LanPeru From Peru, joined Jun 2001, 645 posts, RR: 9 Posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3954 times:
We see that many 777s do flight of 7..8..9+ hours and they are very economical..these are usually done by ER versions of the 777. My question is this..if you have a shorter hop of about 2300nm (about 5h30m flt time I believe) would the 777-200 or the 777-200ER be more economical? I believe this might be similar to the A333 vs A332 on shorter hops, but to be honest I am not sure. Any input is greatly appreciated.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1061 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3891 times:
The 777-200 has a range of 5,210 nm while the 777-200ER has a range of 7,730 nm. A 777-200 with Pratt engines weights 9,000 lbs. less than a -200ER with GE engines (empty weight) so I would assume a -200 is defintly more efficent for some shorthaul (2000-5000 nm) trips.
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7721 posts, RR: 41
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3835 times:
Correct me if I am wrong, but the non-ER versions of the 777 are very popular with Asian carriers because they need to transport large loads of passengers between cities that are not so far apart from each other, right?
Other than that, there is not such a big market for the non-ER versions of the 777, right?
Next flights: MEX-JFK-FCO AM 788/AZ 77E | DBV-BEG-BUD JU AT7/733 | BUD-AMS 738 | AMS-MEX 74M
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3813 times:
While the 772A (and sometimes even more so, the A333) often proves more efficient than the 772ER on high-capacity shorthaul.... one must remember that [outside of Asia], most 772ER short hops are repositionings or tag-ons for intercontinental operations-- hence the usage.
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2691 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3796 times:
You are right, EddieDude. Cathay Pacific, Japan Airlines, ANA, and Thai Airways and others operate large amounts of -ER versions of the 777s because of the close cities. Singapore Airlines is one of the few carriers in Asia that operates many ER versions of the 777s.
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2621 posts, RR: 57
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3716 times:
I have trawled back through the airliners.net archives to find a Northwest article on their selection of the A330.
All in all it's a very interesting article....
It does much to dispel the misguided "always go for the biggest, heaviest, longest-range" sentiment that pervades airliners.net discussions about fleet choice.
Perspective on NW's Recent Selection of the A330 of 777
By Tim Campbell, Managing Director- Performance Analysis
From On Course, Northwest Flight Operations Magazine May/June 2001
The January February issue of On Course contained an article by Capt. Jeff Carlson that outlined the details of Northwest's multibillion-dollar investment in new aircraft. A large component of this order includes 24 PW4168A-powered A330-300s. Numerous questions have arisen since the announcement of this order, specifically why the A330 was selected instead of the 777.
This article will address these questions by summarising our assessment of the performance characteristics of the A330 relative to the 777 and how this information was used in the final evaluation of these two aircraft.
The competition between the 777 and A330 was for a new aircraft that would replace our DC-10-30s on dedicated transatlantic missions.
Perhaps the most important performance-related aspect of this aircraft evaluation was finding the best match between aircraft payload-range capability and forecasted payload demand. We were seeking an aircraft that efficiently meets our projected requirements. As shown in the graphs, the A330 most optimally meets our payload requirements in the Atlantic. This payload capability, when coupled with operating costs and projected market requirements (demand) for both passenger and cargo traffic, offers the highest earnings potential.
The match between capability and market requirements is important because it is inefficient to operate aircraft with excess capability. Our evaluation clearly shows that the 777-200ER aircraft has significantly more payload-range capability than the A330-300.
The additional range capability could be helpful if the same aircraft were also flown across the Pacific. However this possible dual mission capability was determined to be impractical because Pacific aircraft require a much greater share of World Business Class seats than Atlantic aircraft. Furthermore, the Pratt powered 777-200ER could not fly many critical Pacific missions with full passenger load, and most missions required weight limits on cargo.
This is not necessarily apparent if one looks from the generic marketing material from Boeing because the range of the 777-200, evaluated with Northwest rules and interiors, is approximately 1,100 miles less than advertised.
The 777 can carry more seats than the A330 although the A330 already carries 29 more seats than our current DC-10-30s. The optimal 777-200 configuration we modelled had 27 more seats than the A330-300 (329-302) and 56 seats more than the DC-10-30 (329-273). However, these additional seats were economy seats that typically would be filled with lower yielding passengers.
