Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
772-L.R. --- Whats Happening?  
User currently offlineSoaringadi From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 472 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3343 times:

Hey.....
I am seriously troubled that many airlines like SQ, EK etc. are (or rather have) going/gone for the 345 over the 200 L.r. I don't know why is this so...., and I feel that since the 777 has over proven itself in the past, and at the same time also taking into mind the 343's performance.... I think airlines should be preferring to go for the 200 L.R.

And as I have seen even today no one is opting for the L.R.'s.... It's pretty sad to know this...... what do you think is the reason ????

hope the future for the 777 is very very bright....  Smile


If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going !
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHorus From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 5230 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

The problem with these unltra long range aircraft is that they are niche aircraft so they will never sell in any big numbers. Currently there are only 5 orders for the 772LR (3 Eva air, 2 PIA).


EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4513 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3290 times:

For one thing, the 777-200LR has not even flown yet. In fact, they haven't even finished making the first one.

That in itself is a major reason.

Also as already stated, these aircraft are niche aircraft. You won't see Singapore Airlines ordering 50 of them. You won't see 777-200LRs outnumbering MD-80's in American Airlines fleet anytime soon.



PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offline767-332ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2030 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3203 times:


I think that we should consider that as the American companies start dissolving/merging/coming out of bankruptcy...and so forth, that they will consider the aircraft in the future. Think about the number of possibilities of operations...as someone had mentioned in another post...DL ATL-HKG...AA DFW-SYD...but of course the financial situations have to improve and it'll be a few years before this becomes a sweet and nice reality.
Regards



Twinjets...if one fails, work the other one twice as hard!!!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3179 times:

I am seriously troubled that many airlines like SQ, EK etc. are (or rather have) going/gone for the 345 over the 200 L.r. I don't know why is this so....,

SQ, and possibly EK, went for the A345 because it was the only avilable Ultra-Long Haul (ULH) aircraft at the time. It took Boeing a while to decide on a course of action to combat the A345/346 for a number of reasons, but they finally settled on the 772LR and 773ER in February 2000, several years after Airbus had finalized the A345/A346.

Boeing knew it's aircraft wouldn't get to market firts and planned for a 772LR EOS in 2004-2005. Then 9/11 caught everyone off gaurd, and the two 772LR customers asked Boeing to defer their deliveries until 2006. With no one asking for 772LRs any sooner, Boeing delayed the program by 18 months. Boeing has resumed development, and the first 772LR should enter production in October.

and I feel that since the 777 has over proven itself in the past, and at the same time also taking into mind the 343's performance.... I think airlines should be preferring to go for the 200 L.R.

Remember that much of the preference to the A345 exist because it was the only avilable ULH aircraft at the time. Airlines will order the 772LR in time and the possibility of removing the extra fuel tanks turns the 772LR into an ultra-high MTOW version of the 772ER as well as a freighter version of the 777.

The better-than expected performance of the 773ER in testing/certification has made Boeing condfident in its performance expectations of the 772LR. This is going to be a great aircraft  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2887 times:

Then 9/11 caught everyone off gaurd, and the two 772LR customers asked Boeing to defer their deliveries until 2006

BR was the only customer at the time. PK did not order until 14mo after 9/11.



Boeing delayed the program by 18 months

17  Big grin



This is going to be a great aircraft

Too right  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineMlsrar From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2874 times:

Welcome back CB! Has there been a firm EIS date announced?



I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

Not that I know of.... PK is saying Jan '06 though

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2798 times:

I think the potential market for 772LR will be limited to trans pacific carriers such as UA, NWA, JAL, ANA and a few other Chinees perhaps middle east carriers. The 772ER seems to be restricted on the full pass/cargo routes.

it could be that some recent shut down/diversions incident involving ETOPS 777´s don´t strenghten the statistics used to get the ETOPS >213 min´s case through with the FAA/EASA..



Another point : many airlines that wanted the 777, have them already ..



User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2672 times:

Keesje:
That´s my "nightmarevision" in the skies!! *LOL*

Mike//SE  Big thumbs up



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2598 times:

"The 772ER seems to be restricted on the full pass/cargo routes."

Dfw and C.B., what are your takes on this? I don't recall reading this in either AW&ST or FI. Could this be a significant handicap against the A345, despite the 772ER's somewhat greater range?

