Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR  
User currently offlineBells From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 157 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 18274 times:

Flight International's website says Boeing is going to develop a new version of the 777-200LR with enough range to fly Sydney-London all year round. Do you guys reckon anyone will want to fly that far nonstop? Or will the airlines want it?

http://www.flightinternational.com/A...ing+looks+at+longer-range+777.html

170 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 18147 times:

Big potential First/Business Class market here. I'd pay extra for it, anyway, if they offer 'Executive Economy'. Same as I would for non-stop to NYC, my other frequent destination.

The flight time wouldn't be that much of a problem - MEL-LAX is already 14 hours, if you can stand that you can stand 18 hours to Heathrow.

I think that there might be quite a large potential market in South America too - a lot of their cities are a 'long way from anywhere' at the moment.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineUA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 18138 times:

I have a feeling this is geared towards the airlines that are getting rid of **other aircraft** for this. I don't think it would take that much longer to add the fuel tanks. But, what will airlines say about the loss of passengers for fuel?

301 passengers...humm....

My  twocents 

Matt



"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1304 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 18110 times:

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 2):
301 passengers...humm....

It will definitely be less than that since this isn't invented for y-class.......



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 18067 times:

Would this just be an option, to have more then six auxillary fuel tanks, when you buy the 777LR?, or would this 777 be called someting like 777ULR? (ultra)


Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 18066 times:

Great, I've always wanted to fly VLL-CHC non-stop. Thanks Boeing for making this wish come true.

Seriously, how many would of you would want to fly for 18, 19, or more hours? In addition to that, I really wonder how big the market for that plane would be. The 772LR already hasn't huge sales numbers, so does the A345. OK, the latter need to be replaced immediatly, I know, but that can be done with 772LRs.

Who could use this 772ULR, then? Qantas to fly to LHR? And who else? BA, to fly to SYD? Wow, could make up to six sales then.

Is the whole thing just an effort to sell 777s to Qantas?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 1):
I think that there might be quite a large potential market in South America too - a lot of their cities are a 'long way from anywhere' at the moment.

Which cities are how far from what there?


User currently offlineSq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 18054 times:

Quoting Bells (Thread starter):
Or will the airlines want it?

I smell QF and SQ are potential customers going for it.

Cheers


User currently offline6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3325 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 18031 times:

You can count me out...

regardless of class of travel, i would much rather take an extra 1-2 hrs, and have time to stretch the legs rather than be confined in a tube..


User currently offlineUA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 17965 times:

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 7):
regardless of class of travel, i would much rather take an extra 1-2 hrs, and have time to stretch the legs rather than be confined in a tube..

And pay landing fee's, airport taxes, airport food, and other costs to sit around an airport for a few hours? I think, if the airlines are able to get within a $200-$400 gap beween one stop and non-stop I would pay more for sure...

My  twocents 

Matt



"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
User currently onlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 17876 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Great, I've always wanted to fly VLL-CHC non-stop. Thanks Boeing for making this wish come true.

 Wink

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
I really wonder how big the market for that plane would be.

Boeing will have done their homework. You are absolutely right that the market for the B772LR is already limited, and the one for the B772ULR (let's call it that, for lack of a better name) even more so. The article mentions that the B772ULR will basically be a B772LR with 6 auxiliary tanks and a lighter interior. So, I can't believe that it will be very expensive to develop. And if this model is the deciding factor on whether a couple of important customers (say SQ and QF) place a large Boeing order which will include B787s and B777s, then the development costs will probably be more than worth it. Also could it be that they are planning to offer the new interior for the baseline B772LR and B773ER to make them even more attractive than they already are?

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 17865 times:

There is definitely a market. LHR-SYD and LHR-MEL are the obvious ones. GRU-NRT is another.

SQ has no need for additional range beyond that offered by the B777-200LR. They can reach everywhere except Central America, the southern Caribbean, and the northwestern part of South America (Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuala, Peru, etc.)


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 17838 times:

Interesting, curious what more is currently offered to airlines like SQ, QF, BA and EK.

Maybe variants of the 744Adv, A388, 789, A359, A346 are offered too. E.g. A380 MSN001 is planned for a 600t MTOW take-off soon.

With reduced payloads, overseized structures & removable fuel tanks much is possible, if there is demand for more range.


