Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QF Order: Spell The End Of 777lr  
User currently offlineOneworld1 From Mauritius, joined Dec 2005, 108 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 9793 times:

Well what do you think? With all the proposed 'point-to-pointers', the 777lr is a pipedream and all orders will be cancelled? This has proved the A380 is also a significant niche-player.

Your opinions most welcome!

54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 9776 times:

I think the SQ order will go a long way in determining the sales rate of the 777LR. And if Boeing can squeeze a few extra km out of it, I wouldn't be shocked to see QF & BA order it as well. Far too early to bury the 777LR.

User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2823 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 9749 times:

Not at all. If anything the 787 is simply a smaller 772LR. Boeing needs to squeeze out a few more percentage points of the 777 (if it can) or Airbus needs to modernize the 340 and you will see QF sniffing around again. In the meantime, Boeings success with the 772LR this year will continue as more and more carriers abandon the A340.

User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 9658 times:

Given SQ's (dis)satisfaction with the A345, I wouldn't be surprised to see them go 777LR.

User currently offlineKrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1590 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 9610 times:

End of the B777LR, NO WAY!!

it just began!

QF wanted to replace their B767's, and the B787 is the best plane for the job. The B777LR and A346E are still in play, just not a part of this order.

I don't think the B777LR will score big order numbers, but it will be the premium ultra-long range aircraft. I don't think any other plane will touch the performance factors and results of the B777LR for a long time.

Krisyyz


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13472 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 9566 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Oneworld1 (Thread starter):
With all the proposed 'point-to-pointers', the 777lr is a pipedream and all orders will be cancelled?

 rotfl 

Much like the 764, the 777LR is a niche aircraft and was never intended for mass-marketing and mass-production. Also, the R&D costs were insignificant, as it only required minor tweaking of the existing 772ER to develop the LR variant.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Boeing may yet retool the LR to some degree to make it more appealing to airlines like QF.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 9546 times:

The problem for Qantas is their favorite route can't be satisified with the 772LR as it stands today. That means squat to any other parties interested in the 772LR, who don't have extreme routes that would stretch the capabilities of the 772LR and who might need the extra payload capability. Plus it is more fuel efficient than the 772ER.


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlinePyroGX41487 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 9526 times:

Hang on, WHAT? Boeing OR Qantas giving up on a 772LR that can make SYD/MEL - LHR?

NEVER. They shall fight until their dying breath!  weightlifter 


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 9491 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 5):
Much like the 764, the 777LR is a niche aircraft and was never intended for mass-marketing and mass-production. Also, the R&D costs were insignificant, as it only required minor tweaking of the existing 772ER to develop the LR variant.

More to the point, the 777-200LR is really just all of the 777-300ER goodies stuffed into the shell of the 777-200ER.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 9439 times:

I'm starting to think the 772LR is not going to have many more sales.

One thing the 772LR offers is not just range, but much better payload at the extents of the 772ER range. Where the 772ER would be limited, the 772LR wouldn't.

But, the 789 also serves that role, and with better efficiency. Which is why Boeing was so hesitant to sell the 789 as anything but an 260 seat 8200nm plane at first. Now that it is a 290 seat 8600nm plane or 250 seat (3class) 8900nm plane, it cuts into the heart of the 772. The 772ER is effectively a 250 seat (3class) 7600nm plane. Though the 772ER carries better payload at it's limits, to fly the 789 on typical 772ER route is well under the 789 limits so it can also handle a good deal of payload with less fuel, and the 789 offers the ability to fly further.

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 3):
Given SQ's (dis)satisfaction with the A345, I wouldn't be surprised to see them go 777LR.

Not so sure. I am starting to think they would instead order the 789, use the 345s they have for 5 more years, then get rid of them.

Just because they wish they were better doesn't mean SQ is going to take a huge loss by dumping the 345s. From all reports, the SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX runs are turing a profit.

789 in 345 config would have at least 9000nm still air range, easily doing the SIN-LAX, SIN-JFK, SIN-ORD and any other routes they want, at a MUCH lesser fuel cost than the 772LR or 345. They could likely put more seats or more cargo on this route with a 789, and the jet is maybe 1/2 the price of the 772LR.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 9438 times:

I don't think this will be the end of the 772LR.

