Also remember NZ operates their 777-300ERs at 10-abreast Economy.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

The A350 is a mighty fine plane, but the 789 is extremely robust. It's flying distances that the 350 is not, currently. The 789 has amazing range and payload capabilities and if look 5-10 years down the road (likely when NZ would be taking delivery of these replacement planes), it's very likely the 789 will have improved even further (weight reduction, engine PIPS, aerodynamic improvements, etc). I don't know which plane will end up being best for NZ, but to say the A350 automatically makes more sense is ludicrous.

The 778/9 will certainly be heavier, but boy it will haul a ton!

To be fair, the A350 is flying distances that the 77X currently is not.

787-9 for thinner routes, after proving itself on PER-LHR this is the 787-9s battle to lose.

A couple 777-8/9 for trunk routes couldn't hurt either as I am sure Air Cargo is very important to New Zealand (both directions) as shipping takes a long time and a country that small can only take so many large container ships.

The A350 would be a middle ground selection, and definitely a good choice as well. However, if it's only going to be 1 type I would imagine it will be the 787-9 for this as the 787-10 would be perfect for their "medium" haul flights like North Asia.

AKL LHR 9,910 nm
SIN JFK 8,287 nm
AKL JFK 7,671 nm
DXB AKL 7,668 nm

1) Don't aircrafts currently exist that can do AKL-JFK(for example as a US East Coast dest.) non stop? EK does DXB-AKL currently that is only 3 nm lesser than AKL-JFK.
2) will such an aircraft have a ULR version that can perhaps do ALK-LHR non stop?
a) Is there a market to support this non stop?
b) If it (AKL-LHR non stop) materializes then will NZ have just an LAX terminator and not continue on to LHR (NZ2 currently does)?

747megatop wrote:

b) If it (AKL-LHR non stop) materializes then will NZ have just an LAX terminator and not continue on to LHR (NZ2 currently does)?

While there is a sizeable market for LON-AKL, we probably need to wait many, many years before an aircraft can actually make this route both ways profitably.

It will be interesting to see which aircraft NZ chooses. They have a slight geographical advantage vis-à-vis QF for their U.S. East Coast and South American East Coast plans.

Why do so many people here think NZ don't know how far their 787s can fly? Jeez.
It's not complicated. They love their 789s. They have started using them to Houston. They will use them to launch ORD. But no, they can't make the numbers add up flying them with 236 seats like Qantas. And the reason they're looking for something bigger to replace the 77Es is that they can't fly them westbound from New York with 275 pax.
The 789 is a great aircraft. But it doesn't have the range of an A359. Airlines who want to do ULH with higher pax numbers/cargo will go A350 or 77X. Facts of life.

raylee67 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Probably not a coincidence the A350-900 is doing short-runway testing at Wellington this week.

I've lived in NZ before but can't say i'm familar with Air New Zealands ops.

Do they operate widebodies from Wellington?

They don't now. But WLG used to handle QF's 747SP and NZ's 747-200.

The NZ 742 wasn’t regular at WLGand never operated a single commercial service from there. QF did buy the 747SP partly for WLG due to its short runway performance.

As to the A350 at WLG this week doing short runway testing I’d imagine NZ might be taking a look to see if it’s a viable alternative to AKL/CHC if they are closed, SQ and 1 or 2 others are probably interested to see how it goes aswell. However NZ won’t operate the A350 ex WLG regularly should they order it.

CARST wrote:

AKL-ORD is not a LONG route by 787-9 standards...

AKL-DOH 7,848 nm 16:28 hours
LHR-PER 7,829 nm 16:26 hours
AKL-NYC 7,665 nm 16:05 hours
AKL-ORD 7,111 nm 14:56 hours

AKL-DOH is a 772LR, not a 789

77H wrote:

kaitak wrote:

They will need to be looking at a 77W replacement in a few years - probably the 779, so wouldn't a 778 make more sense and that would also mean a common widebody pilot pool - all being qualified on both the 789 and 778/779.

A 778 would appear to be their best choice here.

That and the fact that the 778 is projected to carry more payload at range than the 359/ULR and the 779 compared with the 35K. It should not be forgotten that cargo is big money for NZ and important to New Zealand. The ability to carry more cargo further may offset the additional operating weight of the 77X models over the 350 models.

Many on A.Net speculate that NZ will go for the 350 series as they are lighter aircraft which offers additional flexibility allowing them to move from LH to Trans Tasman without carrying the additional weight around of the 77X. Boeing's solution to this would be to offer the 78J for T-T routes as well as high density leisure which obviously shares commonality with their existing 789 fleet.