User currently offlineKLMcedric From Belgium, joined Dec 2003, 812 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 17834 times:

If it were in Y or even exec Y, I would seriously doubt about it.
We're talking about flights that could last up to twenty hours.
If I had the money for first/biz, I'd go for it.You have all the comfort you
need and lots of space to stretch your legs.
Why bother making an intermediate stop, deboard, lose time in the airport,
board again, plus the fact that every intermediate landing gives extra risk
for delays to occur.If you fly LHR-SYD non-stop you know for sure that you'll
be at your destination 18-20hrs later, you don't have that certainty if you
land in SIN,BKK,HKG... on your way to Sydney.
Now if future operators of these ULroutes would offer a possibility to shower
onboard, no need to even consider other options IMHO.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17375 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 1):
The flight time wouldn't be that much of a problem - MEL-LAX is already 14 hours, if you can stand that you can stand 18 hours to Heathrow.

agree...look at SFO/LAX-SYD....thats 14+ hours....last year, I flew EK JFK-DXB-JFK cattle class....the return trip was 15+ hours long and it was packed!!!

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Seriously, how many would of you would want to fly for 18, 19, or more hours?

SQ has a business based on it already....I can see EK and QF do it also....especially if the 777-200ULR can do SYD-LHR-SYD nonstop......might even see BA added to the mix........

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
. The 772LR already hasn't huge sales numbers, so does the A345.

the -200LR has started to sell nicely, and the 200F is based on the 200LR model, and expect to see sales of the -200F to pick up in the future....

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):

Who could use this 772ULR, then? Qantas to fly to LHR? And who else? BA, to fly to SYD? Wow, could make up to six sales then.

Is the whole thing just an effort to sell 777s to Qantas?

try SQ, EK amongst other Middle East Carriers.......

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 8):
And pay landing fee's, airport taxes, airport food, and other costs to sit around an airport for a few hours? I think, if the airlines are able to get within a $200-$400 gap beween one stop and non-stop I would pay more for sure...

UA777222...if I'm not mistaken, it costs more (for a pax) to run a ULR flight than to fly with connections...i'm not sure if it costs air carriers more or less though..

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):

SQ has no need for additional range beyond that offered by the B777-200LR. They can reach everywhere except Central America, the southern Caribbean, and the northwestern part of South America (Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuala, Peru, etc.)

Zvezda....I would think that the Central/South America/Caribbean market combined would be a large enough of a market to warrant a few of these birds.


I think people will be surprised to see how many sales of the -200LR/ULR will be sold......just a couple of years ago, it seemed as if the -200LR sales would be in jeapordy, now there have been a few sales of the -200LR and -200F..



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineHalibut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17296 times:

Quoting SNATH (Reply 9):
So, I can't believe that it will be very expensive to develop

Agreed ,
It appears this will just be an option for the 777LR "extra fuel tanks" . Similar to that of a car with options . Like power windows, diffrent interior and/or larger gas tank .

777-200ULR , I like the sound of that ! Boeing's 777s continue to impress me .


 bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16856 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17243 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Who could use this 772ULR, then? Qantas to fly to LHR? And who else? BA, to fly to SYD? Wow, could make up to six sales then.

It would increase the potential of other 777 sales (777-200ER, 777-300ER) and 787s since they will share some commanality and have minimal pilot transition times, if this aircraft provides the emphasis for a large 777 and 787 order from carriers like Qantas and BA it's well worth the investment.

[Edited 2005-09-26 16:53:23]


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineBirdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17195 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Seriously, how many would of you would want to fly for 18, 19, or more hours?

It's not so much wanting to fly that long. Rather, it's a matter of the alternatives. For instance, if I could theoretically go from SFO to CPT non-stop, it would be a killer, I'd do gladly do it.

I wouldn't have to worry about getting my bags lost at LHR/FRA/CDG/AMS, and wouldn't have the long layover at one of the above airports.

Also, the absolute worst part about going from JNB to ATL is waking up at 2am for that dreaded fuel stop in Cape Verde, not to mention the pathetic domestic service within the US.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17148 times:

Only disagree about Emirates, Jacobin777. Whether for the sake of cheap fuel, or reducing 'hotel time' for their crews, EK route all their flights via Dubai at the moment. They could have a big adjustment problem.