The 772LR is clearly a niche aircraft and Boeing was very well aware of this fact from the very beginning.

So yes, you're not going to see many 772LRs gracing the skies. I do however think the 772LR Freighter has some good potential.

I think a 787LR if developed one day would attract strong interest however because its economics would likely be considerably better than the 772LR making it attractive to airlines wanting to operate ultra-long range routes.

Maybe then is when SYD-LHR-SYD may become realized...



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 9324 times:

Quoting Oneworld1 (Thread starter):
With all the proposed 'point-to-pointers', the 777lr is a pipedream and all orders will be cancelled?

No, I don't think so. First of all it's still very early in the program. Secondly, people have forgotten about the spin off of this aircraft... The 777-LRF, which the Cargo industry has crying out for.
Add to that a possible, and some say almost certain, military variant, the KC-777 for the U.S Air Force.

Qantas has made it very clear, that although they have not chosen a long range aircraft yet, they are still looking at both the 777 and A340 seriously.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineSWISSER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 9190 times:

Both Boeing and Airbus predicted the ultra long range variants as a niche plane, and they are both part of a big family of aircrafts.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 11):
No, I don't think so. First of all it's still very early in the program. Secondly, people have forgotten about the spin off of this aircraft... The 777-LRF, which the Cargo industry has crying out for.
Add to that a possible, and some say almost certain, military variant, the KC-777 for the U.S Air Force.

Exactly Sal!
The 777LR will never be a failure!
only the manufacterer of the extra fuel tanks or the guy who adjust the power settings of the GE's can be hurt, to say it sarcastic.


User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4115 posts, RR: 90
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 9157 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting Oneworld1 (Thread starter):
Well what do you think?

My opinion differs substantially from yours sir

Quoting Oneworld1 (Thread starter):
With all the proposed 'point-to-pointers', the 777lr is a pipedream and all orders will be cancelled?

Name one cancelled order please. In fact for a frame that had 5 firm orders at the start of the year, let's look at where it will stand at year end

PIA 2 on order with a follow on order expected in the new year

EVA 3 on order, PAX variant, they recently confirmed they'll take them and also have an LoI for 10 x 772Fs

AC 13 772LR PAX on order with options and 2 772F, with options, on order

AI, 5 772LR PAX on firm order plus 5 options

AF, 5 772F on order, Launch customer plus 3 Options

Avion Group, 4 772F on order

EK 10 772LR PAX and 8 772F on order.

So, for a frame that had 5 firm orders at the start of the year we're ending the year with close to 50 commitments for the program. That's a result which can only lead to further orders for both variants. Strength to strength comes to mind, not "spell the end" sir

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 9082 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 772LR has secured 23 orders this year, and I still think SQ will order 10. I also think down the road UA could use them. They have expressed interest in a ULR 777 in the past.

And don't count QF out just yet. Boeing continues to improve the 773ER now that it is in revenue service and those improvements drift back to the 772LR. And no doubt Boeing is working hard to make the 772LR viable for QF's needs.

What is the 787-9's underfloor payload capacity compared to the 772LR's? Cargo may be the bigger determiner then passengers on ULR flights, and I would not be surprised if the 772LR delivers better there then the 787-9 does.

And, of course, the 777F should be good for scores, if not hundreds, of orders over the next decade or two. There are a lot of MD-11Fs and DC-10Fs that need replacing and the 777F is the only real offering. And if you have 767Fs and A300Fs, the 777F will carry more, allowing you a smaller and more efficient fleet.

[Edited 2005-12-14 22:53:02]

User currently offlineFlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 9074 times:

I think SQ will be the next and last NEW customer for the 772LR, other airlines might have follow on orders or exercising their options. So, 772LR is not dead in any means, but it will not reach half of the success of it's bigger sibling (773ER)

[Edited 2005-12-14 22:52:26]

User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 8982 times:

WTF is with all these posts? What, because ONE airline doesn't order the 772LR, the program is dead? I mean, you've got to be kidding me...this is just as ridiculous as saying the A380 is dead because Boeing launched the 748I.

