Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?  
User currently offlineMotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3213 posts, RR: 9
Posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6197 times:

What are the most obvious and not so obvious city pairs for these two aircraft?
SIN, BKK & KLI to LAX & JFK, but what else?
SYD-AKL-JFK?
SYD-PRT-LHR?
YVR-SYD?
What have Air Canada, Emirates and Qatar got planned?
And who's ordered the 777-200LR?



come visit the south pacific
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6152 times:

Other possible routes are ones the 777-200ER serves as well. The LR variant will be able to carry more payload on these routes. For example, CO flies from Newark to Hong Kong non-stop now, but they would have advantages using an LR variant on the same route.

I'm sure ConcordeBoy will be able to tell you more. He's a 777-200LR fanatic.  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineMotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3213 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6136 times:

Thanks B_n will look into that.


come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineWolfy From Taiwan, joined Mar 2001, 337 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6049 times:

One of the route which AC planned to start with A345 was YYZ-JNB, others are YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG.

Wolfy


User currently offlineTsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5952 times:

Where is PRT?

*filler*



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5849 times:

Qatar hasn't ordered any 345, but I know somewhere down the road they might be interested in Doha to the US East Coast and West Coast using the 345 or 772LR. Emirates' near-term and mid-term plans include DXB-SYD and DXB-JFK and other North American destinations. EVA Air and PIA have ordered the 772LR. I believe EVA's plan for the 772LR is Taipei and the US East. I believe PIA's plan is also for the US East Coast.

User currently offlineMotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3213 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5650 times:


Tsentsan

Apologies, PRT should read PER. Referring to a possible SYD - PER - LHR route where QF could fly Australia UK direct/non-stop.


Dynkrisolo

Qatar hasn't ordered any 345, but I know somewhere down the road they might be interested in Doha to the US East Coast and West Coast using the 345 or 772LR.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © French Frogs AirSlides
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jonathan Derden - SPOT THIS!



?

Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5486 times:

The Qatar government has ordered one 345 for official use not for commercial services.

User currently offlineMotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3213 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days ago) and read 5460 times:

Kewl, thanks! Oh to have that oil wealth!

Looks good in their colours 'though.



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5257 times:

BR and PK have ordered the 772LR

BR is currently said to be calculating the use of the bird for nonstop service to PTY (yes, Panama) on behalf of the Evergreen group. The original plan to use it nonstop to EWR was reconsidered due to improvement in 773ER specifications.

PK has issued statements about using the birds from KHI to either IAH or LAX nonstop, but nowhere near finalized.

Yahoo Orders Group reports that KU is considering ordering the 772LR to expand their N.American services. Also, QR is to decide between the 772LR and A345 (despite already operating the A346) in 2004... stating that commonality is of little interest to them (the chatter QatarAirways can expand on that more than I)


User currently offlineRickb From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5229 times:

Any truth that the 772LR only meets its specified range with two optional tanks that replace 4 LD3 containers ? someone mentioned this and it would impact the cargo space compared to the A345 if true ?

RickB


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5183 times:

Any truth that the 772LR only meets its specified range with two optional tanks that replace 4 LD3 containers ?

Boeing makes it very clear that the 772LR's greater range is provided by two optional tanks in the cargo hold, though they only replace two LD3s, not four.

Some consider this an advantage, as the aircraft can be operated as a superhigh-powered 772ER* without the fuel tanks, with an enormous MTOW (the 772LR will have a higher MTOW than any twinjet ever designed); and don the extra tanks should an operator desire to use the bird for ultralonghaul.


*The disadvantage here, is that even the de-tanked 772LR is significantly more expensive than a GE90-94B powered 772ER with all options standard.


someone mentioned this and it would impact the cargo space compared to the A345 if true

To some extent. Though keep in mind that this is offset by two other factors:

1) the 772LR can hoist more cargo by weight than the A345
2) the A345 must take up valuable cabin or cargo area for crew rest, while the 772LR doesnt have to

[Edited 2003-09-02 01:54:09]

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5150 times:

Well, we'll find out what will it be like to fly a really long flight when SQ starts its LAX-SIN non-stop service using the A340-500 in 2004. You have to wonder will it be able to make it west bound, or will SQ need to use HKG as a technical stop for fuel during the winter months?

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5143 times:

The A340-500 will be able to make LAX-SIN easily year round.

It will likely be able to make it JFK-SIN year round.

N


User currently offlineTed747 From Australia, joined Jul 2003, 195 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5129 times:

But do people really want to fly JFK - SING non stop - thats a bloody long haul.