I suspect that the airlines have been caught on the hop by the 772LR. They've invested in a lot of existing hardware based on a two-stop approach to Australia/UK, and Australia/Eastern USA, come to that; plus the A380s that almost all the airlines serving Australia already have on order.

So non-stop services will 'bleed' passengers from their existing cattle-trucks. The most profitable passengers, too, First/Business Class plus discriminating 'tourist' frequent-flyers (like me) who are prepared to pay a premium for less hassle/travel time.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineMD11junkie From Argentina, joined May 2005, 3148 posts, RR: 57
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17119 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 1):
I think that there might be quite a large potential market in South America too - a lot of their cities are a 'long way from anywhere' at the moment.

Isn't the range of routes to/from South America covered by the 747-400 (AR, QF) and the A340 (AR, LA)? I don't think there is that much market, I'm guessing Brazil, that is covered once a week by AR.

Good to hear Boeing is opening a new door by getting rid of 'checkpoint' in one of the most profitable routes. This is gonna be trully benefitial for customers and airlines. Let's hope Airbus can match this.  Smile

Cheers! wave 
Gastón - The MD11 Junkie



There is no such thing as Boeing vs Airbus as the queen of the skies has three engines, winglets and the sweetest nose!
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1874 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17014 times:

This will be a very niche market, but it definitely exists. If Qantas wants to go for the expanded frequency for their Western European routes, I could see them ordering quite a few of them. Air New Zealand - maybe, Singapore - who knows, British Airways - possible... I hope thought that this plane will have SYD-LHR range with a full passenger load offered in order to have some advantages for those, who'd still want to fly in the economy class...


STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 16998 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Seriously, how many would of you would want to fly for 18, 19, or more hours?

not this old debate again. it's not about whether we want to fly this long or not. it's whether the market will bear this kind of flight. i think it will.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8002 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 16961 times:

I think Boeing is probably already looking at configuring a 777-200LR in a roomier two-class configuration similar to what SQ did with the A340-500's--say about 200 passengers maximum--to sell to SQ, QF, BA, and possibly NZ and EK.

Why roomier Business and Economy class seating only? Most likely to keep the weight of the interior fittings down and to ensure every passenger is comfortable for what amounts to an 18-19 hour non-stop flight between LHR and SYD.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8996 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 16923 times:

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 18):
Isn't the range of routes to/from South America covered by the 747-400 (AR, QF) and the A340 (AR, LA)? I don't think there is that much market, I'm guessing Brazil, that is covered once a week by AR.

QF dont fly to South America, its being done code share with an A340.

Airbus has had additional centre tanks for additional range for A318/319/320/321/330/340 for some time, it not a new idea. The A319CJ is a flying prodict with these tanks installed.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 16908 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17):
Whether for the sake of cheap fuel, or reducing 'hotel time' for their crews, EK route all their flights via Dubai at the moment

They do that mainly because it is their hub and their business model is to connect as many cities as they can with one stop in DXB. I don't think they'll start flying LHR-SIN or NRT-CPT non-stop. What would be the sense of that?


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 16801 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 23):
What would be the sense of that?

