Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 777-300/ER  
User currently offlineAmerican777 From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7505 times:

Few weeks ago I heard that BA was interested in placing an order for 10 Boeing 777-300/ER. What are the latest news on that? Are they going to buy any, or was it just an option they had?

Also is KL going to order any, any time soon, or have they already order them.

My recommendations to Boeing is to talk to Rolls Royce Company to offer an engine version for the Boeing 777-300/ER and probably more airlines might get interested in ordering tose long range jets.





[Edited 2006-05-23 06:52:30]

Big version: Width: 1351 Height: 732 File size: 60kb



Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 574 File size: 28kb
All what the airlines want is for Rolls Royce Company to launch an engine version of theirs on the Boeing 777-300/ER.



Big version: Width: 1472 Height: 852 File size: 58kb
Will this ever happen?




THANKS for any comments,

American777.

[Edited 2006-05-23 07:10:19]

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7483 times:

Quoting American777 (Thread starter):
My recommendations to Boeing is to talk to Rolls Royce Company to offer an engine version for the Boeing 777-300/ER and probably more airlines might get interested in ordering tose long range jets.

Boeing is bound by an exclusivity agreement to General Electric for all 777s with an MTOW above 700,000 pounds.

N


User currently offlineDalb777 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7483 times:

Quoting American777 (Thread starter):
Also is KL going to order any, any time soon, or have they already order them.

It was discussed a few days ago that they switched 4 of their 772ER's on order with 4 773ER's.

Official: KLM Orders 4 B777-300ER (by KLMCedric May 18 2006 in Civil Aviation)



Geaux Tigers! Geaux Hornets! Geaux Saints! WHO DAT!!!
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7450 times:

Quoting American777 (Thread starter):
All what the airlines want is for Rolls Royce Company to launch an engine version of theirs on the Boeing 777-300/ER.

Given current sales, I don't think anyone except armchair analysts and Rolls-Royce employees are questioning the wisdom of this exclusivity arrangement. I find it interesting that you have placed that caption next to a rendering of a KLM 777-300ER, when Air France KLM operates only GE90-equipped 777s.

British Airways has purchase rights on 777-300ERs, as well, so clearly, if they had concerns over engine selection, they have worked through them.

[Edited 2006-05-23 07:04:33]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1604 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7420 times:

The 777-300ER is an enormous airplane!

User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7411 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1):

Boeing is bound by an exclusivity agreement to General Electric for all 777s with an MTOW above 700,000 pounds.

Has this enhanced or hindered sales of the 777ER? And will that also affect the 748?

cheers


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7336 times:

I have no doubt that it has affected/will affect sales of both aircraft.

N


User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days ago) and read 7219 times:

I agree. If Boeing would offer the -300ER with a higher-thrust Trent engine, they would get a lot of additional orders.
The same goes to the B748.

A lot of airlines have spend a huge amount of money in trent-engines and would really like to expand that family in their own fleet.

I see AA,LH,BA as prime candidates for the B777-300ER with Trents and i guess Cathay would like to have their ordered -300s with RR-engines as well.Like SQ would...

To offer only one engine offers only an advantage to the engine-producer, but not to A or B or the airlines.


Johnny  Smile


User currently offlineHZ747300 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2004, 1678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days ago) and read 7199 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 4):
The 777-300ER is an enormous airplane!

That it is, that it is.

What is up with BA and the 773ER? Hopefully, we'll see an SV order for the jet soon too!



Keep on truckin'...
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6885 times:

BA has reserved slots for the 777, but not specified the model, so it could be for more 772ERs?


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineAmerican777 From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6405 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
I see AA,LH,BA as prime candidates for the B777-300ER with Trents and i guess Cathay would like to have their ordered -300s with RR-engines as well.Like SQ would...