We all know how you feel, Solnabo. From another of your recent posts, I think it would be a huge kick to kidnap you, put you on a long-haul 777 and then bribe the pilots to intentionally shutdown one of the engines and inform you it was an inflight failure (assuming something as massively illegal as this could be pulled off, which, obviously, it couldn't be!). I'm sure from that post that your reaction would be priceless and well worth whatever trouble taken to get you there.  Laugh out loud Aw, I'm only pulling your leg, no need to get ticked at me, it's all in good fun! You're okay, Michael!  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2571 times:

AvObserver:
Puhleeze.....I would be a basketcase for years!!
*lmao*



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2536 times:

Just having a little fun with you - no offense intended. Big grin You may be interested to know that I too somewhat share your nervousness about being on long-range twins, though not to the extent that I wouldn't fly one. It's not even necessarily an A vs. B issue; if Airbus wasn't reluctant to perhaps undermine their LR quad sales, they'd likely have HGW A332s and A333s flying such routes but that's not their focus. Even if I stay in the Boeing camp, though, I'd feel better on a 744 than on a 777, just my own preference, not saying that LR twins are unsafe (so don't jump on my case, twin boosters).  Big grin

User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2447 times:

The 777LR will probably never make Boeing a dime.  Insane

What it could be effective as, is a loss-leader product line. Being able to offer a purchaser a family of aircraft that can fulfill ALL their mission needs can often be an order clincher. So that extra two or three frames can be tagged on to a potential order for thirty or more of the 772 and 773 family, giving the client commonality and flexibility. A potential order clincher.

I doubt whether the 772LR would ever have flown under recent Boeing leadership, as in the dark Condit days an order book of only 5 wouldn't be justification for a prototype and certification program. Hopefully Boeing is now starting to invest in the future again.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineTrevD From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 335 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2416 times:

Time will tell of course, but I believe Boeing's strategy is to put a stake in the A340-500 and further erode the viability of the A340 series.

Granted, both the A345 and 772LR are 'niche' airplanes for such ultra long range routes, but the lackluster performance of the A345 as evidenced by the huge weight (OEW) restrictions on Singapores LAX routes being limited to only 185 seats show that airplane to be right at the edge of its performance capability.

If Boeing is able to bring the 772LR in on spec (no reason not to think so - the 773ER came in 'better' than expected), it will be able to fly that same route with 300 seats and 20% less fuel.

If point-to-point does turn out to be the way the market goes, the 772LR will be the perfect choice for those medium density, long-range routes.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2380 times:

There is a precedent in the Boeing catalog, the 747SP.

Again a niche aircraft, but one that offered commonality and flexibility to 747 operators who needed a few more aircraft capable of the longer sectors.

I doubt whether Boeing made money on the SP either, but operators such as Iran Air, South African and Pan Am all included it in their 747 fleet purchases.

As the saying goes...sometimes you have to speculate to accumulate. The 777LR will be an excellent compliment to the 777 family as a whole, and makes it more desirable as an overall solution to the airlines.


User currently offlinePropulsion From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 294 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2352 times:

Yes, I agree that the 772LR is indeed conceived for both a niche, albeit small market, but that its contribution to the Boeing 777 family is arguably vital. As parallels to the 747SP have indicated, the 772LR may never be profitable but its impact on the enhancing the appeal of the 777 model family as a basis for an airlines' long-haul route network is arguably rather large even if it not directly ordered.

Its apparent lack of orders is probably very much due to a combination of temporal issues (Airbus offering first in this marketplace etc.) and the dire state of airlines that could very well benefit from it. I am in agreement that many a US carrier, especially the trans-pacific operators, could bolster their services with the addition of this aircraft. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to be acquired anytime soon unless the financial situation of the likes of UA and the others improves significantly to allow such expansion and the introduction of new, premium, ultra-long range point to point routes.



A bus is a vehicle that runs twice as fast when you are after it as when you are in it.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2345 times:

The 777LR will probably never make Boeing a dime.

I beg to differ. Boeing has already booked 76 777LR customers, with 71 773ER and 5 772LR customers. The 773ER hasn't been in service one month, more orders are sure to come, and you think it will never make a dime? Singapore could order in the next few weeks....

While the 777LR involved modest engineering work, it is nothing of the scope (and cost) of the radical reengineering of the A340. The major changes include certification of the new GE90-115, strengthened landing gear and brakes, provisions for additional fuel, wingtip extensions, and for the 773ER only, semilevered landing gear.

I doubt whether the 772LR would ever have flown under recent Boeing leadership, as in the dark Condit days an order book of only 5 wouldn't be justification for a prototype and certification program.

It is a minimum change over the 772ER. New engines, stronger landing gear and breaks, more fuel, wingtips.... since this is required for the 773ER anyway it makes absolutly no sense *not* to apply these upgrades to a 772. And what makes you think it will only book 5 orders of the life of the aircraft?

Being able to offer a purchaser a family of aircraft that can fulfill ALL their mission needs can often be an order clincher

And the 777 has proven beyond doubt that it outperforms each of its A340 counterparts... the true "order clincher." If the 777 were the inferior aircraft then your argument might make sense... because your basically saying the 772LR is a 764ER-like product designed just to keep a few Boeing loyals happy. Since we know the 772LR will outperform the A345, that argument doesn't hold any water.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

Dfw

Did you actually read my original post?

