Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ultra Long Range Airplane: Market's Forecast  
User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4351 times:

According to seattlepi: >""...But Baseler said Boeing is forecasting a market of around 300 ultra-long-range jets with 300 or more seats over the next 20 years""<

300??? Is not too much?? What's your opinion about this issue?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/211255_air09.html

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4274 times:

I believe the B777-300ER is counted as ultra-long-range. If so, the estimates seem reasonable. If not, they seem absurd.

The hint of the B777-200LR flying in excess of 24 hours without a stop is delicious. That would be a nice record. I'm expecting Boeing will fly one AKL-LHR (without payload) perhaps overflying SYD as the great circle route would overfly restricted Russian airspace.


User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4256 times:

>""I believe the B777-300ER is counted as ultra-long-range""< Are you sure? I don't believe such thing at all.

>""I'm expecting Boeing will fly one AKL-LHR""<
Airbus did on the 90's a TLS-AKL with A340-200. Then, it's not new.

Sincerely, I believe that 300 planes for the ultra-long range market is not realistic.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4193 times:

There is a big difference between TLS-AKL and AKL-TLS. Boeing flew a B747-400 LHR-SYD. No way that aircraft would have made it SYD-LHR. Similarly, I don't believe the first generation A340-500 would have made it AKL-TLS.

I meant (and I apologize for the ambiguity) that I think Baseler was counting the B777-300ER as ultra-long-range. But I could be wrong.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4179 times:

Airbus did on the 90's a TLS-AKL with A340-200. Then, it's not new.

Not with payload

Sincerely, I believe that 300 planes for the ultra-long range market is not realistic.

Over 20 years that's roughly 15 aircraft a year. Not that incredible really....


User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4007 times:

>""Not with payload""<  Insane

GUAU! Thanks for your info, Dfw... do you know? How useful information you have given. I didn't know such thing.
Of course, with no payload!!!!  Angry


>""Not that incredible really""<

Keep in mind this ultra-long range market is the most limited market... Both, Airbus and Boeing are selling just a few plane to a few customers. (by the way... do Pakistan and Eva Air really need a 772LR?) It's logic, because:
1.- There is not many city pair which are far away (more than 15.000 kms) and...
2.- Demand can to justify a scheduled flight between them.

With the exception of SIN-LAX/EWR, BKK-JFK/EWR, PER-LHR ... and just a few more... do you really think there's a large market? I think that the A-380 market is bigger than this one.

Even that rumour to start a direct service UK-Australia (LHR-PER non-stop) is, still, only a rumour. No more.
In addition to that, even the new 772LR can't do a SYD-LHR.

In the other hand, there are passengers who don't want to stay 18/20 hours inside a plane. (including myself)


User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4070 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3992 times:



The 777-200ER is frequently used on flights that could be performed by the short range version, for example, East Coast US to Europe. For some airlines the -LR could also end up being used on routes that are currently flown by the -ERs.

Take a healthy version of United Airlines. It would place the -LR on routes from Asia to the US. Some destinations such as Singapore and Hong Kong could support multiple daily flights: SIN-SFO, SIN-ORD, HKG-SFO, HKG-ORD, HKG-JFK, BKK-ORD, MNL-LAX, KUL-SFO, TPE-ORD.
Only these flown daily are enough to consume 20 aircraft.

Another opportunity is India. If Air India was well capitalized and had good management, it could fill the India-US market with 10 or 15 nonstops a day flown into the 5 major cities in India allowing well timed connections to domestic and SE Asia. Take 30 -LRs. Instead nowadays the US-India
traffic is split across a gazillion connection points.

The current A340-500 flights on SIA remind me of the time when CX was starting nonstops to London. The London bound leg was heavily restricted and CX would carefully pick the route every day to minimize the risk of diversion.
Today Singapore and Hong Kong to London are common place and
most people ok 13 hours in an aluminum tube.

Large orders will come.







Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineAseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2046 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3967 times:

Today Singapore and Hong Kong to London are common place and
most people ok 13 hours in an aluminum tube.


plastic tube if you consider B787!!  Laugh out loud
rgds
Aseem



ala re ala, VT-ALA ala
User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3900 times:

>""For some airlines the -LR could also end up being used on routes that are currently flown by the -ERs""<
Really? Please... Can you giving us some examples. Thanks in advance.

Remember one easy thing: The -LR's are more expensive than -ER's ones. Why paying a lot for the plane which don't you need?
At the moment none of both, American or European carriers is an A345/772LR customer. In the next future, this scenario will go on being the same.


User currently offlineAseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2046 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3894 times:

At the moment none of both, American or European carriers is an A345/772LR customer. In the next future, this scenario will go on being the same.

FYI! AC has two A345 and had their financial situation been better, they'd have bought couple more for their DEL and HKG routes.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jorge Abreu - Madeira Spotters
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Fortin


Moreover, the way things are going with AC(route expansion), more long-range planes shall be required.
rgds
Aseem



ala re ala, VT-ALA ala
User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3872 times:

Yes, you are right... AC is the exception!