I bet EK would of also liked their 777-300ER to be powered by Rolls Royce engines due to that their -200ER and standard -200 & -300 models are all powered by Rolls Royce engines.  yes 


User currently offlineAmerican777 From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6405 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
I see AA,LH,BA as prime candidates for the B777-300ER with Trents and i guess Cathay would like to have their ordered -300s with RR-engines as well.Like SQ would...

I bet EK would of also liked their 777-300ER to be powered by Rolls Royce engines due to that their -200ER and standard -200 & -300 models are all powered by Rolls Royce engines.  yes 


User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2956 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6353 times:

The engine criteria hasn't stopped neither NH, CX, EK nor SQ from ordering the 773ER despite having their previous 777s powered by different engine manufacturers. In fact, NH has the most disadvantage, as they will not likely have a fleet of 773ER anywhere close to the other carriers I have mentioned.

Even having the GE90-powered 777s didn't persuade NH to have the 787s powered by GE. Instead they went with RR Trents.


User currently offlineKen4556 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6336 times:

How come no one mentions that the A340-500/600 use only the Rolls Royce engine?

Why is the 777-300ER/777-200LR held to a different standard with only GE's engines?


User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6320 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
I agree. If Boeing would offer the -300ER with a higher-thrust Trent engine, they would get a lot of additional orders.
The same goes to the B748.

A lot of airlines have spend a huge amount of money in trent-engines and would really like to expand that family in their own fleet.

From Boeing's point of view, it must make sense to retain the GE exclusivity agreement rather than opening it up to RR engines. In other words, the additional orders from RR customers won't make up for the legal fees/hassles if Boeing were to abandon their agreement with GE.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6305 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
I agree. If Boeing would offer the -300ER with a higher-thrust Trent engine, they would get a lot of additional orders.

Dude...do you realize what sort of backlog the 777-300ER has? Again, I reiterate, if the Trent was that important to 777-300ER orders, there wouldn't be so many of them. Boeing has enough trouble keeping up with demand as it is.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 551 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6252 times:

I assume the exclusivity agreement was signed because Boeing needed GE to develop an engine for the plane and GE feared there would not be enough sales to justify it. Seems from the numbers sold to be a mistake on Boeings part -- a mistake they will now repeat on other planes. Exclusivity should be avoided at almost all costs.


The dude abides
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6206 times:

Quoting MrComet (Reply 16):
I assume the exclusivity agreement was signed because Boeing needed GE to develop an engine for the plane and GE feared there would not be enough sales to justify it. Seems from the numbers sold to be a mistake on Boeings part -- a mistake they will now repeat on other planes. Exclusivity should be avoided at almost all costs.

Care to elaborate why it is a mistake? with B773ER beating A346, It shows that GE exclusivity's adverse impact on the plane is minimal. Boeing is starting to provide logistical support in terms of parts inventory and maintenance, which reduce airlines' spare parts inventory. This means the engine commonality argument from logistical perspective can be thrown out of the window. Granted mechanics training can still be an issue, but once the fleet size grows, this problem can be economically addressed.

Also, GE90-115B is arguably one of the most efficient and reliable engine ever produced. Remember airlines most of the time do not buy engine because it sounds cool or looks good like people buying car. As long as those engines can be cost effective, economical to operate and generate revenue to the airlines, they will still buy it no matter who the manufacturer is.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1718 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6206 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 15):
Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
I agree. If Boeing would offer the -300ER with a higher-thrust Trent engine, they would get a lot of additional orders.

Dude...do you realize what sort of backlog the 777-300ER has? Again, I reiterate, if the Trent was that important to 777-300ER orders, there wouldn't be so many of them. Boeing has enough trouble keeping up with demand as it is.

Exactly. A lot of additional orders? From who? Specifically what airlines would order the B773ER if they had Trents? I think it's very probable we will see several additional airlines order the B773ER, and we've seen nothing to indicate the engine exclusivity is a limiting factor.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offline777WT From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 877 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6156 times:

AA did threaten not to order the 777-300ER if Boeing did go with GE on them.
Well it happened and AA isn't ordering any 777-300ER even before their problems grew.

