Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Continental And The 777-200LR  
User currently offlineBsmalls35 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8265 times:

I was just reading another thread about Cathay's recently launched service between NY and Hong Kong on the a340-600 and possible payload restrictions. Since Continental offers service from EWR on the 777-200ER I assume they have payload restrictions too. Would the 777-200LR have the legs to carry a full load of passengers and cargo on the route? Will Continental ever order the 777-200LR?

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8061 times:

The answer is no and it will not orders with 777-200LR either.

User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6818 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8013 times:

Scotty's right....the LR will increase range but not at max payload since you still have to get the sucker off the ground in the first place!

In CO's case, the EWR-HKG flight is the most problematic load planning and weight & balance flight in the system.

Past a certain temperature (I think 84 degrees F or something), every degree in temp variation can impact the overall payload by 2000 lbs. That results in major seat blocks to accommodate the necessary weight restriction.


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 853 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8006 times:

.......and the A346-HGW is coming next year with Qatar as 1st customer!
IMHO the T7LR is no hit.

Mike//SE  Big grin



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7915 times:

IMHO the T7LR is no hit.

No hit? An aircraft that hasn't even been built yet?

The 777LR will most probably never attain large numbers, but will be a useful Boeing marketing tool. It will ensure that they can offer a family that will cover all commonality, range and capacity needs for a future 777 family buyer.

You can make conclusions like that the day an aircraft ceases production. There are a lot of 747 operators out there who will be looking for replacements in the next ten to fifteen years, who will not want to go A380. That's when the 777LR will count, as part of a package.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7844 times:

Unless something dramatic happens in the airline industry, CO is not in the market for new large airliners at this time. Although doing better than most other US carriers, the simple fact is that money is tight and CO is still not profitable.......CO had hoped to be profitable by the current quarter, but high fuel costs put an end to that. Until CO is making money (on a consistent basis), Gordon & company is unlikely to place orders for additional new aircraft.

I am sure that CO would like to add the 777LR....it would make EWR-HKG operations easier and allow them to think about opening up other routes to China (when authorities are granted), Bangkok, Singapore and other such destinations out of EWR and IAH, but its just not going to happen in the current financial enviornment.

CO has one current paid-for option outstanding on the 777 series, it is likely to accept another 777-200ER to match the rest of its 777 fleet, and thats about it for the time being with respect to CO widebodies. Most future international expasion at CO, per rumors, will be transatlantic and handled by 757 aircraft and additional tweaking of the 767 scheduling.


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7810 times:

Still the GE-90 engines are probably going to make the 772LR a bit more attractive to CO....


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7793 times:

CO would absolutely love to have the 772LR, and even more so the 7E7.... just that they wouldnt be so wild about PAYING for either one of them.

As I've said here many times before: Boeing does have a trump-card with the 772LR that they can [but currently have little incentive] to play: if and when a competitor actually develops a 250-300seater which can equal or exceed the 772ER's performance capability at a similar cost; Boeing's already got a superMTOW ready-to-go 772ERX in the de-tanked 772LR.

The only thing preventing that from occurring at this point (and rightfully so, from Boeing's perspective) is acquisition costs: even a bare-bones 772LR still lists for considerably more than a 772ER with all-options-standard


User currently offlineTjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2453 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7463 times:

Oooh.... CO 777LR....... up to 9280 nm range....

EWR-SYD
EWR-KUL
EWR-SIN
EWR-BOM

IAH-SYD
IAH-KUL
IAH-SIN
IAH-BOM



Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
User currently offlineMerC From Sweden, joined Dec 2003, 590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7342 times:

IMHO the T7LR is no hit.

 Insane




It's Scandinavian
User currently offlineHUPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7294 times:

Scotty's right....the LR will increase range but not at max payload since you still have to get the sucker off the ground in the first place!

The LR is an LR because of it's ability to carry more fuel than the standard ER (not to mention the performance increase because of the winglets). This means that it will be able to carry the same generic payload as a standard T7 or an ER, but with additional fuel which will increases it's MTOW.

With the 777LR's increased MTOW it does not have to be used to its full endurance, especially on proven ER routes, but rather as a ultra-MTOW 777ER enabling it to carry MORE passengers and MORE cargo in lieu of the extra fuel.


