Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ANA 777-200s With GE?  
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7002 posts, RR: 63
Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3727 times:

Here's something slightly odd.

Many a long year ago ANA chose PW for their 777s. (They were heading towards an RR order until BA chose GE for their 777s but that's another story.)

They have -281s with PW4084s, -281ERs with PW4090s and -300s with PW4090s.

Their more recent order for -300ERs was necessarily with GE.

So far, so ordinary.

But some months ago I noticed on the Boeing website that they listed ANA as having ordered 2 (just 2) 777-200s with GE. I wrote to Boeing suggesting it was a mistake. I didn't get a reply.  sarcastic 

Now I look at my 2006-2007 jp Fleets and on page 241 it lists ANA as having 2 777-281s with GE90-85Bs on order for delivery in 2007. "Aha," I think, "that confirms what's on the Boeing website," and I go there to check. But now there's no mention of any ANA order for GE 777-200s.

Do they? Don't they?

 confused 

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 1005 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3705 times:

Interesting.

I've always wondered, what is the MTOM of their 200ERs? Can you get the 656.000 lbs "variant" with the PW4090? If not, I can see why they would want the GE9094B and the higher MTOM. Not unlike what JL did for their 200ERs.
But these were to be 200A with the GE9085B? Hmmm, that's very peculiar. I would assume the lighter PW would be just as good on the short domestic and regional routes.


raggi



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7002 posts, RR: 63
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3526 times:

Quoting Raggi (Reply 1):
I would assume the lighter PW would be just as good on the short domestic and regional routes.

Especially when they already have a load of them. Yes, two orphan 777-200s with GE90s make a little more sense in view of the GE90-115 already in the fleet - but it still seems an eccentric thing to do.

If, that is, it's true.


User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2978 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3486 times:

The three recent 777-281ERs ANA took delivery were all PW-powered aircraft.

User currently offlineAndrewtang From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 461 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3435 times:

So does anyone have a confirmation whether such info is true? It would be great to see a 777-281ER with GE90 engines Big grin

User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 1005 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3417 times:

Does anyone know the MTOM of NH's 777-281ERs? I looked at their website, but didn't find it.


raggi



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7002 posts, RR: 63
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3330 times:

Quoting Andrewtang (Reply 4):
It would be great to see a 777-281ER with GE90 engines

Not so fast. Both the Boeing website some months ago and the current jp Fleets indicated 777-200s with GE, not 777-200ERs. Indeed, jp Fleets
specifically lists planes with GE90-85Bs.


User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2978 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3294 times:

While it wouldn't be all that unordinary to have GE-powered -200ERs as they would have commonality with their -300ERs, but I would doubt any -200 (non-ER) will be ordered with GE; as all -200 series have so far been powered by PW. Why have a sub-type on the domestic routes.

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7002 posts, RR: 63
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 7):
While it wouldn't be all that unordinary to have GE-powered -200ERs as they would have commonality with their -300ERs...

Kind of but just two 777-200ERs with GE90s would still be orphans even with a fleet of much bigger GE90-115s.

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 7):
all -200 series have so far been powered by PW.

Indeed. But so have all their 777-200ERs. It still makes no sense.

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 7):
Why have a sub-type on the domestic routes.

Or international routes, for that matter.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3168 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 6):
Not so fast. Both the Boeing website some months ago and the current jp Fleets indicated 777-200s with GE, not 777-200ERs. Indeed, jp Fleets
specifically lists planes with GE90-85Bs.

Sorry, but that info is not correct at all. NH's two newest 777-200ER's, JA716A and JA717A are PW4090 powered with a MTOW of 648Klb. The two ships are NRT-SFO-NRT rotation presently. I've seen the airplanes myself and the PW eagle is there plain as day...



-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 1005 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

widebodyphotog, quick question: Is 648Klb the highest MTOM you can get on a PW4090-powered 772ER?


Thanks!

raggi



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3101 times:

Quoting Raggi (Reply 10):
Is 648Klb the highest MTOM you can get on a PW4090-powered 772ER?

