Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Headwinds Buffet Boeing's Plans For The 777-200LR  
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Posted (9 years 5 months 3 hours ago) and read 17506 times:

"This jet cannot fly Sydney to London non-stop,'" he said. "[It] is easy on paper. This jet can fly non-stop with a full load of up to 301 passengers and 11 tonnes of cargo for 17,446km (Sydney-London is 17,016km). But there is just something about this route (from Australia to London): It gets the most continuous head wind conditions of any. We can't overcome them with a commercially feasible payload, yet flying the other way with a continuous tail wind is no problem at all."

In fact it is considered an all but a done deal by insiders that Qantas is going to include some Worldliners among an order for 40 new Boeings that will be announced as soon as the arm-wrestling over the final price is agreed.

He has reminded them that Qantas really wants to fly right over the top of Singapore and Dubai in particular, on its flights to London, because they are the hub cities of Singapore Airlines and Emirates which he describes as the enemy because of their claimed unfair access to government subsidies

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/bizf...cus/archives/2005/07/24/2003264881


NO URLS in signature
97 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 17399 times:

I really would love to see the 777 in QF colours but I just don't think the 77C is viable... The 77W gives them much more flexibility IMO! I know QF are probably considering a split but I doubt that LHR is where the 77C's would go a majority of the time... I heard mention of DFW which would be far more feasible for the jet!

We'll see in time I guess.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineDrewfly From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 17394 times:

40 new Boeings? Daaamn. If we were talking 737's it would still be considered a large order, but since it will probably be widebody......thats huge. Time will tell of course if these claims are backed up. But if proven true, good news for Boeing.


A-10 Thunderbolt II, ugly as hell, efficient as hell, would you like to meet my boomstick?
User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 17318 times:

What a source! A Taipei paper re-printing a London report about an Australian airline's interest in an American-made plane.  Wink

User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 17253 times:

Kind of irrelivant as this was a given based on range projections.

User currently offlineZamaria From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 17237 times:

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 1):
I really would love to see the 777 in QF colours but I just don't think the 77C is viable... The 77W gives them much more flexibility IMO! I know QF are probably considering a split but I doubt that LHR is where the 77C's would go a majority of the time... I heard mention of DFW which would be far more feasible for the jet!

Sorry for the dumb question, but the 77C is the B777-200LR and the 77W is the B777-300ER? Is this correct?

-Z


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 17190 times:

Those must be really strong winds, because you'd think a 255 seat with 5 ton payload would be able to do it normally, given those range figures for the 301/11 capacity.

But QF could stop ignoring Perth, and fly direct to more of the US and Canada, or 8000nm routes with heavy cargo loads.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAvpilot01 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 17152 times:

Quoting Zamaria (Reply 5):
Sorry for the dumb question, but the 77C is the B777-200LR and the 77W is the B777-300ER? Is this correct?

-Z

Not a dumb question...I was wondering the same thing. He's writing it like everyone is familiar with 77C and 77W.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 17140 times:

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 1):
I heard mention of DFW which would be far more feasible for the jet!

Non-stop Sydney to DFW? That would be great, and the longest route out of DFW.


User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 17133 times:

Quoting Zamaria (Reply 5):
Sorry for the dumb question, but the 77C is the B777-200LR and the 77W is the B777-300ER? Is this correct?

Yep!  bigthumbsup 

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
But QF could stop ignoring Perth, and fly direct to more of the US and Canada, or 8000nm routes with heavy cargo loads.

I agree, and I think DFW is perfect in terms of the loads which could be carried. Any thoughts?



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineNudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 17043 times:

DFW is not just perfect, it makes perfect sense as AA is based there, the good ole OW fellow... (or mate as our friends from OZ would say...). How about cargo ops on AA out of DFW? Is there any chance that DFW could be pax AND cargo hub for QF and AA?


Putana da Seatbeltz!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 16972 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
But QF could stop ignoring Perth, and fly direct to more of the US and Canada, or 8000nm routes with heavy cargo loads.

Before anyone starts screaming in print, I did not mean Perth-DFW as it likely would be too payload limited.