User currently offlineCx123 From Australia, joined May 2004, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7230 times:

When you have payload restictions, how many passengers have to be offloaded?
Also what will happen to those seats??? Taped off?


User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6792 times:

I always read the constant BS on here about all the passengers getting offloaded from the EWR-HKG-EWR flight, and it is utter BS. Most of the time the aircraft goes out with 44 and 232 which is capacity for that aircraft. Ocassionally there is a weight restriction on the way back, but we are talking 4 seats, not 50.

The 4 businessfirst seats are held for crew rest, as are the 3 seats in the last row of coach for crew rest, unless it is a class A oversell, then the agents are allowed to release the coach seats.

J


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6572 times:

EWR-SYD

At this point, even the 772LR will not be capable of nonstop NYC-SYD with any decent payload.

However, why bother, when they could theoretically (particularly with furture expectant ETOPS allotments) offer the flight via IAH, and offer much more connections therefrom.

Would be funny to see wee lil' CO (perhaps with the assistance of DL/NW) beat AA/QF into the Australian market from Texas.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6562 times:

Hey Fartsyman...

...know if CO's ever taken any keen interest in overhead crew rests a la DL/AZ/etc?


User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6536 times:

IMHO the T7LR is no hit

Solnabo, could you shutup already? This is not surprise coming from you, you don't think any Boeing aircraft is a "hit", let alone a good aircraft, but every single aircraft Airbus makes is some kind of God's send.




-NWA742


User currently offlineTjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2453 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6450 times:

EWR-SYD = 8629 nm with a 207 ETOPS restriction. Still 600+ nm to spare. Even with head winds, wouldn't the 777LR have the legs?

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=ewr-syd&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=&PATH-UNITS=nm&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=&ETOPS=207




Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6386 times:

On a journey that long, the 600 miles would soon be eaten into.

Factor in considerations such as winds, storms and the basic fact that point-to-point flying is still some time off, and it makes the total mileage rise considerably. That's one reason why many routes which are at the aircraft limit (or close to it) end up taking a fuel stop. SAA and the A346 comes to mind.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6264 times:

Even with head winds, wouldn't the 777LR have the legs?

According to Boeing, nope, it wouldn't. Even typical winds (85th percentile) are enough to keep the westbound out of the twinjet's reach.


User currently offlineND From Belgium, joined Feb 2004, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6236 times:

Perhaps IAH-SYD would be more suitable for the capabilites of the 772LR. Although I doubt that a market exists for such a segment.


ND - Hated By Many, Confronted By None
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6089 times:

Scotty's right....the LR will increase range but not at max payload since you still have to get the sucker off the ground in the first place!

A 777-200LR with max payload will still feature large amounts more range than a 777-200ER with max payload.

N


User currently offlineTexAussie From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5933 times:

I think Texas will be the next US state to get an Australian nonstop. QF wants it. With the hubs at DFW (AA/QF) and IAH (Co... but now include NW and DL with SkyTeam), the state is an ideal entry point.

As someone who makes the Kangaroo-Cattle run a lot, I can assure you there are a lot of people on the LAX routes who would prefer to enter the US in the Central time zone... flights East out of LA take the whole day... and dry up after 2PM so options are limited.

Arriving into DFW or IAH at 6AM would give Australian passengers access to the Southwest, Midwest, and Southeast (and even the Northeast) in the same business day. They could get to Miami, New York, Atlanta, Raleigh, DC, etc all before lunch... instead of 6PM+ under the current LAX connections.

Anyone who thinks there is no more market to be claimed between SYD/MEL and the US has not flown the route in a long time. All the flights go out full in business class, mostly full in 1st and quite-to-completely full in Y.



User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5867 times:

CO would still have something of a disadvantage in that it could only feed one side of the flight.... perhaps multilaterally sharing DJ?

User currently offline9V-SPF From Germany, joined Sep 2001, 1375 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5816 times:

Solnabo, could you shutup already? This is not surprise coming from you, you don't think any Boeing aircraft is a "hit", let alone a good aircraft, but every single aircraft Airbus makes is some kind of God's send.

You´re just giving him the attention he wants. Leave him alone and maybe some day he´ll stop posting bullshit.

One question: Has CO ever served Australia?


User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5810 times:


One question: Has CO ever served Australia?


Yes. It was never profitable for them, and Gordon Bethune dropped it after becoming CEO.