The 777 has the same empty weight for all available MTOW's (580,000-656,000 lbs). Northwest requires only the lowest weight for nearly all markets, roughly comparable to the A330. The net result to Northwest is that the 777 is more than 41,000 pounds heavier than the A330 yet provides minimal additional revenue capacity.
The heavier weight of the 777 translates directly into a fuel burn penalty. On a typical 3,500 nm mission, the A330 burns approximately 28% less fuel than a DC-10-30; accounting for its higher seating capacity, it burns 35% less on a per seat basis. The much heavier 777 burns approximately 16% more fuel than the A330 on a per trip basis, and 6% more on a per seat basis.
Questions have arisen about the cruise speed of the A330, largely due to issues surrounding the cruise speed of the A340. NW intends to operate the A330 at a cruise speed of Mach 0.82. This speed corresponds to the aircraft's LRC (long range cruise) Mach number for most gross weight/altitude combinations. While the published cruise speed of the A340 is Mach 0.82, our analysis substantiates the experience of line pilots that certain operators fly slower to avoid excessive fuel burn. Airbus has implicitly recognised the cruise speed issue with the "first generation" A340's by redesigning the wing on the A340-500 and -600.
As shown in the table, the A33's cruise speed is slower than the 777, but it is consistent with our DC-10-30 and faster than other aircraft operating across the Atlantic. The cruise speed differences between the 777 and A330 equates to a trip length difference of approximately 10 minutes on a typical Atlantic mission. It may be interesting to note that Northwest negotiated stringent, comprehensive contractual commitments from Airbus to ensure the A330 will meet our performance expectations both at the time of deliver and for several years thereafter. This is a requirement we make of airframe/engine manufacturers, including Boeing. The performance level of the new 757-300's has a similar level of protection. Our agreement with Airbus also provides us with mission flexibility we could not achieve with Boeing. The Airbus agreement is structured to allow us to take delivery of other members of the A330 family if our requirements change over time. A shorter member of the A330 family, the A330-200, has 257 seats in the Northwest configuration. It has approximately 900 nm more range than the A330-300. This added flexibility to tailor capacity to market requirements not offered by the 777 since Boeing was unwilling to formally offer a smaller, lower priced version of the 777.
In summary, the excess capacity of the 777 leads to operating economics inferior to the A330. This situation is further degraded when the notably higher purchase price of the 777 is factored into the analysis. The marginal improvement in revenue the 777's size offers simply cannot overcome its increased operating and ownership costs. Our Atlantic replacement decision does not mean that the 777 will be excluded from future aircraft competitions. The longer-range version of the 777-200 and 777-300 will be evaluated against the A340-500 and A340-600 when we begin the 747-200-replacement analysis.
Atlantic Range requirements for NW
- The range capability of the A330 family is a better match for NW requirements than the 777-200ER
-Markets with capability to carry 302 pax, plus at least 20,000 lbs. cargo in both directions: BOS-AMS, DTW-AMS, DTW-CDG, DTW-LGW, DTW-LHR, EWR-AWM, IAD-AMS, JFK-AMS, MSP-LGW, MSP-LHR
Pacific Range Requirements for NW
- The range capability of the PW4090 powered 777-20ER is insufficient to be considered as a suitable replacement for the Pacific
AC345 From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3569 times:
CROSSWIND, thanks for bringing up that article. Most informative. It answers lots of the questions I had regarding the choices an airline makes when shopping around for an airplane.
We, the a.net "specialists", have a lot of preconceived notions about about the merits or flaws of a particular aircraft, without really knowing what the precise requirements of an airline are. I think this article clearly shows how a seemingly obvious advantage can work against an aircraft, and make the other one the winner in this particular race. It is not about any of them being the ultimate flying machine that is everything to everybody. It is about the needs of an airline (which we know very little about, and by we I mean everybody who is not directly implicated in fleet management) and the aircraft best suited to address those needs.
This article would be a good conclusion to the A vs. B war. After reading it, I won't ever be able to say that aircraft A is better than aircraft B just by looking at the specs and propaganda provided by the manufacurers, and without having the most important part of the puzzle: the airline and it's precise requirements and needs.