And I might add, QF has stated that the CURRENT proposals don't meet their requirements for a "hub-buster" but that's not to say Boeing (or Airbus) can't go back and magically find some extra range as shown already with the 773ER.


User currently offlineAC787 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 337 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 8959 times:

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 15):
but it will not reach half of the success of it's bigger sibling (773ER)

it was never expected to do so


User currently offlineSq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 8896 times:

A345 is closer to dead than 777LR.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the 777LR order and commitments already exceeds A345 total in 1 year time.

Cheers


User currently offlineYoungFlyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 8872 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 5):

Much like the 764, the 777LR is a niche aircraft and was never intended for mass-marketing and mass-production.

couldn't agree more. I would not be shocked to see more QF orders for some 777's of any kind too. I don't think that the LR was suppose to sell big time, though I think it is perfect for QF. Besides, Boeing executives are probably too drunk to care right now! 115 airplanes in one day baby!!!!!!!!!
Dan



"An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind" -Gandhi
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 8851 times:

One can't look at the 772LR alone. It was developed along with the 777-300ER and from what I understand cost Boeing very little extra to develop from the 773ER....

And if you look at the 773ER and 772LR as one, then it has been an amazing success and will continue to sell well for years to come...Even if the 772LR only gets 1 order for every 5 773ER.


User currently offlineIslandboy From Bahamas, joined Dec 2003, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 8738 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
One thing the 772LR offers is not just range, but much better payload at the extents of the 772ER range. Where the 772ER would be limited, the 772LR wouldn't.

But, the 789 also serves that role, and with better efficiency.

Yes, but the 789 isn't rolling out the factory util 2010. And then you would have to had reserved delivery slots. The 772LR will have a four year headstart.



Looks like the fresh wind has gone stale
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 8692 times:

There are three applications for this airplane in my view:

1. Ultralong haul flying on new city pairs
2. Flying extra payload on existing routes
3. Freighter.

Although I agree that number one may be a low volume business, 2 and 3 may generate more than enough to offset any unmet expectation.


User currently offlineKrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1590 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 8 hours ago) and read 8469 times:

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 13):
AC 13 772LR PAX on order with options and 2 772F, with options, on order

Has AC broken down its B777 order?

The 18 pax B777 and 2 B777F's where the original order. So what your saying is that AC will take 13 B772LR's and 5 B773ERs and 2 B772LRFs?

Do you have a source on this?

Krisyyz


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 8 hours ago) and read 8436 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I do not believe AC has yet broken down their 773ER/772LR mix. They need at least two 772LRs to handle YVR-HKG. I would think they might want to drop HNL and serve SYD direct from YVR and YYZ, so that might need four more 772LRs (unless the 773ER can do it). That would leave 12 773ERs for their higher-capacity routes.