As far as I know, yes, it's the highest MTOW. The reason is the engines, which couldn't be certified for a higher thrust rating, since that would lead to too high NOx emissions.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3093 times:

Quoting Brendows (Reply 11):
As far as I know, yes, it's the highest MTOW. The reason is the engines, which couldn't be certified for a higher thrust rating, since that would lead to too high NOx emissions.

Right, and it should be pointed out that the PW4090 is the only engine on the 777 to have achieved the highest current ETOPS certification, ETOPS 207. Both NH and UA have achieved ETOPS 207 with their 777-200ER fleets.



-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26812 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3059 times:

Quoting Raggi (Reply 1):
I've always wondered, what is the MTOM of their 200ERs? Can you get the 656.000 lbs "variant" with the PW4090?

No you cannot. 648K is the highest available on the 4090.

Quoting PM (Reply 2):
Yes, two orphan 777-200s with GE90s make a little more sense in view of the GE90-115 already in the fleet - but it still seems an eccentric thing to do.

Possible 772LR order?

Quoting Raggi (Reply 10):
Is 648Klb the highest MTOM you can get on a PW4090-powered 772ER?

Yes



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7002 posts, RR: 63
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3019 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 9):
Sorry, but that info is not correct at all. NH's two newest 777-200ER's, JA716A and JA717A are PW4090 powered with a MTOW of 648Klb.

I don't have the book to hand but the two GE90-85 planes (if they exist) are intended for delivery next year. All -281s and -281ERs delivered so far have indeed PW4000s.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):
Possible 772LR order?

Not with GE90-85s! And jp Fleets (which is usually pretty reliable) lists them as 777-281s.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2992 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 14):
I don't have the book to hand but the two GE90-85 planes (if they exist) are intended for delivery next year. All -281s and -281ERs delivered so far have indeed PW4000s.

NH has four more -200A on order but I am positive those will be PW4084 powered. An engine change is highly unlikely as they would have to start from zero in terms of ETOPS certification.

IMO NH should have gone GE from the begining. It would have made some route planning decisions much easier and in the long run would have been more profitable for them. It also probably would have delayed the introduction of the -300ER...So maybe PW was a better choice after all! LOL




-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8690 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2982 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 15):
IMO NH should have gone GE from the begining

Agreed. I think that P&W is a good engine, but the GE makes better sense as all of you have indicated.

If these 200A are GE powered, then good. I'll be blend in with the 300ER a/c. The 200/ 200ER/ 300 a/c will stand out with those P&W engines. I'd gotta see this one.

MCOflyer



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7002 posts, RR: 63
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2925 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 15):
NH has four more -200A on order but I am positive those will be PW4084 powered. An engine change is highly unlikely as they would have to start from zero in terms of ETOPS certification.

Do they do ETOPS with 'A' models? Isn't that what the -200ERs are for?

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 15):
IMO NH should have gone GE from the begining.

They were 'going' RR at first...

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 15):
It would have made some route planning decisions much easier and in the long run would have been more profitable for them.

How so?

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 15):
It also probably would have delayed the introduction of the -300ER...

Why?


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26812 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2921 times:

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 16):
I think that P&W is a good engine

On non-A model 777s, it is a pile of junk



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7002 posts, RR: 63
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2909 times:

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 16):
Agreed. I think that P&W is a good engine, but the GE makes better sense as all of you have indicated.

It never ceases to amaze me how people forget that on the -200/-200ER/-300 (i.e. before the GE monopoly) RR comfortably outsold both PW and GE.

Of the 526 non-2LR/3ER 777s currently flying, 154 (29%) have PW, 161 have GE (31%) and 211 (40%) have RR! On the -200ER RR and GE are neck and neck with 40% each and PW have 20%.

I read again and again how superior the GE90 is alleged to be but the market seemed to think otherwise.


User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 1005 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

I guess the fact that a PW4090 772ER is restricted to 648Klb was part of the reason why JL switched from PW to the GE9094B when they ordered 772ERs. That, and commonality with the 773ERs they had on order.

raggi



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2830 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 17):
Do they do ETOPS with 'A' models? Isn't that what the -200ERs are for?