I meant Perth to LHR, SYD/MEL-DFW, SYD/MEL-US/Canada, etc. Although I guess Perth-LAX would be doable as well. Maybe 3x weekly Perth-LAX, 3x weekly Perth-LHR with 2 planes?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 16967 times:

Quoting Nudelhirsch (Reply 10):
How about cargo ops on AA out of DFW? Is there any chance that DFW could be pax AND cargo hub for QF and AA?

I would hope so... Perhaps especially considering the 6 LD3 spaces needed for the extra range fuel tanks would not be needed for a destination such as DFW. It would probably also allow for a generous baggage amount for pax flights which is given to current QF American flights.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11972 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 16947 times:

Well, I guess I'll join the chorus of those singing the praises of QF at DFW. QF flying a SYD-DFW route with the 777LR would make absolutely perfect operational and commercial sense for all the reasons already stated -- the 777LR can make the route, nonstop, in both directions, and it would be linking two of the largest oneworld hubs, including the single largest, DFW.

The only question that remains, however, is whether LAX would be willing to erode SYD-LAX as their primary feeder route into the U.S. mainland. While LAX would still no doubt retain thousands of connecting passengers a month, DFW would of course provide conveniently-timed nonstop access to so many more onward connecting cities throughout the U.S. On the other hand, routing some passengers on thinner routes over DFW rather than LAX could free up seats on SYD-LAX that QF needs to meet demand and to dampen calls for them to "step up" transpac capacity. Should be interesting, but all I have to say is -- "QF, we here at DFW have a brand new, beautiful International Terminal with your name on it!" I, for one, would love to see a shiny QF bird at my home airport.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33280 posts, RR: 71
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 16920 times:

Qantas announced Dallas-Auckland service a few years ago, but never started it. The reason being that they didn't want to erode their LAX operation. I think Qantas at Dallas could work really well, but until they stop being so LAX-centric, it is unlikely. Qantas could also exploit the Vancouver, San Francisco, and Chicago markets, but they don't, because they rather just sit pretty at LAX. Can't blame them for that.

Qantas is one of the world's largest long-haul airlines, yet they only fly to five cities outside of Asia and Oceania: Frankfurt, London, Los Angeles, Johannesburg, and New York City.

[Edited 2005-07-25 16:52:40]


a.
User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months ago) and read 16626 times:

If the winds are blowing so strong in the `wrong' direction......I take it the payload-range figures also can't add up to flying -east- to London i.e. overflying the US West Coast and then Trans-Atlantic?


` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months ago) and read 16565 times:

Quoting Avpilot01 (Reply 7):
Quoting Zamaria (Reply 5):
Sorry for the dumb question, but the 77C is the B777-200LR and the 77W is the B777-300ER? Is this correct?

-Z

Not a dumb question...I was wondering the same thing. He's writing it like everyone is familiar with 77C and 77W.

I collected this from another thread not too long ago. Just one problem, I can't remember who posted the list. My most sincere apologies in advance for not giving credit to whom it is due:

777/772/77A/772A = 777-200
777/772/77B/772ER = 777-200ER
77C/77L/772LR = 777-200LR
77F/777F/772LRF = 777-200F
773/773A = 777-300
773/77W/773ER = 777-300ER

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11972 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months ago) and read 16479 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 14):
Qantas could also exploit the Vancouver, San Francisco, and Chicago markets, but they don't, because they rather just sit pretty at LAX. Can't blame them for that.


Agree completely. QF has done quite nicely by LAX, and derives millions in annual revenue from their QF-AA interchange hub at LAX.

My modest proposal for a revised QF North American schedule:

SYD-LAX / 14x weekly 744 (continuing LAX-JFK / 3x weekly 744)
SYD-SFO-YVR / 7x weekly 744
SYD-DFW / 7x weekly 777LR
SYD-HNL / 5x weekly 763
AKL-LAX / 7x weekly 744
BNE-LAX / 3x weekly 744
MEL-LAX / 7x weekly 744

[Edited 2005-07-25 18:09:05]

User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2410 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months ago) and read 16320 times:

Quote:
SYD-HNL / 5x weekly 763

Um, no. In the 40 airplane order, there will be a sufficient amount of 787 (firm or option) to replace all 767s and possibly all A330s. So those, sadly, will finally leave Qantas colors.


User currently offlineBoeingfever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15900 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 18):
Um, no. In the 40 airplane order, there will be a sufficient amount of 787 (firm or option) to replace all 767s and possibly all A330s. So those, sadly, will finally leave Qantas colors.

