Lan Airlines 787

[Andyzx]

I feel a SYD-AKL-SYD J class status run comming on early 2011

LAN to be among first to get Boeing 787 Dreamliner
LAN Airlines will be one of the first to receive the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner when ten of the long-haul aircraft are added to its fleet in early 2011. The Dreamliner will have the capacity to seat 250 passengers and claims to be the world's most fuel-efficient aircraft. The airline plans to eventually increase its fleet to 32.

 

[Flashback]

I feel a SYD-AKL-SYD J class status run comming on early 2011

Very cool. The main thing will be whether or not it's actual put on LA800/801.

 

[samh004]

Very cool. The main thing will be whether or not it's actual put on LA800/801.

Well that is a long-haul route, but they must have other more lucrative long-haul routes too.

Would be cool, I’d assume they’d add a nice new interior when it comes out, otherwise the difference would be negligible. Other than to fly a new a/c type.

 

[yohy?!]

LAN is the only carrier on AKL-SCL....would be nice if they deployed the 787 but seems like they would more likely use them on routes with more competition?

 

[harvyk]

I do believe that ETOPS rules would stand in the way of using a 787 between AKL and SCL. It would need to fly much further north than would be desirable. So I doubt LA will bringing the 787 to AU \ NZ any time soon.

 

[docjames]

I do believe that ETOPS rules would stand in the way of using a 787 between AKL and SCL. It would need to fly much further north than would be desirable. So I doubt LA will bringing the 787 to AU \ NZ any time soon.

I think it'll be a long time before the 787 gets onto SYD-AKL-SCL due to ETOPS (or whatever the new name for ETOPS is ). The lack of 180min diversion capable airports means it is unlikely to be changed. To operate semi-equvalent routings to the A340-300 means needs ETOPS 330 (!) and antything beyond ETOPS 240 seems unlikely in any near timeframe.

Shame, but sadly cant see it any other way for the near future......

 

[straitman]

I think it'll be a long time before the 787 gets onto SYD-AKL-SCL due to ETOPS (or whatever the new name for ETOPS is ). The lack of 180min diversion capable airports means it is unlikely to be changed. To operate semi-equvalent routings to the A340-300 means needs ETOPS 330 (!) and antything beyond ETOPS 240 seems unlikely in any near timeframe.

Shame, but sadly cant see it any other way for the near future......

Oh well. A few people ahd their hopes up for about half a day.

 

[tuppaware]

Isnt ANA one of the first to fly them ?

Maybe a cheap flight to Japan first?

I think its funny that Qantas is hedging its bets on both A330 and 787 .

 

[oz_mark]

Isnt ANA one of the first to fly them ?

Maybe a cheap flight to Japan first?

I think its funny that Qantas is hedging its bets on both A330 and 787 .

Not sure they are hedging their bets. The number of A330's in the fleet simply reflect the fact that the 787 is coming late. If it had not come late, then there wouldn't be so many (there'd be some for sure, just not so many).

 

[harvyk]

Isnt ANA one of the first to fly them ?

Maybe a cheap flight to Japan first?

I think its funny that Qantas is hedging its bets on both A330 and 787 .

I believe ANA is the delivery customer.

Also QF isn't really hedging their bets. They where "given" the A330's when airbus had to delay the A380.

 

[markis10]

I believe ANA is the delivery customer.

Also QF isn't really hedging their bets. They where "given" the A330's when airbus had to delay the A380.

ANA are getting airframe 7 while LAN is now taking airframe 10 & 16, which entered the paint shop in Jan. However the early airframes have a limited range and while being certified for ETOPs 240, wont be used on the flights to AKL, however later deliveries in 2015 will, as the A340 will be replaced completely by the 787.

 

[drewbles]

Isnt ANA one of the first to fly them ?

Maybe a cheap flight to Japan first?

I think its funny that Qantas is hedging its bets on both A330 and 787 .

I'd say it's more likely QF got the A330's at a bargain basement price due to A380 delays, then the GFC happened and they have just had a win/win situation with pricing from Airbus. Coupled with the 787 delays, the ageing 767 fleet and the need to replace aircraft, the A330's were the best option at the time they needed them.

I'm guessing the A330's will be here to stay for a while, and the majority of 787's in the first 2-4 years will remain in JQ livery.

I'm sure QF also got handsome rebates from Boeing for the 787 delays. They're probably more than happy financially with the deal.

 

[Flying Fox]

I would have thought that they would use their 787 closer to home rather that across the Tasman.

 

[straitman]

I cannot say I would be at all comfortable at the thought of ETOPS 240.

 

[tuppaware]

I cannot say I would be at all comfortable at the thought of ETOPS 240.

I can only count one flight that I know of that had to land without any engine power where ETOPS rule would apply.

 

[markis10]

I can only count one flight that I know of that had to land without any engine power where ETOPS rule would apply.

Which flight was that? I believe UA hold the longest single engine record with a 777 doing 192min (UA842) landing at Kona with close to a full load ex AKL bound for LA.

 

[oz_mark]

I can only count one flight that I know of that had to land without any engine power where ETOPS rule would apply.

The whole point of ETOPS is to have a very high degree of confidence that at least one engine will be running.

 

[straitman]

The whole point of ETOPS is to have a very high degree of confidence that at least one engine will be running.

With ONLY one spare I guess the nagging question will always be 'Why did that engine stop:?:' :shock:

With three spares it is not really that important.

 

[markis10]

Problem is, its usually one or all regardless of how many engines you have, the SQ incident with the volcanic ash two weeks after BA9 was the only incident I can think of where a 747 (or A340) lost half its engines, and you could say that had it been a twin only one would have gone.

There are plenty of examples where all 4 failed due to fuel starvation or other reasons, however owing to good airmanship or luck, as far as I can tell, we have never seen a twin engine failure in flight that would have been an issue for an ETOPs aircraft, mind you that does not mean we dont need rules just in case there is a future need, nor does it mean I would have felt comfortable on that UA 777 as it took over three hours to land.

 

[straitman]

Problem is, its usually one or all regardless of how many engines you have, the SQ incident with the volcanic ash two weeks after BA9 was the only incident I can think of where a 747 (or A340) lost half its engines, and you could say that had it been a twin only one would have gone.

There are plenty of examples where all 4 failed due to fuel starvation or other reasons, however owing to good airmanship or luck, as far as I can tell, we have never seen a twin engine failure in flight that would have been an issue for an ETOPs aircraft, mind you that does not mean we dont need rules just in case there is a future need, nor does it mean I would have felt comfortable on that UA 777 as it took over three hours to land.

Thanks markis10 for the long version of what I really meant to say.

Of course the cynics would say that with four engines there is twice as much chance of something going wrong :!: :shock: