Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing: First 772LR Nearing Completion!  
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10049 times:





Good stuff  Big thumbs up




EVERETT, Wash., Dec. 16, 2004 -- The three main sections of the first Boeing [NYSE:BA] 777-200LR (Longer Range), which will be the world's longest-range commercial airplane, were recently joined at the company's Everett, Wash. plant. The 777-200LR can carry 301 passengers up to 9,420 nautical miles (17,446 kilometers), making possible routes such as London-Sydney and New York-Singapore with a full passenger load. The first 777-200LR will be unveiled in February and begin flight-testing in March. First delivery is scheduled for the first quarter of 2006. Pakistan International Airlines and EVA Air are the airplane's first customers.

...continue reading at Boeing's website


85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSjoerd From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9873 times:

Pakistan International Airlines and EVA Air are the airplane's first customers.

First and only customers...



Flanders + Wallonnia + Brussels = the UNITED STATES of BELGIUM
User currently offlineRlwynn From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 1097 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9808 times:

Where does Pakistan need to fly 17,00km to.


I can drive faster than you
User currently offlineODwyerPW From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 878 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9783 times:

Orders are scant. However, this plane lays the foundation for the 777 Freighter program.


Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9753 times:

"First and only customers..."............for now......wait until the performance comes out ( knowing how conservative Boeing is with their numbers, it will probably be better than given,), we will then see a plethora of orders, and I wouldn't be surprise to see SQ ring up a nice order along with some other air carriers.....ie. ANA, etc.

Jac777



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineAAplatnumflier From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9752 times:

Wait until they start flying this baby and showing off what it can really do. I would expect to see orders from American based Airlines within a few years assuming the economy keeps growing. I would have to say AA and UA aquire it to fly LAX-SYD. Just my personal opinion though.

User currently offlineA340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4106 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9733 times:

OMG i'm so excited. Its another 777 in my opinion, excuse me whilst I fall asleep! It's hardly causing a stir with orders is it, just looks the same, almost more exciting than the A350 Laugh out loud

Sam Laugh out loud

[Edited 2004-12-17 01:29:58]


Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
User currently offlineMdl21483 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9728 times:

PIA may make the IAH-KRH flights non-stop* with these birds- they sure do have enough range to try!

Aren't orders usually scant for variants initially? I would think that most potential customers want to see if the plane would be worth it in today's economy by watching the success/loss of others before putting themselves into such a situation. Aviation isn't about pioneering as much as it used to be back in the day, now its whether or not your product is strong enough to survive.



From the shores of the sea we have come afar, we have risen high, among the stars.
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12147 posts, RR: 49
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9709 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Since AA does not fly to SYD why would they need a plane that can fly that route?


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9698 times:

I would have to say AA and UA aquire it to fly LAX-SYD. Just my personal opinion though.

The 772ER can already accomplish this if they wanted to.

777-200ER max range - 7,720 nm
747-400ER max range - 7,670 nm (already doing LAX-SYD)

Nowthen, DFW-SYD? Definitely capable.
ORD-SYD, with a premium seating arrangement, possibly.
But both could do the route with a greater payload though.


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9685 times:

OMG i'm so excited. Its another 777 in my opinion, excuse me whilst I fall asleep! It's hardly causing a stir with orders is it, just looks the same, almost more exciting than the A350

Hey! Give us "niche" fans a break, will ya?!?!?  Laugh out loud


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9659 times:

hardly causing a stir with orders is it

That's the nature of the C-market in general.

In case you haven't noticed; the A345 (whose major orders were placed when it was the only C-market aircraft available) has not been able to secure any more customers than has the 772LR, in the nearly half decade since the twinjet was launched.



777-200ER max range - 7,720 nm

7760nm


User currently offlineWhitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9648 times:

Not in the least bit interested in it.

Now the freighter version...let's see that baby built and flying! The long range/high payload freighter is going to be the real moneymaker for Boeing if the MD-11 customer sector goes for it. There is ten times the potential (or more) in the freight sector for this aircraft.