The agreement between GE and Boeing is that GE would make a GE90-115B for the 777-300ER and invest in a % of the 777-300ER development costs.

It was really down to GE and RR over the 777-300ER powerplant of choice and Boeing only wanted one varient, not two.


User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days ago) and read 6109 times:

I think for both A340-500/600 and B777-200LR/300ER a engine choice would be an advantage for the airlines.

Air France for example did not order the A340NG because of its RR-engines(one reason only) as AA did not go for 200LR or 300ER due to engine choice.

LH or BA for example are not happy with the GE90-engine, BA switched from the GE to the RR-engine on their B772ER-fleet.Lufthansa has built up a huge Rolls Royce-fleet on their A321,B753,A333,A346 and soon A388-fleets respectively and have a Joint-Venture with Rolls Royce about engines maintenance and are building a new facility for it in Germany.So why should they go for the GE90?

That could indeed be a problem for the B748I now, with lots of RR-operators all around the world on existing B744-fleets.

It would makes sales for the B777NG and A340NG much more easier for the airlines if they would have a choice.I know that the B777-300ER has u huge backlog, but i think it could be bigger than that, because this airplane is the real B744-replacement for most of the airlines, not the B748I.

Johnny  Smile


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5943 times:

Quoting 777WT (Reply 19):
The agreement between GE and Boeing is that GE would make a GE90-115B for the 777-300ER and invest in a % of the 777-300ER development costs.

Seeing that Boeing has sold shedloads of the 773ER did they really need an outside investment to get the plane off the ground? Were they really that unsure about it's success?



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5781 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 21):
Seeing that Boeing has sold shed loads of the 773ER did they really need an outside investment to get the plane off the ground? Were they really that unsure about it's success?

5 years ago when they developed the plane, they did not know the oil price would be $75/barrel. They could not forecast that it would have been selling like hotcakes.

Even though they could predict how much they would sell, there is always an inherent risk of a project. By sharing the risk such as with engine manufacturer, lender, etc, the expected return of the project will be high enough thus making it lucrative to the investors. So, it is all about risk sharing to make the project possible and shield your own company from a catastrophic failure.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 20):
AA did not go for 200LR or 300ER due to engine choice.

I have never heard any suggestion that AA did not order 200LR and 300ER due to engine choice. Care to give us a source? Is it possible that AA has not ordered 200LR out of its needs? Also, I have not heard AA placing a new 777 order after the launch of 200LR, so, my hypothesis is that AA did not place order on 200LR because it was not available. 300ER is out of question for AA as they already stated that 772 is the largest plane in their fleet.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5740 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

One way or the other, the 777-200LR and the 777-300ER were going to be powered by one engine manufacturer, only.

RR was willing to share the market with GE and/or Pratt & Whitney, but neither of them were willing to share because they didn't think the market would be as big as it has turned out to be.

So it came down to who made Boeing the best offer, and that was GE. Also, while AA and BA were annoyed at not having a Rolls-Royce option, they were not so annoyed that they were willing to tell Boeing to pound sand if a Trent engine was not an option. In fact, only CX was believed to be a "Trent or nothing" customer at the time, and they have since ordered 16 GE-powered 773ERs.

As others have noted, between the "Power by the Hour" and other maintenance deals, engine family commonality across a fleet really isn't all that critical a cost-center/savings anymore. So yes, Boeing might have sold a few more 772LRs and 773ERs earlier in the program if Trent and/or P&W power had been available, but it does not seem to have dampened the prospects for the plane, overall.


User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 551 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5654 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 17):
Care to elaborate why it is a mistake? with B773ER beating A346, It shows that GE exclusivity's adverse impact on the plane is minimal.

I must admit I have an unclear understanding of why the exclusive engine contract was signed. Was it the engine manufacturers who insisted on exclusivity? Was it Boeing? Did GE say we will not build the engine unless you give us an exclusive deal?