The 777LR will require a prototype and certification. Just as the 767-400 did.

The 777-200LR is NOT the same aircraft as the 777-300ER. Just as the 767-400 is NOT the same as the 767-300. You cannot lump orders in together and baldly state that one is the same as the other when both will need type certification and trials. Which cost money. There are a few more $$$ to be spent after that pretty new aircraft rolls out of the plant for the first time before it gets to a buyer. Money that Boeing might never recoup on the one product line alone, unless it offsets it against sales of the whole family.

It is also a lot more than 'minimum change' over the 777-200ER. Do weights, systems and fuel capacity not count then?

And please do not edit my posts to suit your own agenda. At no stage did I say that the 777LR would only book 5 frames. Nor did I make, as you do, the blind and unfounded assumption that an unbuilt and untested aircraft will automatically meet or exceed its projections.

That's what prototypes and testing is all about.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2303 times:

Nor did I make, as you do, the blind and unfounded assumption that an unbuilt and untested aircraft will automatically meet or exceed its projections.

Its sister aircraft (the 773ER) exceeded its expectations allowing Boeing to up the performance expectations by of the nearly identical 772LR to over 9,280nm. The 772LR could fail by 6% and still hold a payload and range advantage over the A345, and there are zero indications that the 772LR will not meet its expectations.

You cannot lump orders in together and baldly state that one is the same as the other when both will need type certification and trials.

The 777-200LR and the 777-300ER are both memebers of the 777 Long Range program, an effort by Boeing to counter the A345/A346 and offer customers a superior replacement to older generation 747s. They are members of the same development program, you can lump their orders together.

The 777-200LR is NOT the same aircraft as the 777-300ER

Thank you Cpt. Obvious. The fact remains that many of the upgrades for the 772LR have already been developed, already been built, already certified, and already in passenger service with the 773ER. The 772LR will be even easier to certify than the 773ER.

Take out the semilevered landing gear, derate the GE90-115, take out the 773 fuselage plugs and you have the 772LR. Everything neccesary for 772LR certification is proven technology, nothing new! It is a matter of certification, and the potential for crushing any future A345 customers easily justifies this expense.

Money that Boeing might never recoup on the one product line alone, unless it offsets it against sales of the whole family.

The low orders for the 772LR are offset by the orders for the 773ER, that would be the point of developing them in tandem.

It is also a lot more than 'minimum change' over the 777-200ER. Do weights, systems and fuel capacity not count then?

Yes, I happend to list these systems for you-



The 777 in a nutshell, is two airframes offered in 5 MTOW flavors. The 777-200 (A-market, ER B-market, and LR C-market) and the 777-300 (A-market, and ER B-market). A stronger commonality exist between a GE powered 772ER and a 772LR/773ER than a CFM56 powered A343 and a RR Trent 500 powered A345/A346.

And please do not edit my posts to suit your own agenda. At no stage did I say that the 777LR would only book 5 frames

No, you only said, in your words, "the 777LR will probably never make Boeing a dime." A blind and unfounded assumption perphaps?


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2278 times:

Dfw and C.B., what are your takes on this? I don't recall reading this in either AW&ST or FI. Could this be a significant handicap against the A345, despite the 772ER's somewhat greater range?

Re-read the statement in question again, and pay attention to the "ER"s versus the "LR"s  Big grin





Something that has yet to be expressed here is that if Airbus ever actually does come up with a 250-300 seat aircraft that can equal/exceed the 772ER in performance specs..... Boeing already has a 772ER-HGW ready to go, in the detanked 772LR.

Granted, it's attempts to market the -NG as a higher MTOW 772ER have been mooted by the high pricing stipend (a bare-bones 772LR still lists for more than an all-options-standard 772ER), that in itself can easily be addressed by Boeing.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2271 times:

Please go back and read my original post again.

I stand by what I posted. Volume will probably mean the 777LR will never make a shilling for Boeing. Certification costs will exceed profits from the model. As it did with the 767-400 (remember Boeing's own words...? 200 frames to break even?) which was another niche aircraft, as was the 747SP.

I justified that with the business case of why Boeing should still progress with the program. It's the icing on the 777 family cake. The icing that would potentially sell a fleet to a customer who has a requirement for several missions.

In the world of the armchair CEO the 777LR is Boeing's killer product. In the nasty real world where people spend REAL dollars, it's a niche product which will probably never recoup its costs. But as part of a package it can be a valuable sales tool which lands Boeing bigger 777 family orders.

Is that too hard for you to understand?