User currently offlineA340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4106 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9636 times:

I never said anything about the A345, but at least it looks different. I said the A350, I can see neither the A345 or B777LR being a big success,

Sam



Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9577 times:

777-200ER max range - 7,720 nm

7760nm


According to Boeing, we're both wrong.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html

7,730 nm.

Nya, nya, nya, nya nyaaaaaa.

[Edited 2004-12-17 02:07:53]

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9559 times:

I never said anything about the A345, but at least it looks different.

To no significant degree...

...the only amateurs who could effectively differentiate the A345 from the A346 (or in most cases, from anything with 4 engines and no hump)... are industry-obsessed spotters and enthusiasts. Deal.




can see neither the A345 or B777LR being a big success,

Perhaps. Though, worth noting that the 772LR has two trump cards, one of which the A345 cannot replicate.

1) it can be utilized as an (expensive!) B-market aircraft offering more range/payload and less weight than the A345. This is particularly significant seeing as Boeing may very well have to become price competitve with the 772ER should Airbus succeed in producing a stretched A350-- allowing detanked 772LRs to compete near the higher end of that derivative's mission profile.

2) it can be offered as both pax or freighter


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9527 times:

The 772ER can already accomplish this if they wanted to.

United's can't. AA probably wouldn't be able to get a decent routing to make it possible.

The 772LR's 330 minute ETOPS, assuming cleared for South Pacific operations, would be the best way to do it.

N


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9524 times:

7,730 nm

Oh yeah... Iknewthat!  Innocent


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9479 times:

Well the entire purpose of the 777NG is to carry more weight further. You can either carry more money making passengers or cargo or more money burning fuel that allows you to travel further. Since airlines want to make money, the sweet spot for the 777NG's seems to be 773ER market. If Boeing could sell a the detanked 772LR for a bit less, airlines might buy it instead of the 772ER for enhanced cargo capacity and because it will probably have a higher resale value for freighter conversions.


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineWF2BNN From Norway, joined Dec 2004, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9482 times:

What about NYC-SYD nonstop? That's only 8636 nm.

WF2BNN



What goes up, must come down.
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9468 times:

"PIA may make the IAH-KRH flights non-stop* with these birds- they sure do have enough range to try!"

you mean IAH-KHI.....and they wouldn't need to try, accordingly, it will be able to do with without too much of a problem (according to Boeings numbers), in fact, as I previously stated, if the numbers come out as expected, I think this could potentially be big for Boeing..



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9193 times:

If Boeing could sell a the detanked 772LR for a bit less, airlines might buy it instead of the 772ER

At this point, they have little incentive to.

The 772ER (its relatively high production costs aside) still commands a premium over its competitor, and nothing about that's going to change any time soon. However, with impending models such as the proposed A350 on the way-- the 772ER may lose that advantage and thus require a detanked 772LR to compete on the higher end of that aircraft's former mission profile.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 22, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9080 times:

Record breaking?

Expect this bird to break the 777-200ER's speed and distance record on it's delivery flight or in testing.

If Boeing could sell a the detanked 772LR for a bit less, airlines might buy it instead of the 772ER

37,500lbs of fuel in three aft cargo hold tanks are optional and airlines can already choose to buy them or not. Even without the optional additional fuel tankage the performance is such that it could carry the same payload, (actually a tiny bit more), than SQ's A340-500's average now SIN-EWR-SIN. That projected performance will most likely not only be validated but extended by 1-2%.

However, with impending models such as the proposed A350 on the way-- the 772ER may lose that advantage and thus require a detanked 772LR to compete on the higher end of that aircraft's former mission profile.

Given the proposed, or rumored, technology to be included in the A350 it's unlikely that the A350 will be able to provide significant or any operational cost savings at the payloads and longest ranges operated by the B market 777-200. 7E7-9 will have range beyond the A340-200 carrying a similar payload, with a 106,000lb lighter MTOW (that 106,000lb weight saving breaks down to about 35/65 % reduced OEW/reduced fuel respectively). I don't see Airbus being able to shave 100,000lbs+ off the MTOW of 772ER, including possibly 40-50,000lbs or more off the 772ER OEW and still be able to pull 70-100,000lb payloads over the poles as the Boeing does now on a routine basis. There is just not that kind of fuel/weight savings that can be gained with the technology. The B market 777 position is pretty safe for the forseeable future in my analysis, only to possibly be overtaken by its C market sibling.