Thorben - the sense of it would be that if their competitors on the Kangaroo Route start offering nonstop services, they'll lose out if they don't follow suit.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
25 BlueSky1976 : Does EK have the authority to serve SYD-LHR-SYD??
26 Slarty : The trend is unmistakable. Frequent travellers prefer to fly non-stops. I'll also choose P2P over hub-connecting frequency also. Many reasons why: Saf
27 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Nav20..you have some good points, but I think EK could use the -200LR/ULR in routes such as DXB-LIM/SCL/MEX/MIA/SFO/LAX/YVR,etc ..while I'm not sayin
28 Post contains images PPVRA : GRU-NRT is still about 800nm farther than SYD-LHR. We don't know what the range is going to be, but the difference between these two routes is signif
29 Danny : They haven't even sold more that a couple of current version and already are planning to launch another? Does Boeing have a gold mine to finance all t
30 NAV20 : Yes. I don't use them myself - but I think they also serve Melbourne, Perth, and Brisbane.
31 Post contains images Glareskin : In an A345 I would.... No, seriously I believe there is a good market for every class exept Y... Stop-overs are killing you!
32 KhenleyDIA : I agree that it will. Besides, I take it not many people that complain about being stuck in an airplane for 18+ hours have flown from IAD,ATL,JFK to
33 NAV20 : Besides - most customers go to the travel agent and say they want to travel from A to B on a given date. The first thing that will come up on the agen
34 WhiteHatter : LHR-SYD won't work. It is already a low profit route. Where are these premium passengers going to come from? BA don't make much from the route and Qan
35 Post contains images Jacobin777 : "Dixon (Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon)says that, although the A380 is required to boost capacity at slot-constrained airports, non-stop flights
36 Wingman : So are you saying that Boeing, BA and QF are examining this idea in a delusional vacuum without realizing there are no premium passengers to make the
37 Aerosol : I think this aircraft makes sense as well. With the number of aircraft Emirates, Qatar and Etihad will have in the near future, European and Austral P
38 GARPD : You can always count on Whitehatter doing his best to discredit anything Boeing. Let me have some of what you're smoking will ya. A non stop LHR-SYD-L
39 Tockeyhockey : yes, what people are interested is the shortest way possible to get from point A to point B. when you add in plane changes, tech stops, layovers, etc
40 Maersk737 : Why do you think that? Cheers Peter
41 Gigneil : Wait wait wait. I agree that EK is not subsidized, and that the government doesn't support their operations, but the reality of the matter is that fu
42 GARPD : Plenty business going on between the UK and Oz. Plenty people who could do with a slightly faster flight with more garauntee of no delays due to the
43 Maersk737 : Do you have any figures? Cheers Peter
44 Ken777 : I've flown both QF & BA from SYD and the expensive seats have been fairly full most of the time. I think a non-stop would be very attractive to both a
45 Ibhayi : While it may be ideal for numerous airlines to order an aircraft such as the 772LR or the 345 that can fly such distances, there aer many variables th
46 GARPD : Not really, just what my associate tells me about the loads on BA and QF flights. That being that the premium cabins can get quite busy.
47 Zvezda : Which specific cities in this area do you think have enough premium traffic to justify nonstop service from SIN (only cities outside the current B777
48 Post contains images NAV20 : Maersk737 - Peter - on the one hand, you can't get 'hard figures', because the service doesn't EXIST yet. But on the OTHER hand, you've already had ha
49 A350 : I always wondered if the LHR-SYD route was ever flown by a Concorde and, if yes, how many refueling stops it needed and how long it took. Perhaps a 77
50 Jacobin777 : I stand corrected......you are correct on your call....for some reason, I got your comments confused with the -LR and the -ULR...SQ doesn't have a ne
51 Malaysia : It should be a 777-200CR Boeing 777-200CR "Complete Range" Boeing 777-200WR "World Range" ?? haha
52 Prebennorholm : The environmental part of it is simply the other way around. If we compare two routes half way around the world, one non-stop and one with a fuel sto
53 Baw716 : Well, if you reduce the seating from nine across to eight, put the BA type recaro designed World Traveler type seat in them, you could pitch it at 36
54 Ikramerica : ENOUGH!!!! Every freaking time someone mentions the LHR-SYD route or the 772LR, you get all these "who'd want to fly that long" comments. Give it a re