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5122 times:

As a frequent business traveller I will say I unequivocally choose nonstop travel whenever possible.

I need time at home, and I need time at my destination. I can only spare time at another airport when travelling for leisure.

N


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5053 times:

Well, we'll find out what will it be like to fly a really long flight when SQ starts its LAX-SIN non-stop service using the A340-500 in 2004

SIN-LAX (8770mi) is fairly long, but it's not as if ATL-JNB (8439mi) and EWR-HKG (8065mi) arent already significant indicators of what ultralonghaul nonstops are like in their own right...  Laugh out loud


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5047 times:

Gigneil:


The A340-500 will be able to make LAX-SIN easily year round.

It will likely be able to make it JFK-SIN year round.


I can assure you this will not be the case. If so, SQ would not configure their 345 with 190 or so seats.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5013 times:

I think they're shooting for more of a luxurious experience than anything else.

N


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4973 times:

Perhaps the all F/C config of the SQ 345 is to ensure nonstop ops on SIN-LAX by lowering revenue weight (if not revenue).




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4956 times:

Gigneil:

Trust me, it's related to payload/range issues.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4942 times:

So assumably the 777-200LR will have similar issues negotiating SIN-LAX and will likely not be able to do SIN-JFK at all either?

Its not a substantially more capable aircraft.

I can't believe both manufacturers would come to market with a plane not capable of traversing this, the single most pointed at route in the world in this range class.

N


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4927 times:

Boeing's 777-200LR full passenger payload range chart (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html) shows Singapore on the very edge of the Los Angeles range circle; in fact, it's on the line, but more inside than outside. Eastbound, LAX is well inside the Singapore range circle. Airbus' A340-500 SIN chart clearly excludes even a SIN-LAX flight (http://www.airbus.com/product/a340_a500_performance.asp).

The latest specs give the 772LR about 300nm more range than the A345. This doesn't sound like enough to make the difference between an A345 payload restriction to 200 pax and a 772LR full load of 300. Perhaps the 772LR has a flatter payload-range slope than the A345. Published charts don't look very different, though.

--B2707SST




Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4903 times:

SQ will initially be severely discounting the flights out of LAX at least until they determine demand (our travel department received our corporate discount scheme a month ago). Apparently, they want Raffles to develop a large following with the nonstop service (how can they not!).

As much as I'm not a fanatic of SQ--the nonstop flight will save hours off the travel time. We'll use it.


User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 386 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4856 times:

SIN-LAX
SIN-SFO
SIN-JFK
SIN-ORD
BKK-LAX
BKK-JFK
KUL-LAX
DXB-JFK
DXB-SFO


25 STT757 : "DXB-JFK" Malysian already flies EWR-DXB with a 777-200ER, on the way to Kula Lumpur.
26 Motorhussy : One thing I know for sure, the A345 has the ability to fly SIN - LAX return year round with a normal full three-class configuration including standar
27 Rickb : Concordeboy, Just checked Boeing's website and it specifically mentions that each optional fuel tank takes the place of 2 LD3 containers - in which ca
28 Post contains images FLYSSC : Air France has fleet of 25 B777, all are -200ER version waiting April 2004 to be the launch company for the brand new -300ER The longest ever flight o
29 Motorhussy : FLYSSC What's that got to do with this thread? MH
30 Dynkrisolo : Motorhussy: One thing I know for sure, the A345 has the ability to fly SIN - LAX return year round with a normal full three-class configuration includ
31 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : It will be faster than a 772LR too due to no ETOPS constraints across that vast expanse of the Pacific. Too bad there will be no such ETOPS "constrain
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX posted Fri Dec 10 2004 07:00:59 by Clickhappy
A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR posted Wed Aug 6 2003 23:18:13 by Osteogenesis
The Future Of The A340-500 And 777-200LR posted Fri May 18 2001 15:30:51 by Godbless
The A340-500 Or A346 For QF posted Fri Oct 31 2003 09:31:16 by QANTASBOY
A340-500 VS B777-200LR posted Wed Mar 1 2000 11:02:34 by Phileo
Will Qantas Buy A340-500 Or -600s? posted Sun Jun 27 1999 05:11:33 by 777rules
NWA Boeing 777-300ER Or Airbus A340-500/600? posted Fri Feb 27 2004 15:29:03 by KEESJE
Aircraft With Longest Range?/777-200LR Or 340-500? posted Tue Dec 17 2002 13:36:16 by MD 11
A340-500/-600 Or 777? posted Fri Nov 29 2002 00:56:55 by United777
Mexicana : A340 Or 777? posted Wed Feb 15 2006 16:42:59 by FCKC