The plane has sold enough so that maybe multiple engine manufacturers would have broke even or profited. That ultimately hurts Boeing becuase it may be the one issue that weighs a aircraft deal against them. One deal may be small or huge. Why take the chance if you can avoid it?



The dude abides
25 PolymerPlane : Well in my opinion Boeing could care less whether the engine manufacturer breaks even. I think Boeing is just trying to spread the risk of 777LR so i
26 N328KF : You've said expounded this line three times already in various forms. If it was disadventageous to them, they wouldn't have ordered it. Or...because
27 Post contains images Johnny : @ N328KF Why don´t you ask your question about AA to 777WT as well ?!? The source was an article in Flight International OR Flug Revue, i am not real
28 DfwRevolution : There were only two airlines that pressured Boeing not to sign an exclusive agreement with GE. The first was CX, the other was AA. All others gave no
29 Gigneil : AA didn't go for the 200LR or 300ER because of the new transpolar routes making some of their desired Asian services possible. Lufthansa is one of th
30 Post contains images Glareskin : At least it didn't help Airbus selling the mentioned aircraft to the American carriers... It's not. The airlines define the criteria! AA has manoeuvr
31 DfwRevolution : *sigh* I responded to what you wrote and did so in a matter of fact way. Did I say anything negative about you? I responded to two other members as w
32 Glareskin : So, the piece that 777WT wrote isn't true?
33 Post contains images Stitch : They are incorrect in noting Boeing only wanted one engine supplier for the 777X (772LR/773ER) program. GE and P&W both demanded exclusivity, as they
34 Glareskin : Thanks! Now I understand.
35 DfwRevolution : In regards to excerpt of Reply 19 below, he is incorrect that the 773ER is what AA was interested in ordering. AA's interest was almost entirely excl
36 Post contains images Hamlet69 : They never signed an LOI for anything. They threatened to talk to Airbus about the A340-500, and even invited Airbus to give them a proposal on the b
37 Post contains images Jacobin777 : with options for 20 more which they said they will probably order... of course, we'll have to see what the "all new" A350 v.5.0 brings along..... AA
38 FlyDreamliner : Quite observant. Probably neither. A number of airlines with heavily RR powered fleets like CX have bought the 773ER. I think that's not a huge issue
39 AirbusA6 : As RR had already run a Trent at well over 100k already, they probably didn't feel the extra thrust requirement was a big deal. Was this pre or post
40 Post contains images Johnny : I know that the B777NG has a superior fuel-consumption with the GE90 already. But it is hardly comparable, because there is only the GE90-engine avail
41 Brendows : Even if GE didn't have a competitor on the 777NG, they were competing against the A340NG. Because of that, I doubt that they didn't make to GE90 as g
42 Stitch : Alas, Airtransport.biz seems to be dead, so I can't answer that, but I imagine it was before the GP7200 agreement. Well Rolls-Royce did shop the high
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...
Who Gets The First Boeing 777-300/ER? posted Sun Jun 22 2003 22:23:48 by Clipper471
Singapore 777-300 ER Picture posted Fri Sep 22 2006 20:40:12 by HARLEYF150
Emirates 777-300/ER In Montreal! posted Thu May 12 2005 05:25:03 by MEL
About Emirates's Boeing 777-300 posted Tue Feb 1 2005 16:01:28 by 9V-SVC
A340-600 And Boeing 777-300 Spotting In FRA posted Sun Oct 31 2004 01:04:36 by A340roy
Air France Boeing 777-300 posted Fri Jul 4 2003 09:24:41 by AF Cabin Crew
Could Varig Get The Boeing 777-300? posted Thu Sep 6 2001 02:57:06 by RJ_Delta
Boeing 777-300 Is Longer! posted Sun Jun 24 2001 01:03:09 by TurboTristar
SIA Boeing 777-300 Has Engine Failure! posted Thu Nov 2 2000 06:49:32 by GUNDU
Boeing 777-300 posted Sat Aug 19 2000 07:52:16 by Kiwi Dave