The SAAF Forum

Where do SAA fly internationally. Off the top of my head I can only think of Aus/UK/US/China/Brazil? All of which I imagine have high demand, and even if there is low demand there is always code sharing to try get more seats used up. For regional flights up around africa use a 767 variant.

the combi is a death trap. Our combi's had no fire protection i.e no proper fire detection or fire extinguishing system.

Yet figures from launch airline All Nippon Airways (ANA) show fuel savings are up to 21% on long-range flights, while figures for the General Electric GEnx-1B-powered aircraft at Japan Airlines (JAL) indicate potentially slightly better numbers.

GE says initial performance data show its GEnx-1B engine has a 2% fuel burn advantage over the competing Rolls-Royce Trent 1000, not counting an additional 1% benefit from expected performance retention in terms of sustained exhaust gas temperature margin. The first GEnx-1Bs are in service with JAL, while 787 launch operator ANA uses aircraft powered by the Trent 1000.

ANA earlier this month was the first to reveal that its aircraft were producing around 21% lower fuel burn on international flights compared to the 767-300ER that the 787 is designed to replace.

jeffreynic i m sorry for not including the B787 i forgot.

The B767-200ER can fly to all current SAA destinations non stop.

The Boeing 767-200ER (12 500KM) is 24.3 % more efficient than Airbus A330-200.
http://tinyurl.com/95x74ez

The value of B767 family aircraft are low, it started with the -200 falling from favour, it has to do with it's high fuel burn per seat.

The B767 is 30yrs old and still selling. 42 orders last year and 19 this year including orders from All Nippon. Give the aircraft some credit.

In 2002 Airbus and Boeing came to Johannesburg to compete for the $3.5b deal to replace SAA' s long haul fleet. Boeing was offering its well proven B777 and Airbus its relatively untested A340. When all numbers had been crunched there was not much in it. So SAA said that both manufacturers must bring their planes for a back to back fly off against each other. The entire SAA board would come along to sample the two manufacturer s products. Airbus was on the back foot SAA was a loyal Boeing customer and the A340-600 was not yet in service. It was decided that Airbus would fly first. As the A340 took off John Leahy (Airbus salesman)swung into action , plying his guests with champagne and sales chat. Airbus's sales pitch had been built around the slogan "Four engines are better than two" and Leahy emphasizing that this as especially true for hot and high airports like Johannesburg. Boeing just shrugged and pointed out that four engines were twice the maintenance and more fuel. The Airbus landed and it was Boeing salesman Toby Bright s turn. Then the airbus had the fantastic stroke of luck . As the 777 powered down the runway one of its two huge Trent 800 engines surged with a frightening bang. As it was before V1 (decision speed) the takeoff was aborted with a massive braking effort that threw everyone forward in their seats as they came to a screeching stop. Toby Bright said, "we had to screech to a stop on the runway , taxi back and park beside the A340. John Leahy was standing there with a huge grin , it was the worst experience of my sales life. As soon as i saw the engine had blown i knew we had lost. " This victory was however almost undone when a Rolls Royce representative reminded the shaken airline bosses that the Airbus also has Rolls Royce Trent engines and four of them.

He, he. Vote cast and we're now neck on neck 747-800 and 777.

My money's on the 777. Delta flies the -200LR Nonstop to Atlanta (both directions). Virgin Oz flew the -300 to SA nonstop. The 767 is too old a design, although the USAF will be buying a bunch of 767 tankers with upgraded wing. Still put money on the 777. It's also the best looking and most impressive aircraft to see coming in to land at ORT