Perhaps. Though, worth noting that the 772LR has two trump cards, one of which the A345 cannot replicate.

1) it can be utilized as an (expensive!) B-market aircraft offering more range/payload and less weight than the A345...

2) it can be offered as both pax or freighter


Exactly!


The biggest plus of the passenger C market 777-200 is that it will be able to carry full revenue payloads over greater ranges than the B market 772 and significantly higher payloads on the same routes that competitive aircraft now operate.

There are some 6,000-7,000nm Westbound routes flown by B market 777-200's that could more than triple the payload available for cargo if flown by C market 777-200's. That would represent a very substantial increase in revenue potential, like 15-20% increases in total revenues per segment.

The demonstration of the aircraft's projected performance will bring to light these advantages on a larger stage and orders will follow accordingly.

-widebodyphotog








If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 23, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9035 times:

37,500lbs of fuel in three aft cargo hold tanks are optional and airlines can already choose to buy them or not.

I was thinking more along the lines of a decrease in price. But I guess Boeing can wait to see whether airlines bite after the plane takes flight before doing anything of the sort.

However, with impending models such as the proposed A350 on the way-- the 772ER may lose that advantage and thus require a detanked 772LR to compete on the higher end of that aircraft's former mission profile.

I think Airbus is doing Boeing a favor by announcing the aircraft so far in advance of entry into service. They are giving Boeing plenty of time to plan a response.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineAdria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7983 times:


"In case you haven't noticed; the A345 (whose major orders were placed when it was the only C-market aircraft available) has not been able to secure any more customers than has the 772LR, in the nearly half decade since the twinjet was launched.".......yes you can say this to make you feel better but this doesn't change the fact that there are more orders for the A345