User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4070 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3760 times:


>>""For some airlines the -LR could also end up being used on routes that are currently flown by the -ERs""<
>Really? Please... Can you giving us some examples. Thanks in advance.

-ERs are also more expensive than the short haul -200As but have a higher residual value. That together with fleet commonality makes the incentive for only having -ERs. The -LR vs. -ER case could be the same: common fleet with common interiors for all flights beyond ~ 7000 miles.

The other point is that past 6500 miles with strong headwinds the -ERs start taking a payload hit. Why did DL apply for ATL-PEK instead of ATL-PVG? The way to Shanghai is 7650 miles. There are several US to Asia-beyond-Japan routes being flown with 777-200ERs and 744s that are payload restricted. LAX-HKG for example is 7200 miles. EWR-HKG flown by Continental's -ERs is more than 8000 miles.







Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3657 times:

OK, but, anyway... "300 ultra-long-range jets" are lots of "jets"... especially when we're talking about the 772LR, an aircraft which is not, precisely, the cheapest aircraft on the market-


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2691 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3617 times:

The 772LR is a necessary airplane in the market. If QF orders it, they would not have to stop in Singapore on the trip to London from Sydney. The 772LR could do LHR-SYD nonstop. My guess is that it is quite likely QF and BA could end up buying it, especially since both tolerate General Electric. Zvezda is right....it does indeed sound delicious to fly unimaginable distances nonstop. Think about what the 772LR will do for trade in countries. Heck NW might even replace their 742 cargo planes with 772LRs one day...we are talking about very efficient trade here people! I'm surprised frankly that the 772LR has not caught the attention of cargo airlines yet.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3608 times:

The 777-200LR could fly from LHR to SYD, but not from SYD-LHR.

N


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2691 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3601 times:

Why, Gigneil? i'm confused. Why could it not do SYD-LHR? crosswind trouble?


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3579 times:

You mean headwind... which increase the still air, and thus make a considerable payload penalty necessary-- such that the aircraft would have to fuel stop in order to operate with a profit-potential load.

User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3563 times:

I will NOT tolerate wasting nearly a whole day in a plane for more than the time it takes to get a good night's rest!  Pissed

Every flight should be 8 hours tops! Time is money.




The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineVH-BZF From Australia, joined Oct 1999, 841 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3418 times:

Interesting that Singapore Airlines has discussed with its pilots currently flying the A340-500 that they are seriously considering replacing the Airbus long ranger with the B777-200LR!

I understand that current fuel burn on the GE engine on the 777-300ER is ahead of what was promised by GE/Boeing by about .5% & that the new GE on the -200LR will be .8% or better than promised. These may seem like small figures, however when it all adds up, it must mean HUGE savings for airlines!

Just a thought!

BZF



Ansett Australia - (was) One of the worlds great airlines!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3335 times:

With all due respect to Gigneil and ConcordeBoy, I'm not at all convinced that the B777-200LR will not be able to fly SYD-LHR nonstop as part of a profitable round-trip rotation. Boeing and GE are continuing to make performance improvements.

I can easily imagine a scenario in which a 200 seat B777-200LR flies SYD-LHR nonstop without cargo at breakeven and then makes a pile of cash on the return with a lot of cargo.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3249 times:

Every flight should be 8 hours tops! Time is money.

**presents Most Idiotic Statement in Thread award to this post**  Laugh out loud






With all due respect to Gigneil and ConcordeBoy, I'm not at all convinced that the B777-200LR will not be able to fly SYD-LHR nonstop as part of a profitable round-trip rotation.

Consider to whom you speak.... nobody on God's green Earth has been a bigger cheerleader for the 772LR over the last half-decade than I.

That said, I do realize that Boeing has a knack for underpromising and OVERdelivering on its twinjet performance capabilities; but I'd rather take the conservative approach of being pleasantly surprised if/when the jet demonstrates that it can op the route with enough profit-potential to be of interest to the airlines with authority to fly that route nonstop.



Boeing and GE are continuing to make performance improvements.

Yes, they are... but keep in mind that they've already upped the b!tch's payload/range four times since it's launch; and without any significant structural/designed modifications at all. There's only so much they can do within the parameters available-- not to say that they've reached that point as of yet though.



I can easily imagine a scenario in which a 200 seat B777-200LR flies SYD-LHR nonstop without cargo at breakeven and then makes a pile of cash on the return with a lot of cargo.

Question being, will:
breakeven + pile of cash = enough incentive to potentially decimate the yields of the standard 1stops

SQ is technically the only airline currently operating C-market routes, and while their results (relevant to the aforementioned equation) are promising, they're still anecdotal; as SQ has no nonstop competition, which is not the case with the kangaroo routings.


User currently offlineGabrielz From United States of America, joined May 2004, 95 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3197 times:

I personally think Boeing is underestimating the market for LR aircraft, under a revised economic scenario in which the "heavy lift" Asia-market carriers are healthy (UA, SQ, CX, BA, QF).

The hub-spoke system is somewhat broken, as I'm sure we all agree. And where it shows it's age - in particular - is in longhaul US-Asia routes. If you are going from a relatively large US city (say, MIA) to a relatively large Asian city (say BKK), your only option is a 2-stop trip. Even for those of us on the West Coast, with very good service (I'm in SFO), all of SE Asia is a 1-stop trip. LAX now has nonstop SIN service, but that's about it. American business people will absolutely-positively pay a premium to eliminate stopovers.