Doubt they will be getting rid of there A330-200/300's although thats funny you would even say that. You do know they still have (2) A330-303's on order (VH-QPH & VH-QPI.) There A330's do very nice for them on there routes to the Far East and the Outback.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 17):
SYD-HNL / 5x weekly 763

Also how did you come up with QF changing there 747-338 to a 763ER on the SYD-HNL service? I guess this is very possible due to they only have (5) 743's active in the fleet.

Also this (40) a/c order is being talked about like it's a done deal which it's not!

DFW would be nice!  yes 



Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 15419 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 14):

Qantas is one of the world's largest long-haul airlines, yet they only fly to five cities outside of Asia and Oceania: Frankfurt, London, Los Angeles, Johannesburg, and New York City.

One could also argue HNL onto that list.


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 15224 times:

"The A340-500 is even fitted with a single occupancy "morgue" so that in the event of a passenger dying in their seat, they can be discretely removed for the remainder of the flight."

That's something new to me...



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 15071 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 21):
That's something new to me

...but it's not new to the industry.

People die in flight, fact.

Bad business to just leave a corpse sitting there, even if other pax don't notice; so best to have a storage area in flight.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14875 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 22):
Bad business to just leave a corpse sitting there, even if other pax don't notice; so best to have a storage area in flight.

Don't they usually take the corpse to the galley to prepare the inflight meal?


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14824 times:

perhaps.

Maybe the so-called "Engine Buzz" is really just the galley girls hacking away at some poor sap with chainsaws?  Wink