55 Post contains links Keesje : I think that if A boosts the A350-900s range (8k+ nm), that leaves a small niche for the heavier 777LR. Operators would also be able to choose the eng
56 B2707SST : Concorde flew LHR-SIN via Bahrain in about 9 hours, versus 12-13 hours for a non-stop 747 flight. An extension to SYD was considered but never taken
57 Hamlet69 : At what cost? Already the A350-900 is short on payload and range compared to the 777-200ER. While it is certainly going to be lighter and more fuel e
58 N328KF : Haven't you learned that you are not to allow trivial matters such as facts get in the way?!
59 Post contains links Atmx2000 : While that maybe true of a best of breed modern aircraft, the 772LR is supposed to be more fuel efficient than the 772ER for all but the shortest rou
60 Prebennorholm : Sorry to disappoint you, Baw716. 46 pax at 200 lbs = just over 4 tons. Add seats and baggage and it may be almost 6 tons. Convert that to 6 tons more
61 Keesje : I´m not saying it would match the capabilities, but that the niche would become small. Airbus sofar did not start to put fuel in the cargo hold to b
62 N328KF : It isn't always about that. Some times a customer just asks for it, and is willing to pay for it. If a good customer asks for a change in order to me
63 RichardJF : The reasons for QF if they did buy such a plane are purely defensive and PR reasons. If your running LHR-SYD and SYD-JFK they wouldn't expect to make
64 BlueSky1976 : You're right about the payload, but... How is A350-900 15,700km range come short of 777-200ER's 13,900km?? You sure you didn't get A350-900 confused
65 N60659 : As it is, the A350 looks to be payload restricted. By placing fuel cells in the cargo hold, you will be restricting any meaningful commercial payload
66 Keesje : The A350-900 range is currently specified as 13.900 km. Because cost are important. You can´t satisfy everyone always, making money is essential.
67 Prebennorholm : That may be true. But the 767-400ER will do the same job two hours slower spending 25% less fuel. And a 777ER with one fuel stop will do it on roughl
68 Antares : The market for these jets could be more attractive than imagined assuming the fuel burn non-stop doesn't end up ferociously in excess of the burn per
69 RichardJF : For Australia to allow a liberalised approach would ultimately be the best thing for QF. You let SQ,EK,CX run SYD-LAX,SFO or whatever you just get a l
70 Adam T. : I know lots of talk in Qantas in here but I did see Air New Zealand mentioned a few times. Do you think NZ would look at the 777-ULR for the AKL-LHR r
71 Sllevin : And not that it's "subsidized" but not having a corporate tax in Dubai certainly doesn't hurt the numbers, either. As far as who would want to fly LH
72 RichardJF : Not in a million years. No business case whatsoever. I believe QF would like to remove some of the attraction of Australia to EK at the top end of th
73 Coa747 : If the enhanced 77-200LR does come to fruition and has the legs for a nonstop UK-Australia I have no doubt that QF and BA will snap it up. BA could re
74 Dalecary : Gigneil, I seem to recall many a time when you suggested QF would "never" operate the 772LR from SYD-LHR due to reduced payload issues. I eagerly awai
75 Hamlet69 : . . . because the A350-900 has no where near that range. According to Airbus, the max. range of the -900 is 13,900km. You sure you didn't confuse the
76 Hz747300 : I agree, you cannot have typical economy class seating in a flight that long, and it should be geared towards anyone willing to pay a small premium.
77 DfwRevolution : >> I'm really surprised that BA hasn't opted to fly 777-200LR's in a more premium configuration already (since at a 220-pax configuration, I believe
78 Dazeflight : I'm sure your wish will be fullfilled if there should ever appear a thread about the A380 without your valuable contribution, i.e. follow your own gu
79 HighFlyer9790 : I would love that new version....i think LHR SYD year round would be a hit
80 Atmx2000 : I don't think it is reactionary, as they had already made changes such as increasing wing span that some have indicated as paving the way for a stret
81 Zvezda : The B777-200LR can already fly AKL-LHR and LHR-AKL (both eastbound) with a reasonable payload. The only question is whether there are enough high-yie
82 Zeke : From memory QF is already using all of its allocated slots at LHR. Would that mean they would give up a slot that would have normally had a 744/380 on
83 SunriseValley : So theoretically NZ could use their -200ER fleet to the U.S. West Coast and into China ( upto about 6000nm) and for DEL /ORD/JFK and LHR eastbound (
84 Post contains links NAV20 : For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, this site is an interesting resource, particularly for the 772 LR. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/longe