Therefore, the LR opens up a market possibility for carriers like UA that is very significant - running point-to-point ops not only from major US hubs, but from multiple US cities to Asian destinations at a profit. This would allow airlines that purchase the LR to intrude (significantly) on other's hubs with 2-4x weekly direct service to Asian destinations (and some Middle East/Africa) without having to establish a hub there or route pax through their hubs.

The competitive strength, therefore, is significant. Think about UA running a 2x-weekly BOS-SIN nonstop. It's that kind of thing that the LR is supposed to achieve, in addition to eliminating Hub-Endpoint stopovers (ie. SFO-SIN) that will make a huge difference for many airlines.

I *do* expect a healthier UA (if it can be made to happen) to be a very large customer for this bird.



User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3020 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (reply 16):
which increase the still air, and thus make a considerable payload penalty necessary-- such that the aircraft would have to fuel stop in order to operate with a profit-potential load.


Then... bye, bye SYD-LHR non-stop  Laugh out loud


>""Every flight should be 8 hours tops! Time is money.
**presents Most Idiotic Statement in Thread award to this post**""<

hahaha, ok, saying 8 hours is a bit excessive, but keep in mind there are a lot of people who are not determined to spend 18 hours inside a plane.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8048 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2891 times:

I think if we do see LHR-SYD non-stop, the planes will NOT be configured according to Airbus or Boeing seating configurations!  Smile

I think BA may be seriously looking at the possibility of flying between LHR and SYD non-stop using the 777-200LR, mostly because BA already flies GE90-powered 777-200ER's. Because of the sheer length of the flight, BA will probably configure it with roomier World Traveller Plus Economy class seating and roomier Club World Business class seating, so the plane will carry at most 200 passengers. This flight will be aimed specifically for business travellers, and will be priced that way, too.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 24, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2880 times:

>by the way... do Pakistan and Eva Air really need a 772LR<

For the routes they want to do, yes. Then again, BR is likely to swap the order for 777LRF's.

>I think BA may be seriously looking at the possibility of flying between LHR and SYD non-stop using the 777-200LR, mostly because BA already flies GE90-powered 777-200ER's. Because of the sheer length of the flight, BA will probably configure it with roomier World Traveller Plus Economy class seating and roomier Club World Business class seating, so the plane will carry at most 200 passengers. This flight will be aimed specifically for business travellers, and will be priced that way, too.<

At 200 passengers, you are talking about the same type of cabin with the same percentage (The 772 is slightly bigger than the 345) of seats taken out for restrictions. At the current numbers, it would likely not work.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
25 Post contains images L410Turbolet : Thanks for telling us, otherwise we wouldn't notice. Delicious? Being stuck more than 12 hrs. on an a/c sounds like hell in the sky to me. And I don'
26 Anxebla : You're right, L410. I think, indeed, that this called "C-market" is very limited. And not only because the extra range issue, (which is not necessary
27 CORULEZ05 : I dont understand how there can be such a huge market for ultra-long aircraft....who wants to be on an aircraft for 18hrs non-stop?...NOT me.
28 DAYflyer : If the people buy the tickets, the airlines will buy the planes.
29 Gigneil : Anybody who says they don't want to be on a plane for more than 8 hours is not a businessperson. I don't know anyone that travels as a regular part of
30 OzGlobal : I dont understand how there can be such a huge market for ultra-long aircraft....who wants to be on an aircraft for 18hrs non-stop?...NOT me. CORULEZ0
31 Leelaw : Amen. Having done both the EWR and LAX/SIN runs in the SQ premium economy (2-3-2, equivalent to business class elsewhere) I can report that it's real
32 Anxebla : That's false at all. There are lots of passengers who spend one/two nights in cities such as BKK, KUL, SIN, HKG.... on route Europe-Oz. Airlines like
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...
Short Routes Served By Ultra-long Range Aircraft posted Wed Aug 3 2005 11:16:14 by Afterburner
Ultra Long Range Halls Way Of The Future? posted Fri Jun 24 2005 00:10:41 by Hawker
A340-200 Ultra Long Range posted Tue Jan 20 2004 13:59:25 by Ryder10uk
Is The Long Range Widebody Market Over Saturated? posted Thu Feb 15 2001 21:07:35 by SAA-SAL
Ultra, Ultra-long Range Craft posted Sat Apr 15 2000 21:17:41 by Louis
SIA Not In The Market For Long-range Planes posted Thu Feb 17 2005 21:09:30 by Singaporegirl
UA 757s Long Range International Flights? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 05:59:40 by MIAUA777
Long Range, Comfortable RJ posted Mon Aug 28 2006 18:29:14 by Boston92
Meal Scheduling On Ultra-Long Hauls? posted Fri Jul 14 2006 18:40:08 by Ssides
SIA Would Not Launch Ultra Long-Haul Flights Today posted Fri Jun 16 2006 03:35:56 by UALMMFlyer