25 Post contains images Boeing nut : 777-200ER max range - 7,720 nm 7760nm According to Boeing, we're both wrong. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html 7,730 nm. Ny
26 Emrecan : I hope Turkish Airlines will also buy this A/C as they are planning to fly to Sydney..
27 DAirbus : There is a lot of discussion about B and C market aircraft. Can anyone tell me where these standards come from and were I can look them up?
28 DfwRevolution : There is a lot of discussion about B and C market aircraft. Can anyone tell me where these standards come from and were I can look them up? They are a
29 Airplane : Good stuff, I hope Continental gets it so it can go to HKG with full payload. JP
30 DAirbus : Thanks for the info DfwRevolution. I appreciate it. DAirbus
31 Thrust : What are the chances Rolls Royce and Pratt and Whitney will try to develop engines suitable for the 772LR? I would imagine Boeing is trying to get the
32 Nyc777 : Boeing has decided to have only GE supply the engines for the 772LR and the 773ER. There sin't (nor will be) an option for RR or PW engines. That's wh
33 Post contains links DfwRevolution : What are the chances Rolls Royce and Pratt and Whitney will try to develop engines suitable for the 772LR? Zero... Boeing is contractually bound to of
34 Leej : London to Sydney with a full passenger load???? Isn't LHR-SYD about 10,500 miles? Leej
35 WIDEBODYPHOTOG : Boeing has decided to have only GE supply the engines for the 772LR and the 773ER. There sin't (nor will be) an option for RR or PW engines. That's wh
36 DfwRevolution : London to Sydney with a full passenger load???? Yes.... LHR-SYD should be possible with the 772LR, but the return trip, SYD-LHR would not be profitabl
37 Post contains links and images AlitaliaMD11 : hey, Will the 777LR have blended winglets??? And what routes will Eva use this bird on?? I think it will look great in Eva Airs new livery. View Large
38 Nyc777 : Anyone know when the 772LR will be rolled out and will it be painted in the new "blue wavy" c/s?
39 Mdsh00 : Will the 777LR have blended winglets??? the 777LR's winglets will look like those on the 773ER and 764ER. Raked wingtips.
40 Post contains images A340600 : Zero... Boeing is contractually bound to offer *only* the GE90-115 on the 772LR/773ER It's going to to make al those RR customers buy it even more Sam
41 DfwRevolution : It's going to to make al those RR customers buy it even more Yeah... like Singapore Airlines? Or perhaps British Airways? The only Rolls Royce custome
42 Aa777jr : AA probably wouldn't be able to get a decent routing to make it possible. Why wouldn't AA be able to get a decent route on a DFW-SYD flight? It was st
43 Irishpower : Let's fathom a guess to the next 5 airlines that will buy the 777-200LR and how many they will order. I've seen people say SQ,BA,ANA,AA (maybe)?? Who
44 Chiawei : As far as US goes, this is probably how BR will use its new 777 772LR will be used on route to SFO, SEA, EWR 773ER will be used on route to LAX, SFO T
45 AA777 : the 772ER can already accomplish this if they wanted to. 777-200ER max range - 7,720 nm 747-400ER max range - 7,670 nm (already doing LAX-SYD) Yes, bu
46 Widebodyphotog : Yes, but can the 777-200ER get ETOPs approval to fly that route? I am not sure.... my guess is no. If they could've, AA would probably have TRIED to o
47 Post contains links DfwRevolution : Yes, but can the 777-200ER get ETOPs approval to fly that route? I am not sure.... my guess is no. If they could've, AA would probably have TRIED to o
48 ConcordeBoy : What are the chances Rolls Royce and Pratt and Whitney will try to develop engines suitable for the 772LR? The same they were the last fifty times you
49 DfwRevolution : Not 207 for a USA carrier on that routing.... not alloted for the S.Pacific. Where is ETOPS 207 allowed? Polar and North pacific? BTW- how do you chan
50 ConcordeBoy : Where is ETOPS 207 allowed? Polar and North pacific? Correct BTW- how do you change fonts, I've been tryin to figure that one out for a while now? [fo
51 Pilotaydin : I dont think many US airlines are in shape to buy such planes.....every 2 weeks there is news of near Chapter 11s and losing money here and there....
52 Zvezda : WIDEBODYPHOTOG wrote: "Unless Boeing decides to replace the 777 with another airframe, all current and future C market 777's will be GE powered." I th
53 BlueSky1976 : Can't wait to see 777-200LR fly. Is there any chance that raked wingtips could be incorporated into 777-200ER if customer demands it?
54 GREATANSETT : I cannot see the 777 or A340 surviving the next 5-9 years. With the race for technology heating up (7E7, A350?,A380) new and better models need to be
55 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Is there any chance that raked wingtips could be incorporated into 777-200ER if customer demands it? Little to none. APB already plans to offer a blen
56 GREATANSETT : Well sorry Concordeboy, but if the product cannot sell it will eventually cease production.
57 DfwRevolution : Well sorry Concordeboy, but if the product cannot sell it will eventually cease production. Which again shows that you misinterpret this market segmen
58 GREATANSETT : You are all misinterpreting what im saying. Im not saying that the 7E7 and A350 will bring the end of the 777 and A340, Im using them as an example. I
