Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The 772LR 3% More Efficient Than The 772ER For LH  
User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5810 times:

I just ran a simple regression with Boeing’s latest spec. and the 772LR comes out to be more than 3% more efficient than the ER for a route of 7730nm (772ER max. range). That means that at MTOW and typical conditions, the 772LR will use almost 1400Gal. less than the ER on a 7730nm flight.

Could airlines eventually consider this to be enough to offset the LR higher price compared to the ER?

Of course, we can’t expect Boeing to promote actively the 772LR over the 772ER but that might be another tool for Boeing against their key competitor. The LR version is clearly not going to sell in large quantities for ULH operations but this aircraft could fly «shorter» mission more efficiently than any other plane.

Any thoughts?


E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offline5NEOO From Nigeria, joined Nov 2003, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5683 times:

I just ran a simple regression

I think you just answered your question with that statement.

Admit it, you could care less about the continent Africa!
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 6153 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5625 times:


Do you have the data to run such an analysis on Airbus aircraft and other Boeing types ?

User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5354 times:


A regression in itself is not an analysis. Numbers like range and fuel capacity are easily available and in our case, that’s all you need to make an adequate extrapolation by running a standard mathematical regression with fuel as the input and range as the output. And the result is: the LR will be more fuel-efficient than the ER for long haul.

It’s as simple as that! Now, is that enough to compensate the fact that the acquisition cost of the LR is higher than for the ER?

E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1386 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5279 times:

Are you using the stated fuel capacity of the plane (53,440 gallons) as your independent variable? That might lead to inaccurate results, because the fuel tanks may not be full at the quoted range. In fact, on the 772LR, they will not be full for a 7730nm flight with maximum payload. Even with full tanks, the aircraft must maintain certain reserves (in other words, in normal circumstances, it will not arrive with the tanks empty).

In order to control for all variables, we would need to compare fuel burn per hour at cruise altitude for two the aircraft at the same weight. To my knowledge, this information isn't publicly available.

However, according to a Boeing reference document provided by BCAInfoSys, one of our Boeing insiders, the direct operating costs per seat-mile for a 5,000 nmi trip are about 3% higher on a 772LR than on the 772ER. This may take landing fees into consideration, which are based on takeoff weight, but my guess is that the -200LR would burn more fuel because it is somewhat heavier. In the interests of full disclosure, the document is a few years old and does not take the recent 773ER/772LR performance improvements into account.

Of course, the 772LR has the advantage of a significantly larger payload than the -200ER on all routes. This may make it more profitable on shorter routes already flown by the -200ER.

Link to the Boeing reference guide:


Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4930 times:


Thanks for your comments. I did use the latest 772LR spec. provided by Boeing but did not take into account the legal fuel reserve. My bad. However, we could make the working hypothesis that fuel reserves for the 772ER and 772LR would not be significantly different (unless fuel burn for 45 minutes at cruising altitude is significantly different between the ER and LR, which is what we are trying to figure out). Don't know how it would affect the results though. Of course, possible differences in landing fees are not included in this. Anyway, part of this could be solved by de-rating the engines when operating on shorter routes (i.e 7000nm flight)

However, the link you provided shows a range of 8800nm for the LR version while it is now over 9400nm for the same fuel capacity according to Boeing. Obviously, any operating costs based on shorter max. range would provide biased results.

The LR possible better fuel efficiency of the 772LR over the 772ER could essentially be explained by better engine efficiency and wingtips.


E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently offline7e7 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 159 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4429 times:

A question that always wandered across my mind.

Another way of looking at it is:
'Could fuel burn alone justify the preference of one type over another?'
'Is potential offset from increased payload, over revenue cycles, (mainly in cargo) is it enough to justify the additional cost of LR?'

The answers are multi-faced; As there are many ways to look at it:
Notably, the acquiring cost (including engine selection), maintenance implications, and operations routes.

Although fuel burn is an important factor of the equations, investing in a lighter variety is the way most operators see it. From Boeing perspective, it is 'tailor' making the product to suit customers' (airlines) needs.

Let's take MH as an example, on their weight restricted DXB-EWR flight.
Going for LR seems logical, as of abolishing the need for DXB as a stop, and saving in landing costs, time, and fuel burn.
But what about the added purchase and maintenance cost?
This can be seen in flights to 'neighboring' HKG or BKK or even SIN that will cost more than just using ER's (although ER vs LR wasn't an immediate option when they first got their ER's)

Not in any way implying on A vs B or 2 vs 4, the Airbus' 4 holers burn more fuel than their counterparts (correct me if I'm wrong), yet you don't see every airilne avoiding A345's.

User currently offlineACAfan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 710 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4359 times:


Could you put up the curves for us to see please!

At what distance does the LR efficiency cross over the ER efficiency?

Freddie Laker ... May be at peace with his maker ... But he is a persona non grata ... with IATA
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...
Environment Where The A300 Is More Efficient Than The A330? posted Mon Nov 28 2005 20:52:51 by MaverickM11
GFK, BIS, More On The Chopping Block For NW Cuts posted Wed Aug 17 2005 12:35:00 by AviatorTJ
Which Is The More Efficient: F50, DH3 Or AT4? posted Thu Feb 19 2004 16:02:48 by Pe@rson
Terms Of The Package For LH And MX At PDX? posted Wed Nov 19 2003 23:39:13 by ConcordeBoy
The Third DL 772ER For ATL-NRT? posted Mon Jul 21 2003 03:03:59 by ConcordeBoy
Why No GECAS/ILFC Order For The 772LR? posted Wed Dec 18 2002 18:17:23 by ConcordeBoy
Future Looking Brighter For The B717 (More Orders) posted Fri Jun 16 2000 21:17:45 by Teahan
Can You Tell Me More About The F/A Job? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 00:45:47 by KLM672
Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR posted Wed Oct 18 2006 17:36:21 by Dangould2000
More On The 737/747 In VVI posted Fri Jun 2 2006 20:01:54 by LatinAviation