85 Shenzhen : A 747-400 already made the LHR - SYD flight... didn't it???
86 NAV20 : I believe that one did, Shenzhen - stripped down and with extra tanks. But LHR-SYD wouldn't have been a problem for the 772LR even before Boeing added
87 ZK-NBT : QF's first 744 VH-OJA flew LHR-SYD on its delivery flight. As for NZ with the 772LR, I think there is a chance on a route like AKL-JFK and say AKL-GI
88 NAV20 : Sao Paulo is only about 7,000nms. 'crow's flight', ZK-NBT - though the shortage of alternates might mean that the route had to be a bit 'north-about'
89 Lightsaber : One point that QF made that should be brought up again: They're having trouble getting the slots they want at DUB and SIN. (Sorry, I don't have the li
90 777ER : Thats what you can do....walk around the aircraft as what the airlines ask you to do on long haul flights, perfect way to stretch I would fly it as l
91 NAV20 : Australia/NYC still looks like being out of reach, because of winds, Lightsaber. DFW or O'Hare would be well within range, though. I believe a few of
92 Zvezda : Yes, full fuel load (no extra tanks), no payload. I believe there were just two pilots onboard (one asleep at most times other than T/O and landing).
93 Post contains links and images Keesje : Hmm, lets not get overexited, Airbus are the market leader in this segment. Airbus is offering an extended range A340-500 (intro into service end 200
94 777ER : Well I wonder why.....no B772LR to compete with.....yet
95 Hamlet69 : They're offering it, but it won't enter service in 2006, as to date, no one's ordered it. The A340-600HGW, which the -500HGW is of course based on, i
96 Post contains links Keesje : IMO a.net urban legend. The 772X (forerunner of LR) was first offered to SIA in 1997. Nov. 9, 2000 Popular Science magazine names the 777-200 Longer
97 Shenzhen : Offered or discussed. The problem back in 1997 was they didn't have the engines to power the airplane, therefore I doubt it was offered. I'm sure the
98 WINGS : Why not? Would you expect Airbus to stop investing into the A340-500/600 program and let Boeing capture all of this segment? they will further inhanc
99 Post contains images Dynkrisolo : Because the 345/6 wing can't take much more MTOW hike beyond what they have planned at 380t. The advertised 380t 345 range is 9,000nm. For comparsion
100 Post contains images SNATH : Hey, it will be easy! They only need to remove two engines! Seriously, now, I actually agree with Hamlet. In the long run, the A350 will probably mak
101 N79969 : I think is among the most concise responses to the rational-thinking skeptics and also Keesje.
102 WINGS : Thats true Dynkrisolo, the current wing for the A340-500/600 is close to its full potential. But I would expect little improvements here and their. D
103 WINGS : Thats true Dynkrisolo, the current wing for the A340-500/600 is close to its full potential. But I would expect little improvements here and their. D
104 Shenzhen : Isn't the Trent 500 basically a 757 RB211 derivative? Just asking, I haven't really followed the trent 500 development. Cheers
105 SNATH : I do not even pretend to be an expert on this! However, to achieve substantial fuel burn savings, it's safe to assume that RR will have to splash qui
106 NAV20 : It's probably too late now - but Airbus should maybe start with a clean sheet of paper? After all, the A340 is pretty well a four-engined A330 - and t
107 Zvezda : The A340 program has reached the point of diminishing returns. Each improvement costs more and yields less. Airbus need to focus their mid-size effor
108 Post contains images Lightsaber : RR would lose more. As Zvenzda notes, the A340 has reached the point of diminishing returns. The "rule of thumb" is only half of the available techno
109 DfwRevolution : >> Why not? Would you expect Airbus to stop investing into the A340-500/600 program and let Boeing capture all of this segment? they will further inh
110 N79969 : Wings, It is not a simple matter of tweaking and splicing the airplane design. Each thing that you describe would require significant engineering res
111 Jacobin777 : from what I've read, they decided not to use it, and if I can recall, I read an article somewhere specifying as that glare has been a "failure" to a
112 Dynkrisolo : That's what they are trying to do with the 350. How much is this costing Airbus? About 4.5 billion Euros! That's a lot of money. Engine designs are n
113 Dhefty : True to a point, Zvezda, but considering the time frame to get to market, as well as the fact that the A350 is relatively undefined compared to the B
114 A350 : Don't you think a hybrid of A340NG/A350 would make sense? Replace the fuse of the A340 by the A350 fuse segments, but keep the length. Keep the wing