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2237 times:

Certification costs will exceed profits from the model.

Is that too hard for you to understand?



No...
though if you'd pipe down for a second and actually listen to what just about everyone has been trying to drill into your think skull; you'd understand that the certification costs* in both time and finance, are nigh-negligible to Boeing at this point due to most of them [particularly those governing 777NG-specific advancement] already being well-covered by the 773ER--- thus meaning that Boeing would more than likely lose revenue** by not offering the aircraft.


*************
And if that's still too much for you to process, think of it this way:
there are professionals who are p~a~i~d to figure this kinda crap out; so if they've decided that an aircraft, after year-and-a-half hiatus, needs to be built--- chances are, it's for the purpose of benefiting Boeing financially  Big grin



*in both time and finance
**in product availability, ergo customer good-will made manifest into orders


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2227 times:

So in other words you agree with me then?

For the one model, strictly defined costs to that one model, Boeing would lose money?

IOW sales of less than 100 units would LOSE them money, but as part of an overall sales strategy could be a profitable exercise?

Or do you also need mathematics 101?


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2213 times:

So in other words you agree with me then?

No, In other words I said you have no idea WTF you're talking about in this matter.



For the one model, strictly defined costs to that one model, Boeing would lose money?

Apparently, that's the point you seem to be missing: Boeing's lowest threshold of unit cost is the aircraft FAMILY, not the MODEL.



IOW sales of less than 100 units would LOSE them money, but as part of an overall sales strategy could be a profitable exercise?

IOW, sales of less than 100 individual aircraft could LOSE them money, but not offering that individual model could LOSE them MORE money.


25 WhiteHatter : You are really losing the plot here. I post supportive comments for the 772LR family and you attack me. Sigh. I post a business case for continuing th
26 ConcordeBoy : I post a business case for continuing the 772LR program and you, in your infinite wisdom, attack me. how about "in my confines of the real world"?
27 WhiteHatter : So let's break it down shall we? I work for an airline Do you? Next question I work for an airline outside the US. Do you? Third question I've worked
28 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...in as few words as possible: your point?
29 WhiteHatter : So I am posting a pro-Boeing point of view from the basis of twenty years of experience. And do you have a problem with that?
30 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : No, though I find it amusing that you seem to believe the two to be automatically correlated
31 Post contains images Rjpieces : WhiteHatter, since DFW and ConcordeBoy (welcome back) already tried to convince you why the 772LR has to be looked at with the 773ER (which outperform
32 B747-437B : I've worked for them for TWENTY FUCKING YEARS Gee, getting close to retirement age are we? Granpa needs a nap methinks... You made a great case (far m
33 WhiteHatter : So do we now assume you are an airpus enthusiast.....?
34 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : nah dude, I'm into guys
35 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : even though he will have to go find it because it sure ain't going down to MSY ...just haaaad to take it there, didn't you
36 WhiteHatter : just mailed you.....
37 ConcordeBoy : Duly responded
38 Ha763 : BTW, there are no prototype 777NGs. The 2 777-300ERs used by Boeing for most of the testing and certification are production models and will go to a c
39 Boeing nut : I stand by what I posted. Volume will probably mean the 777LR will never make a shilling for Boeing. Especially if they have less than 20 orders for t
40 The777Man : Some of the development cost for the -200LR will be covered by the -300ER so the cost for the -200LR shouldn't be as high as a completely new version.
41 Vorticity : Only so many at Boeing know the development costs for the 777-200LR. Someone out there knows how many it will take to break even on the aircraft. I th
42 NWDC10 : 20 years? What airline service? Robert NWDC10
43 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : non-US airline who has the 777-300ER on order. redundant, no?
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...
Whats Happening In CPH? Flights Cancelled posted Fri Feb 23 2007 15:12:28 by OA260
Whats Happening With MEA? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 16:44:04 by AA777
UA EMB120's: Whats Happening? posted Sun Jul 30 2006 16:11:42 by Dsa
Whats Happening With Domesticinflight Service(USA) posted Sun Apr 2 2006 11:53:49 by B727fan
Martinair - Whats Happening With Them? posted Wed Oct 5 2005 12:08:25 by CHRISBA777ER
Whats Happening With South African Flt. 202 posted Sun Jan 23 2005 03:22:08 by Airfrancejfk
Italian Airlines....whats Happening posted Sat Nov 27 2004 20:35:11 by AAplatnumflier
Anyone Know Whats Happening At Abidjan? posted Sat Feb 1 2003 03:31:38 by Planenutz
Whats Happening To Russian Avaition? posted Tue Jul 30 2002 08:24:12 by Trent_800
Whats Happening To G-MIDM? posted Tue Feb 12 2002 21:09:41 by Simon Cooper