25 Dutchjet : Its disappointing that nonstop flights between LHR and SYD and return will not be possible with the 772LR - the connection between London and SYD is o
26 Boeing7E7 : Why? The aircraft was never expected to perform at that range. If they can do it, it's only a bonus.
27 Glom : There seems to be much talk of an impending QF order for Boeings. Where is this coming from? Has there been real indications for QF activity lately? I
28 ConcordeBoy : I still say wait until it's confirmed by Boeing's (in)actions, than a 3rd party. seems like a 773ER would be an even better fit
29 Dutchjet : Why? Because if the 772LR could do the LHR-SYD route in both directions nonstop with an economic payload, it would likely result in additonal sales o
30 Ozair : Has anyone considered future competition as the reason for a 777LR purchase by QF. Surely it is only a matter of time before Singapore, Emirates or an
31 BlueSky1976 : This is a guess, but they'll probably order a bunch of 777-300ERs to compete with Singapore and a bunch of 787-3s for their domestic networks... Can't
32 Onedude : Expect the 332's to be replaced in any deal for new wideboy Boeings - they can't upgrade the J cabin to the bed product due to floor weight issues. Th
33 Aviasian : What an enlightening comment! This discussion - which was progressing rather nicely - could surely do without it. Back to the thread : The B777LR's a
34 ZOTAN : What about a 747ADV, and 787 order? I know that their 744's are relatively new, but since both of the planes will have the same engine it would probab
35 NorCal : Probably not since they are going the A380 route
36 Atmx2000 : If the route is X-OZ-US then, nothing will stop those airlines from using ULH aircraft to service other destinatons via OZ.
37 Post contains images Lazybones : Well, thats Boeing fault for NOT working closer with Qantas and ConcordeBoy. He did the maths on this months ago! (ConcordeBoy that is)
38 Zvezda : In an ultra long-haul (similar to SQ's A340-500) configuration, a B777-200LR would have between 200 and 220 seats. 5 tonnes of additional payload (ab
39 Trent900 : Quite rite Glom, I havn't heard anything either. If this is true though, seems to be another airline that can't make up their minds. T.
40 Post contains images QFA001 : I think QF won't. JFK-SYD is almost as payload restricted as SYD-LHR.
41 SFORunner : "Currently Qantas is studying whether a one-way non-stop arrangement from London to Sydney but a refueling stop, perhaps even in Russia the other way,
42 Milan320 : What's wrong with a little comic relief? He didn't mention any one in particular, so no disrespect there. Good one Glom!!! /Milan320
43 Ikramerica : How many times do we have to read the same comments re: ultra long flights?
44 Avalon : Melb/Syd to London or New York is a very long and arduous journey to make in economy class & I cannot imagine many (or any) people prepared to fly the
45 NAV20 : I agree - but, for the record, MEL-LAX is already over 14 hours. With say three hours lost at LAX, most of it spent queueing at immigration and secur
46 Post contains images ClassicLover : It will be interesting to see from this point of view - SYD-LHR is a very busy route, and apparently the A380s are going to be deployed on it. It will
47 Post contains links NAV20 : Less passengers but more fuel, Trent. Two 772LRs would carry 600 passengers for the same amount of fuel as a single A380 carrying 500 - and incur no
48 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...you mean other than the A332, A342, A343, M11, 772ER, and 747; right?
49 NAV20 : Should have said 'nautical miles', ConcordeBoy - I imagined that everyone thought in those when discussing aviation matters. 744ER 7,670 nms, 773ER 7,
50 Anxebla : I do totally agree with you, Aviasian.
51 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...that, being your first mistake
52 RedFlyer : I can't speak for the "traveling public" as a whole, but as a member of the traveling public who has flown SQ from LAX to SIN and back several times,
53 MidnightMike : My longest flight time has been about 14-15 hours, I did a flight many years from JFK-NRT, I think it was about 14 hours & change. I also had the chan
54 Gigneil : They will not be stupid enough to waste those slots. Its the whole microeconomics theory... do you minimize average cost or maximize profits. 2 772LR
55 AirRyan : What does one do for a flight that long in order to stay awake? If all you could do is read a book it seems to me that it would be quite a challenge f
56 ConcordeBoy : ...better question would be: why would one care about staying awake "that long"?
57 RedFlyer : Why would you have to stay awake? As for myself, what I've done on the 14+ hour flights on SQ 345's is: 1) If I don't have urgent business to complet
58 Post contains images AirRyan : US Federal Air Marshal's are evidently not allowed to sleep, even on long flights. Let's just say I'm not quite as interested in becoming an Air Mars
59 Hoya : Being on a plane for 18 hours isn't too bad. I've done that once, in economy, flying QF LAX-SYD. We had to divert to Brisbane due to having too little
60 Post contains images AirRyan : Granted the longest flight I have ever been on was only about 3 hours long, on long international flights sleeping was something I thought inevitable
61 Jacobin777 : even on a simple transcon flight, I've found it easier to take a nonstop fight..most of the time I've taken connecting flight, some kind of delay alw
62 Ozair : Government regulations will prevent this, any access to the Australian market for a wholely foreign airline will be to the west coast of the US only,
63 RedChili : This is my first post at airliners.net... I get a little bit confused when I read some of the posts here. Is the 772ER supposed to be a hub-buster or