Under this proposal I could see the fleet being as follows.

789 -Thinner Long Haul East Asia / West Coast SA
78J -High Density Leisure (DPS/HNL/NAD/PPT/RAR) and Trans-Tasman
778 -ULH (GRU/CHI/NYC)
779 -High Density Long Haul (HKG/LAX/SFO/TYO)

Lastly, my understanding is QF is pressuring both OEMs for more payload and more range for their own ULH aspirations. The fact that the 359/ULR and the 35K are already flying puts the 350 series at a sight disadvantage vs the 778 which hasn't left the drawing board. It seemingly allows Boeing to tinker with the aircraft with greater ease "while on paper" than Airbus with established aircraft that are probably more reliant on PIPs at this stage. Perhaps we'll see a split scimitar 359ULR to squeeze a few more miles.

77H

Where do you get the in information, that the 777-8 will carry more cargo than the A350-1000, but perhaps at extreme ULH?
I expect the 777-8 to carry a similar maximum structural payload as the 777-200LR, that would mean less than the A350-1000.
The A350-1000 is carrying 44 LD3, the same as the 777-300. The 777-8 will be shorter than the 777-300, ergo fewer LD3 than the A350-1000.

For all normal use, I expect the A350-1000 to haul as much or more cargo than the 777-8.

LAX772LR wrote:

CARST wrote:

AKL-ORD is not a LONG route by 787-9 standards...

AKL-DOH 7,848 nm 16:28 hours
LHR-PER 7,829 nm 16:26 hours
AKL-NYC 7,665 nm 16:05 hours
AKL-ORD 7,111 nm 14:56 hours

AKL-DOH is a 772LR, not a 789

Also the return flights on those sectors can take considerably longer due to the prevailing headwinds.

Many of us from New Zealand would not be surprised at all by an A359 order to replace the 77E fleet, delivery starting in 2022. It would then make sense to replace the 77W’s with A35K’s.

The airline’s strategy is diversifying to more point-to-point flights. More US non-stop destinations rather than relying on the LAX hub and UA. They don’t need slightly larger versions of what they’ve got already.

And besides, flying the distances NZ does in long-haul, the extra bit of width offered by the A350 in Y is welcome.

You can be sure they’re paying attention to what’s going on at WLG atm.





Regards
MH

Arion640 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Probably not a coincidence the A350-900 is doing short-runway testing at Wellington this week.

I've lived in NZ before but can't say i'm familar with Air New Zealands ops.

Do they operate widebodies from Wellington?

The only current scheduled wide-body is SQ’s 4 x weekly WLG-MEL-SIN 77E flights. Both NZ and QF used to fly 763’s trans-Tasman to MEL/SYD/BNE but with improved narrowbody performance, airline competition and consumer desire for frequency, the landscape has changed.

A350 would certainly be a solid choice, but ANZ already operates 787-9 and they should be able to check all boxes as well. AKL-NYC is a bit shorter than PER-LHR so it should be able to make it, although I am not familiar with the differences of prevailing winds on those routes.

aviationaware wrote:

A350 would certainly be a solid choice, but ANZ already operates 787-9 and they should be able to check all boxes as well. AKL-NYC is a bit shorter than PER-LHR so it should be able to make it, although I am not familiar with the differences of prevailing winds on those routes.

If it were suitable, NZ would already be using it on the route. NZ have quite a dense layout compared to many premium airlines and freight is important too. The 789 is not NYC bound in a NZ livery.

This could really go either way, nothing would be too surprising really.

I'd favor the A350 nominally, but the 77W fleet is only 6 years old, and the 787 only 2, so it would certainly seem the common type rating (if applicable) on the 77X might be favorable, and this is one of those cases where, perhaps, the services offerings from Boeing could also sway a close analysis. ANZ, like many a transpac airline, has a history of ordering more, not less/right at, the capability needed for their fleet. I also don't think they regret the 32-33" pitch in rows 34-60 on their current 777-3ER's.