Some, not all NH -200A models are ETOPS certified as well and are used on medium range routes where ETOPS planning is required. Also for charter work on occasion. The bulk of ETOPS work is handled the now seven strong -200ER fleet.

Quoting PM (Reply 17):
How so?

Payload/range performance became an issue with the introduction of their -200ER to the US East coast routes. The premium seats made for higher OEW airplanes and the lower deck crew rest sacrificed cargo revenue and created wicked weight and balance problems when pax loads were low and cargo loads were high. Runway performance near MTOW was always an issue leaving IAD (especially in summer and fall) and as a result payloads on the longest range routes suffered and NH did not get as much out of the aircrafts as they would have if they were GE powered with higher MTOW (and better fuel burn BTW). NH was between a rock and a hard place because the operating costs were too high to change/continue 747-400 operation to the US East coast but PW4090 777-200ER was not the optimal aircraft for the routes. Enter 777-300ER...

However, if NH had chosen the more capable GE powered aircraft from the begining the discussion might have been weather or not to add additional frequencencies to the US East coast with additional GE powered 777-200ER's rather than replacing them with 777-300ER, and more orders for the GE90 777-200's for Asia medium range routes.

But that is not the way it happened and 777-300ER has become the heavy hauler for NH's longest routes and is now being used to build capacity inter-Asia. The -300ER has become a great money maker for NH, nearly doubling cargo payloads and increasing pax capacity without significant performance restrictions where it has replaced 777-200ER. It has also cut fuel costs by about 30% where it has replaced 747-400 with the added benefit of vastly increased cargo volume and payload.

As an additional note the last three 777-281ER were delivered with overhead crew rests at long last...



-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2808 times:

Why did NH opt for the lower deck crew rest in the first place? Surely the operational issues associated with them would have been realized prior to order so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2785 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 22):
Why did NH opt for the lower deck crew rest in the first place? Surely the operational issues associated with them would have been realized prior to order so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

You would have thought so but when they were ordered the -200ER it was never intended to be operating on ANA's longest routes so it was never assumed that required performance would reach the edge of the commercially viable envelope. The US West coast was the planned cope of operation of their -200ER airplanes. The realities of September 11 and rising fuel prices forced ANA's hand with regards to fleet planning. It made their low density 747-400 seating unviable for the North America market so they had to cut capacity and costs. Also a point to remember is that three of the first four 777-281ER, JA708A, JA709A, and JA710A, were flipped to ER from A models. ANA never intended to utilize the -200ER in they way it turned out so they had to make the best of it until the -300ER became available.



-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineImiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2775 times:

slightly off topic but why does BA have a 777 fleet with both GE and RR engines?

25 N1120A : The GE90 is superior in that it has the lowest SFC and was by far the most scalable to what Boeing needed for the over 700,000 pound 777s because of
26 Carpethead : Also not to mention why NH went with PW for the 777s is that NH signed with then JAS & JL for an agreement on engine maintenance/parts/spares. Hence,
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...
Airlines With 777 With GE-90 Engines posted Sun Aug 14 2005 05:12:26 by Fly_yhm
Delta 777-200s Back In MCO? posted Tue Nov 7 2006 07:53:08 by OOer
SQ's Newest 773/ER With GE Engines Not RR Why? posted Wed Oct 4 2006 06:51:12 by DeltaJet757
LH, UA, ANA Terminate Codeshare With RG posted Wed Aug 23 2006 22:02:13 by Hardiwv
AF Upgraded 777-200s? posted Thu Jun 1 2006 05:29:32 by Atwingo
New ANA 777-300ER? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 08:06:48 by Chulalongkorn
EK 777-200S Retrofitted For The Futur posted Sun Jan 29 2006 22:32:18 by Dxb
JAL And ANA 777-300ERs posted Fri Jan 20 2006 02:26:26 by Kaitak744
Interesting: United 727-200s With An Extra Exit? posted Tue Jan 10 2006 21:57:52 by Cedarjet
ANA 777-300ER posted Tue Dec 13 2005 10:09:01 by Qantas744ER