59 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : We understand what you're saying just fine; what we're telling you is that it's anecdotal at best, clueless at worst-- there's a difference
60 Aussie747 : Would AA consider this with their new terminal at DFW? I know AA codeshares a flight with QF out of LAX. Would there be a market for a DFW-SYD flight?
61 N1120a : >(or are the AA 777's adequate).
62 ConcordeBoy : Was there not talk in a post not so long ago that AA did not want to focus on DFW as a hub. Such talk is inanity at its best. For AA, DFW is not a hub
63 Zvezda : DfwRevolution wrote: "The 777 still has unmatched uplift from either the 7E7 or planned A350 and will remain a solid offering in its market through 20
64 ConcordeBoy : I think 2015 is about when the B777-200ER (and, for some but perhaps not all missions, the B777-200LR) will have been replaced by a further stretch of
65 Atmx2000 : By, 2015 the oldest 200ER frames will be around 18-19 yrs old, which might be old enough for some airlines to consider replacing them.
66 WIDEBODYPHOTOG : ...not for a while, though you'll probably see uprates of the GE90 into the 120,000s relatively soon. GE90 is easily able to be certificated at a 120,
67 Zvezda : There is no reason why a B7E7 couldn't be made at least as long as an A340-600. Therefore, a B7E7 could be built with the passenger capacity and range
68 Zvezda : If Boeing were to build (say, 10 years from now) a roughly A380-sized twin using B7E7 technologies with a MTOW of, say, 1,100,000 lb, how much thrust
69 DeltaWings : Zvezda strech the 777-300? i dont think so! The A340-600 has enough problems with its length, I dont think airports would be to happy with an even lon
70 DfwRevolution : About the 7e7 being stretched to replace the 777.Again I dont think so, because the fuselage width of the 7e7 is smaller then the 777 By a miniscule a
71 Widebodyphotog : If Boeing were to build (say, 10 years from now) a roughly A380-sized twin using B7E7 technologies with a MTOW of, say, 1,100,000 lb, how much thrust
72 Zvezda : Why a single passenger deck? I think a double-deck aircraft makes much more sense, even if the upper deck might be only sleeping berths. Also, why 270
73 Bill142 : I would have to say AA and UA aquire it to fly LAX-SYD Why? The 744 does the job and can carry more pax although the flights are weight restricted to
74 ConcordeBoy : Weather there is a market demand for such thrust levels however remains to be seen Perhaps, though there's one airline who's been hankering for said u
75 DeltaWings : About the 7e7 being stretched to replace the 777.Again I dont think so, because the fuselage width of the 7e7 is smaller then the 777 By a miniscule a
76 WIDEBODYPHOTOG : Why a single passenger deck? I think a double-deck aircraft makes much more sense, even if the upper deck might be only sleeping berths Yes, space in
77 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : After all, an all-composite, bleedless, very large twin should be able to eat the A380's lunch. ...as well as force shortsighted airports to undergo s
78 DfwRevolution : There is always the possibility of a non-circular fuselage. I believe one of the NLA concepts was to be an ovular fuselage with 10 abreast on the main
79 Zvezda : Yes, of course, there is the possibility of a non-circular fuselage. I think I read somewhere that the B7E7 will have a non-circular fuselage. Is that
80 Widebodyphotog : This thread has taken an amazing turn... Did someone mention NLA? NLA was under stdudy in the early 90's. Basically it was part of a group of projects
81 Zvezda : Widebodyphotog, is there a typo? You wrote: "One single-decker, 244 ft long, a circular cross section of 328 inches...." Surely a 328 inch circular cr
82 Widebodyphotog : Widebodyphotog, is there a typo? You wrote: "One single-decker, 244 ft long, a circular cross section of 328 inches...." Surely a 328 inch circular cr
83 Zvezda : Widebodyphotog wrote: "Don't imagine Boeing or anybody is keen on building anything like this but hey, ain't specualtion fun!?" Obviously, I agree. Th
84 WIDEBODYPHOTOG : Zvezda, The tone of my comments to you stemmed from what I perceived as an attempt to challenge what you thought were my own personal assessment of th
85 Zvezda : Widebodyphotog, Apology accepted. I reread the posts and I can't find where you got the idea that I was attempting "to challenge what you thought were
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...
Boeing First In Composites...1962 posted Tue Apr 25 2006 16:18:01 by DeltaDC9
Which Engines On Boeing First Flights? posted Wed Feb 15 2006 10:22:12 by PM
PK's First 772LR ... Where To? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 20:03:47 by Kaitak
What's Up With Air Sahara And Boeing's First BBJ? posted Mon Dec 20 2004 22:36:09 by Udo
Boeing First Flights And Deliveries posted Fri Sep 17 2004 12:01:42 by Berlinspotter
MDW Nearing Completion! posted Mon Apr 12 2004 19:36:22 by 7E72004
Boeing : First 7E7 Delivery 2008, The 200 Seater? posted Tue Jun 24 2003 14:25:22 by Keesje
Boeing: First: NO; Now: Maybe posted Thu Nov 30 2000 19:10:15 by Mt99
Boeing First Flights - Webcasts posted Tue Sep 14 1999 18:51:26 by Concorde SST
Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR posted Wed Oct 18 2006 17:36:21 by Dangould2000