I think it's quite a step to assume that NZ's up-sizing strategy on the domestic / regional fleet equates to an up-sizing on long haul. NZ are now clearly about point to point and there may be those among us who feel the 779x is the right plane but it is a hell of a lot of plane given NZ's current strategy of differentiation and point-to-point flying. Those who say why not more 787s haven't done their homework. NZ's configuration and freight needs mean this aircraft is not in consideration for ULH. I agree it could go either way but given their current strategy this would seem to be Airbus' deal to lose and Boeing's to gain. Love the idea of the 778x but that's a hell of a lot of metal to be utilising on the Tasman and if not its a hell of a lot of down time on the tarmac between likely long haul sectors because of hub and time-zone factors. If NZ chooses the 778/779 combo then it will be because they are sure they can make it work. If not, we will be seeing the A359 and A35K which to me seems a better fit. Australia is a lot further away from the US East Coast than NZ and there are reasons why QF might need the 778 and NZ wouldn't. So I am not so sure that the decision for one carrier automatically translates into a similar order for the other. After all, NZ have operated 777s for years without QF operating them. These airlines, contrary to what one might believe from comments in this forum, are not joined at the hip.

mjoelnir wrote:

77H wrote:

kaitak wrote:

They will need to be looking at a 77W replacement in a few years - probably the 779, so wouldn't a 778 make more sense and that would also mean a common widebody pilot pool - all being qualified on both the 789 and 778/779.

A 778 would appear to be their best choice here.

That and the fact that the 778 is projected to carry more payload at range than the 359/ULR and the 779 compared with the 35K. It should not be forgotten that cargo is big money for NZ and important to New Zealand. The ability to carry more cargo further may offset the additional operating weight of the 77X models over the 350 models.

Many on A.Net speculate that NZ will go for the 350 series as they are lighter aircraft which offers additional flexibility allowing them to move from LH to Trans Tasman without carrying the additional weight around of the 77X. Boeing's solution to this would be to offer the 78J for T-T routes as well as high density leisure which obviously shares commonality with their existing 789 fleet.

Under this proposal I could see the fleet being as follows.

789 -Thinner Long Haul East Asia / West Coast SA
78J -High Density Leisure (DPS/HNL/NAD/PPT/RAR) and Trans-Tasman
778 -ULH (GRU/CHI/NYC)
779 -High Density Long Haul (HKG/LAX/SFO/TYO)

Lastly, my understanding is QF is pressuring both OEMs for more payload and more range for their own ULH aspirations. The fact that the 359/ULR and the 35K are already flying puts the 350 series at a sight disadvantage vs the 778 which hasn't left the drawing board. It seemingly allows Boeing to tinker with the aircraft with greater ease "while on paper" than Airbus with established aircraft that are probably more reliant on PIPs at this stage. Perhaps we'll see a split scimitar 359ULR to squeeze a few more miles.

77H

Where do you get the in information, that the 777-8 will carry more cargo than the A350-1000, but perhaps at extreme ULH?
I expect the 777-8 to carry a similar maximum structural payload as the 777-200LR, that would mean less than the A350-1000.
The A350-1000 is carrying 44 LD3, the same as the 777-300. The 777-8 will be shorter than the 777-300, ergo fewer LD3 than the A350-1000.

For all normal use, I expect the A350-1000 to haul as much or more cargo than the 777-8.

Please re-read my post. I was specifically comparing the 778 to the 359/ULR AT RANGE. Never compared the 778 to the 35K. I did however compare the 35K to the 779 which will have more positions than the 35K.

Moreover, simply stating how many L3 positions a plane can carry is only half the picture. Cargo carrying performance of an aircraft depends on capacity (number of positions/total hold space) and payload.

I work in cargo and I have flights go out everyday with empty positions but at max payload. In these instances, capacity doesn’t matter. We had capacity to spare and cargo to move but we hit payload so cargo gets left behind. Could have 100 positions and it wouldn’t make a difference.

Many belly carriers tend to take on heavier cargo than the integrators so payload, especially at longer ranges cannot be so easily overlooked. For an airline like NZ, this is especially important as the majority of their international flights are LH or ULH. They also carry a lot of perishables too and from New Zealand which tend to be heavy. If their planes don’t have the payload to take the cargo is doesn’t move or they have to put it on a connection, often with an interline partner which is not ideal for perishables. You’d be shocked how much IAH origin NZ freight gets routed through LAX, SFO and HNL because their flight doesn’t have the payload to take it nonstop.

77H

oldannyboy wrote:

778/779....
The talk is mere froth to get a discount from Boeing...

If they keep dumpling prices as they do lately, indeed...

Jayafe wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

778/779....
The talk is mere froth to get a discount from Boeing...

If they keep dumpling prices as they do lately, indeed...

Do you need to post a comment like this on any thread discussing a Boeing order or possible order? It’s getting very old.