115 GARPD : One major problem with that idea: It would still be a quad. Twins are quickly becoming the prefered choice. The fact that Airbus are launching the A3
116 A350 : Although quads are extremely unpolular in this forum, they still have the advantage of allowing higher airflow through the engines and higher bypass
117 Post contains links B2707SST : The GE90's bypass ratio is 9:1, which compares favorably with the CFM56-5C's BPR of 6.5:1 (A340-200/300) and the Trent 500's 7.5-7.6:1 (A340-500/600)
118 Zeke : Would have thought that you could do JFK-SYD if SYD-LHR was possible.
119 A350 : Yes, but a quad could use 4 787 engines, as the 747Adv will do, allowing for even higher bypass ratios and airflows. A350
120 Keesje : Is there more to this then putting some additional fuel tanks in the cargo hold?
121 Zvezda : Anyone who can't wait for a follow-up A350 is most likely going to buy Boeing. The A340-500 is dead and should stay dead. It would make much more sen
122 N60659 : I am far from being an expert on propulsion systems, so anyone with better information, please correct me if I am wrong on this: I am not really sure
123 Post contains links Trolley Dolley : Zvezda. Please double check where you got the information about your statement saying that AKL-LON is possible. I've seen similar statements about the
124 A350 : @N60659: It's just physics: it's more fuel efficient to have a high airflow at low speed than a low airflow at high speed. Have a look how small the 7
125 N60659 : With today's technology, I agree with you. My honest opinion is that today, the market between the 777/A340 and the 747Adv/A380 is limited anyway and
126 Widebodyphotog : The efficiency inherent in modern HBPR turbofans comes from improving the efficiency of the thermodynamic cylcle of the gas generator section so that
127 Baw716 : Quoting Post 52 Consequently, if the crude oil stays at $50 or 60/barrel, then we may have seen the last "standard" 777LR order, and the 777ULR will m
128 GARPD : Where your theory is sound, in practice it has failed to show any influence. 777 sales are increased, A340 sales are decreasing. Perhaps not a rock s
129 777ER : Wasn't there a problem with the aviation world that stopped the B772LR going into production, then 9/11 totally stopped it till now? I do know someth
130 Post contains images NAV20 : I was hoping they could, Zeke, nothing woiuld suit me better. And I think the distance is actually a shade less. But Boeing's radius map from NYC cle
131 Astuteman : Try telling that to NAV20 During 2003,2004,2005, Airbus has spent more on R+D AFTER the A380 R+D is stripped out, than Boeing Commercial Aircraft has
132 Atmx2000 : That is assuming that Airbus is getting more bang for the buck from its R&D expenditures. This ignores issues like pay, exchange rates, etc.
133 Shenzhen : Quit with the Bull... Strip out the 4 billion government handout then compare. I'm willing to bet that once this is done, you will fill silly.
134 NAV20 : You've got me wrong, Astuteman. I reckon Airbus did very well in the early days, 'picking off' Boeing's range model by model with newer competitors.
135 Post contains images JetMaster : Good it only appears to you and is not true in reality. If they failed to see it at all, then it was when they decided to build the A340 and not in 2
136 Post contains images Astuteman : Information is straight out of both companies (Boeing + EADS) accounts, and internal statements, Shenzen. You might be surprised that, a) it's not a
137 Shenzhen : Like I said, take away the government interest bearing loans, that may or may not need to be repaid, and state again that Airbus has spent more in 200
138 Dynkrisolo : I don't know what exactly Widebodyphotg's data was. If it was just the fuel burn of the aircraft/engine combination, then the inefficiency came mostl
139 Widebodyphotog : Actually if you compare SFC figures the Trent 500 is notably less efficeint than even a GE90-94B at .568 vs .545lb/lbt. The main benefit of the optim
140 Keesje : Do you have the thrust ratings during cruise for both (which cruise speed)? The A340 seems to have a smaller cross section.
141 SNATH : Is this only because of the extra two engines (which I assume do not do much for the A345's aerodynamics) or due to other factors too? Thanks, Tony
142 Dynkrisolo : A 4.2% difference in SFC isn't going to overcome a 15-20% fuel burn disadvantage. The biggest fundamental issues with the 345/6 are 1. it's much heav
143 Keesje : The more I read the more surprised I am. The 777 has a (20%?) bigger cross section, a bigger tail.. can you please explain do we have links?
144 A350 : I'm afraid that exactly the cross section is the real advantage of the T7: mechanically, a long, thin tube is less stable than a shorter and thicker