25 A330323X : One question: Has CO ever served Australia? Yes. It was never profitable for them, and Gordon Bethune dropped it after becoming CEO. CO still serves A
26 Dutchjet : CO served Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland, Nadi and Pago Pago in the late 1970s until the mid 1980s with DC10 aircraft. Flights were routed LAX to HNL and
27 ConcordeBoy : and the entire Gulf Coast/Midwest/Southeast regions of the US (where AA is not that strong) Unfortunately... neither is CO, that's DL territory.
28 COfaninBOS : CO isn't nearly as strong as DL in the Southeast/Gulf Coast areas, but CO has made major strides in service from IAH. In the past 3-5 years, non-stop
29 ConcordeBoy : Also worth adding to this thread: ...since 2000, CO has twice reviewed and decided against the option to PIP its GE90s. Casts a shadow on any hope tha
30 Post contains images Solnabo : If I got an opinion about 772LR I write about it, ok?? Couldn´t care less if you tell me to "STFU", (getting used to it) made a point about LR and if
31 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : You´re just giving him the attention he wants. Leave him alone and maybe some day he´ll stop posting bullshit. ...just a reminder to anyone who migh
32 Solnabo : C-boy: You seems to be the QueenBitch in here, so why dont you start...*lol*
33 ND : Solnabo, With all the crap you write, I sometimes wonder why you pay to post here. ConcordeBoy might seem like "QueenBitch" here, but at least he's co
34 Post contains images Solnabo : I´m sorry but I am no Einstein In Aviation! "Solnabo" is a happy amatour and gonna stay that way....... In what way will I "confuse newcomers"? I nev
35 Post contains links and images Hamlet69 : "...since 2000, CO has twice reviewed and decided against the option to PIP its GE90s." ConcordeBoy, I'm afraid you're information is 6 days too old:
36 Gigneil : That is actually quite interesting... Has CO also decided to uprate their engines, or will they remain rated for 90,000 lbs? N
37 ConcordeBoy : I'm afraid you're information is 6 days too old Email Incoming Hamlet... got more to add to the release (straight from CO) or will they remain rated f
38 Raggi : Interesting. But I have a question: Why would CO choose not to uprate the thrust to 94K (or 93.700), like other PIP customers? raggi
39 WhiteHatter : Increasing thrust lowers engine life. It's the same as running your car engine at high revs or just keeping it to under 3000RPM. If they don't need th
40 Raggi : OK, I see. But wouldn't the added thrust be of good use on the long hauls EWRHKG, IAHNRT and so on? Is CO the only one of the airlines that have order
41 ConcordeBoy : But wouldn't the added thrust be of good use on the long hauls EWRHKG, IAHNRT and so on? ...course it would, just as it'd be a "waste" on all the EWR-
42 Post contains images Hamlet69 : "Increasing thrust lowers engine life. It's the same as running your car engine at high revs or just keeping it to under 3000RPM. If they don't need t
43 ConcordeBoy : CX as well (IINM, CXFlyBoy was stating that they sometimes use the full 184,000lbs out of India) Got your e-mail, thanks. Your thoughts? ...you dont f
44 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Forgot to add Hamlet, my email is acting screwy today... so if you replied and answered any of the above, please excuse the redundancy
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...
UAL And The 777-200LR. posted Wed Jan 17 2001 22:18:52 by CX747
Lufthansa And The 777 posted Sat Nov 18 2006 15:16:06 by LHStarAlliance
Continental And The B777 posted Sat Aug 19 2006 06:17:03 by CB777
BA And The 777 To SYD posted Mon Jul 24 2006 00:24:41 by Etuk380
PDX And The 777 posted Mon Oct 10 2005 06:26:47 by Leneld
Qantas And The 777, How Soon? posted Mon Sep 19 2005 00:08:43 by Georgiabill
Have Qantas Ordered The 777-200LR? posted Sat Aug 13 2005 13:48:22 by EZYAirbus
Headwinds Buffet Boeing's Plans For The 777-200LR posted Mon Jul 25 2005 15:17:10 by MidnightMike
Aeromexico And The 777 posted Fri Jul 15 2005 17:32:12 by Henpol747
Has The 777-200LR Departed LGW Yet? posted Sun Jul 10 2005 16:06:04 by CX flyboy