25 Ikramerica : It is NOT the same thing. It is the 777F, we are talking about the 777LR. Boeing was very smart to see the writing on the wall and launch the 777F ri
26 Post contains links PanAm_DC10 : Yes, they have. No. The original order was for 18 firm 777 orders of a various mix. The only known component was that 2 772F would be included. No, t
27 Ken777 : I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing and QF will continue on the 772LR approach to SYD-LHR-SYD. Basically it appears that the plane needs some more refin
28 KrisYYZ : Thanks PanAM_DC10! So I guess the AC will get all of their B773ERs first in March to June 07 and the rest will be LRs and LRFs Krisyyz
29 Aerlinguscargo : Anyone have more info on this topic. I thought that Boeing was offering the 767 as their player in the tanker market.
30 MidnightMike : DC10, maybe, but you will see carriers that are flying the MD11F, will continue to fly them for at least the next 10 years. The MD11's are not that o
31 GQfluffy : Not now, but I doubt the program will die anytime soon. Besides, while they slowly kick out 772LR's...they can always tweak more range out of it. Thi
32 N79969 : Disagreed. The incremental costs to develop the 772LR can be amortized across both passenger airplanes and freighters because Boeing is offering both
33 Post contains links B2707SST : In short, the Air Force has changed its requirements. The word now is that the Pentagon is looking for a combination freighter, troop transport, and
34 Johnny : I think both A345 and B772LR are niche a/c only.They both do not offer the superior fuel efficiency of the B787 or A350,so they simply cannot meet the
35 DAYflyer : This argument makes perfect sense to me. It will be even worse for the 200LR if they launch the 787-10 for EK.
36 Amy : I would. First off, Qantas clearly stated earlier this year that it has no interest in running LHR-SYD non-stop. As for BA, they're not the kind of a
37 SunriseValley : The ability or inability to fly the route was NOT the reason given by Dixon. He said that the QF commercial people did not think that the time saving
38 DAL767400ER : Does Singapore Air ring a bell?
39 NA : The 772LR is some kind of 21st century version of the 747SP (the A340-500 fairly is as well). Who the hell wants to sit in a plane for more than 12 ho
40 DAL767400ER : I hope you are aware that even without the arrival of the A345 or 772LR, there are already dozens of flights all across the globe that operate in exc
41 Cloudyapple : And Air Canada.
42 Cloudyapple : And Cathay Pacific's A346s.
43 Cloudyapple : And Austrian Airlines' A342.
44 Phollingsworth : The logic holds until you notice that the cargo market is really going to be a big driver in aviation growth in the future, probably larger than pass
45 NA : Sure, my longest nonstop was 14 hours. But I just mentioned the 12 hours because up to possible 772LR flights of 20 hours or so that means at least h
46 Post contains images Bmacleod : Just saw the total orders for the 777LR.... YES!!! Finally AC has become the launch customer for a Boeing airliner!!!
47 Jacobin777 : try AC, SQ amongst others,and given the CX order, it seems like CX is "abandoning" their A340's also .
48 Post contains images Bmacleod : Sorry, Didn't go back to 2000, 2002 and saw PIA and EVA orders for 777LRs...   Wasn't there similar rumors of doom for the 747 back in early 1970s w
49 Post contains images Jacobin777 : too bad AC had to put the order on hold until the negotiations/arbitration went through....otherwise Boeing could have chalked up one more carrier on
50 JayinKitsap : Last month after the Dubai Airshow when 777's were selling like hotcakes there was an amazing amount of posts re the 787 sales stalling, will the 787
51 Post contains images RIX : - sorry, couldn't resist... (see what is in bold) - it's rather, "because BA or CX didn't order it". It may very well mean that its peak is over. Eve
52 Post contains images Stitch : If the 777 is "yesterday's aviation technology", then the A340's is "last week's". Both lines still have life in them. Arguably, the 777 looks better
53 DarthRandall : A two-engined strategic tanker--whoda thunk it? To replace the KC-135, yes, but they need something a bit larger to replace their much smaller fleet
54 Post contains images Boeing Nut : I'm sorry, but that's one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. I hate to say it but, Along with BA and airlines that want more cargo over the
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...
A350 Decision By The End Of November posted Tue Nov 14 2006 16:39:30 by Thorben
The End Of The Original 748 In Europe? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 23:24:14 by DHHornet
Light At The End Of The Tunnel? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 20:32:24 by Exarmywarrant
AA RDU-LGW Back To 777 At The End Of October posted Sun Sep 3 2006 23:13:12 by Dank
When Does An Airliner Reach The End Of Its Life? posted Sun Jun 4 2006 18:51:59 by BA787
The End Of Rear Mounted Engines? posted Wed May 17 2006 06:05:30 by United787
TK To Join Major Alliance By The End Of '06? posted Sat May 6 2006 16:12:57 by BigSky123
RegionsAir To Land At SPI At The End Of June posted Mon May 1 2006 19:56:57 by KarlB737
Could We See The End Of NZ's LHR-LAX-AKL Service? posted Sun Apr 16 2006 13:12:38 by Gilesdavies
The End Of NW And The Beginning Of........... posted Thu Mar 2 2006 02:32:04 by Nwafflyer