145 Atmx2000 : The A345 is the same length as the A343 and A333.
146 Post contains images WINGS : Since when? HONEY I THINK I SHRUNK THE A340-500.[Edited 2005-09-29 20:06:48]
147 Post contains images Ikramerica : If the A350-800 is any indication, so is Airbus...
148 Hamlet69 : Honestly, I've never heard that tube theory before. I'm quite curious, as this does seem to go against my (very basic) understanding of physics. Howe
149 B2707SST : The A345 received a slight stretch. It measures 222 ft. 8 in. vs. the A343's 208 ft. 10 in. and carries 313 pax vs. 295 in Airbus' reference configur
150 Widebodyphotog : You got it. The wing's the thing. And to add to that the A340-500's cumulative fan frontal area is 16% greater than the 777-200LR. -widebodyphotog
151 Post contains images GARPD : precisely what I was getting at
152 A350 : Exactly thatis an advantage since it allows a higher mass flow. Remember that engines are getting larger even for the same thrust. A350
153 Keesje : What I read is that the A350-900 will have a significant advantage over the 777-200ER. The A350-900 and the A340-500 as well as the B777-200ER and the
154 Post contains images Atmx2000 : I'm sure an prevapor-paper A350-500 has lower drag than even a E-jet.
155 Hamlet69 : And when exactly did we start talking about the A350-900??? If we were talking about one of those mind-numbing discussions on which airline livery lo
156 N79969 : Somehow I think the principles of aerodynamics will withstand the challenge of your doubt and incomprehension.
157 Zvezda : Area (cross section) = pi * radius^2
158 Ikramerica : yeah, people forget that whole area squared thing when looking at cross section dimensions. It's why the screen area of a 27" TV is 116% as big as a 2
159 Post contains links and images Keesje : I´m still waiting for any evidence the aerodynamic drag of the A340 is significant higher the the 777. It will probably never be there.. Has anyone o
160 Post contains images KDTWFlyer : Why doesn't Boeing just go for it and may an antipode capable aircraft. Such an aircraft would be able to fly between any two points on Earth and woul
161 Hamlet69 : Yet the 777 (wider cross section) still has an optimal cruise speed higher than the A340. Doesn't that tell you it's NOT the cross section?!? For one
162 Dynkrisolo : Airbus claims the 359 will burn 30% less fuel per seat than the 772er. At 245t, the 359 will be 52.5t lighter in MTOW than the 772er. Part of it is f
163 Hamlet69 : The last I heard, Airbus had revised this down to 20+%. To be fair to Keejse, the A350 is to receive an all-new wing as well. Though it will be based
164 Post contains links and images Keesje : No Hamlet, the A350 gets a composite wing dimensionally similar to the A330 wing. It will only have a 1% reduction in cruise drag. http://www.flighti
165 Post contains images A350 : Hi Keesje, thanks for link! That means the A350 is virtually an A330 made of new materials. Really interesting approach: keep the geometry, but change
166 Widebodyphotog : If having more engines with ever increasing fan area and airflow is an advantage then why not six or eight engines under the wings...that'd be a whol
167 Post contains images Hamlet69 : Precisely. And do you know what a 1% reduction means in today's highly refined wing designs? BTW - that is a very good article, thanks for the link.
168 Widebodyphotog : Thanks Hamlet69... For the A350 it should be something between 200-300lb, maybe a 2,000lb fuel savings over a 7,000nm flight. Honestly not so exciting
169 Hamlet69 : widebodyphotog, Thanks for putting some more concrete numbers to it. The A350 clearly gets it's efficiency gains from weight savings. However, I had b
170 Ikramerica : And engines that have yet to fly, and whose newest technology could be adapted to the 777 GE90NGs in some capacity for increased efficiency that woul
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...
Longer Range..777? A345? posted Thu Nov 13 2003 01:59:52 by Bobs89irocz
Aircraft With Longest Range?/777-200LR Or 340-500? posted Tue Dec 17 2002 13:36:16 by MD 11
"de-tanked" 777-200LR Range posted Fri Feb 25 2005 03:04:23 by Boeing Nut
Whats Wrong With The New 777-200LR And 777-300ER posted Wed Apr 2 2003 21:53:03 by United777
Delivery Schedule Of 777-200LR posted Tue Nov 14 2006 05:01:01 by UAEflyer
EVA Shelved 777-200LR Order, No Big 77F Order .... posted Mon Nov 13 2006 23:47:06 by Jimyvr
EVA Air Boeing 777-200LR? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 15:57:46 by VivaGunners
Delta Becomes US Launch Customer For 777-200LR posted Wed Oct 11 2006 21:17:33 by Leelaw
Delta 777-200LR Order posted Thu Sep 21 2006 18:10:07 by 1337Delta764
777-200LR Why So Long To Take To Skys? posted Sat Sep 9 2006 16:35:38 by Joffie