64 RedFlyer : Very good question for a first post! I suppose it all depends on which "hub" you live near. Obviously, if it's LAX as in your example, it would defin
65 Commavia : A "hub-buster." However, I don't think that the 777LR is designed to not fly into hubs, but rather to overfly traditional hubs to reach perhaps under
66 ConcordeBoy : A 772ER cannot operate that route; yearround, nonstop, roundtrip; at sufficient payload capability to entice QF to order/operate it thus.
67 Post contains images Newark777 : Opps, stupid post, please delete. Harry[Edited 2005-07-27 06:59:55]
68 Zvezda : The future lasts a long time. It is known that an airline can always charge more for nonstop service than for indirect service. The only question is
69 ClassicLover : Everyone's talking LHR - what if QF operated the aircraft non-stop into Gatwick or something like that? Sure, history tells us that QF and Heathrow ha
70 Post contains images DAYflyer : True. Upgraded IFE may be the answer. Then again, perhaps a bowling alley??
71 Antares : I'm in Europe again on family business so it is fun to read several days of accumulated delirium about the 777-200LR which I think is a great plane do
72 ConcordeBoy : ...refresh us again as to when/where Boeing reported this, svp.
73 N77014 : Didn't NZ try the route, only to withdraw it? Performance notwithstanding, I believe ORD-SYD is the more appropriate route in terms of loads and yiel
74 Post contains images QFA001 : You obviously didn't read reply 40. Lars Andersen quite clearly said this when the airplane was in SYD. Even if he didn't, the result is the same: SY
75 Zvezda : Reading is one thing. Believing is another. Fact: SYD-LHR is 542nm further than JFK-SYD. Fact: SYD-LHR has more adverse headwinds than JFK-SYD. Belie
76 Dalecary : I'm not. My understanding is that JFK-SYD suffers extreme payload penalties and would not be economical as a year-round service. You also have to fac
77 Post contains images QFA001 : Neither route is anywhere near great circle. JFK-SYD also has the peculiar problem of the 180 ETOPS 'ditch' off the coast of Mexico which restricts a
78 AirTran737 : I've got an idea. Why don't we wait until this fall when Boeing loads up the LR and tries to break the ER's record? Boeing is always conservative with
79 Post contains links Zvezda : The GC route for JFK-SYD just touches the tip of the ETOPS180 restricted area southwest of Mexico. http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=jfk-syd&ETOPS=1
80 Baw716 : The aircraft is definitely short on range, but not by a lot. There might be a possibility that with a lower ZFW version for ultra long haul operations
81 ConcordeBoy : Though I really cannot speak for QF, I know that no USA airline is granted ETOPS207 in the southern pacific... and I'm not aware of any Asia/Pacific
82 Post contains images QFA001 : Great circle distance is the shortest distance between two points, but not necessarily the shortest flight time. As I said, a more northerly path pro
83 Zvezda : What is the QF configuration of the B777-200LR?
84 Boeing7E7 : Refresh us on when they ever said it could.
85 Post contains images Scbriml : In the first line of this very thread? Sourced as well!
86 Post contains images QFA001 : I wish I could disclose that information to you. However, as you are a learned campaigner I'm sure that you can imagine a QF configuration, right? (I
87 Zvezda : The B777-200LR configuration I imagine for ultra long-haul e.g. LHR-SYD or JFK-SYD has about 220 seats. Does it not depend on what sort of ETOPS cert
88 NAV20 : Why do so many people assume that the 772LR can only achieve the quoted range with a greatly-reduced load? To quote the thread-starter:- "This jet ca
89 Post contains images QFA001 : I think you have a very good imagination. It will for other potential routes, but not so much JFK-SYD. The key to that segment is an upgrade to -200L
90 Post contains images DAYflyer : A novel concept on a.net!
91 Dutchjet : Interesting thread concerning this very interesting topic...... The real issue with the 772LR is the SYD-LHR segment; as mentioned above, LHR-SYD is a
92 Post contains images Chrisrad : I think more like closer to 301 than 220, I couldn't see QF putting in Y class in 37" pitch like SQ on their A345, more like 31/32", that would be fu
93 Antares : Even here far from home my colleagues have forwarded a reporter's transcript of the key points made by Lars Andersen at the Sydney briefing. Mr Anders
94 Dalecary : You could also argue that this increases the business case at QF for more fuel frugal aircraft to be ordered, such as the 773ER and 783/9.
95 NAV20 : To my mind, possibly the most significant part of Qantas' impending order is the mention of some 787-900s. I can see why Qantas would consider the sho
96 Boeing Nut : Seems to me that if they wanted the SYD-LHR route bad enough that they would just throw in one more aux tank and be done with it. But that's just me.
97 Zvezda : One gets to the point where the weight of the tank, pumps, plumbing, etc. hurt range more than the added fuel helps. Weight and balance also become i
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 Replacement For The 777. posted Mon Feb 21 2005 17:39:21 by 747400sp
Piedmont's Plans For The Future? posted Wed Feb 1 2006 21:58:29 by AC773
AA's Plans For The 757 posted Tue Jan 24 2006 20:42:02 by AA777
Record Year For The 777 posted Fri Dec 16 2005 14:56:56 by TinkerBelle
Any Plans For The New US Airways Express? posted Sun Sep 4 2005 13:30:05 by AkjetBlue
Have Qantas Ordered The 777-200LR? posted Sat Aug 13 2005 13:48:22 by EZYAirbus
Has The 777-200LR Departed LGW Yet? posted Sun Jul 10 2005 16:06:04 by CX flyboy
Continental And The 777-200LR posted Fri Jul 2 2004 20:45:23 by Bsmalls35
Boeing Resumes Work On 777-200LR posted Wed Mar 12 2003 16:56:27 by Clickhappy
What Else Can Boeing Do For The 747? posted Wed Sep 4 2002 05:11:25 by Airmale