Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR  
User currently offlineFerdinando From Italy, joined Feb 2007, 9 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7599 times:

Topic: RE: Will Boeing Let The 777 Die?
Username: Baron95
Posted 2006-10-27 08:00:16 and read 10835 times.
Quoting Eatmybologna (Reply 14):
Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 12):
Remove 15klbs of weigh

Call me skeptical, but how would they pull that off?

Boeing has announced a program to remove about 12000-lbs from the 772LR to enable, among other things, better economics (payload) on SYD-LHR route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question for Widebodyphotog or any other who can reply:
which is the situation at this date (february 2007) of Boeing's program to
lighten 772LR (how many lbs must still be removed; when it will finish;
final still air range of plane; number of auxiliary tanks, ecc.)?
Thanks
Ferdinando
microd@tiscalinet.it

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7547 times:

Any such plans have likely been shelved. The existing 772LR with 3-aux tanks can fly LHR-SYD 12 months of the year with payload, but can only fly westbound SYD-LHR non-stop with payload 9 months of the year.

At this point, I think QF is content to build their future long-haul fleet around the 787 and A380. Reducing the OEW of the 772LR to the point where LHR-SYD could be flown year-round with payload would likely be too expensive to justify for such a limited niche.


User currently offlineAerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 802 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7466 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
Reducing the OEW of the 772LR to the point where LHR-SYD could be flown year-round with payload would likely be too expensive to justify for such a limited niche.

But wouldn't a reduction in the OEW make the aircraft more economical over all ranges, not just at the top end?



What?
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7436 times:

From what I remember: the only made-public details were lightened supplied-equipment (seats, galleys, lavs) and some tweaking to the gear, pylons, etc. Whether that was the end of it is of course anyone's guess, though I doubt those factors alone could've been the sole constitution for a 6ton payload reduction.

Also, up to six aux tanks were to be offered.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
I think QF is content to build their future long-haul fleet around the 787 and A380. Reducing the OEW of the 772LR to the point where LHR-SYD could be flown year-round with payload would likely be too expensive to justify for such a limited niche.

I don't think QF was their sole intended target, though certainly a primary one.

Could of course turn their attention toward SQ once more, as that airline has yet again waffled on whether or not it is continuing to pursue the 772LR for its fleet (which I still of course contend is more "when" than "if"  Wink)


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7286 times:

If six aux tanks is installed on -LR whattabout cargo/freight and numbers of pax?

Micke//  stirthepot 



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7264 times:

Can a A380 be tweaked to fly that route nonstop?

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21526 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7245 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 4):
If six aux tanks is installed on -LR whattabout cargo/freight and numbers of pax?

not wonderful in terms of cargo space, but the 744ER also is limited in cargo space, and QF bought that, and the A380 is limited in cargo space (after baggage is accounted for) and many carriers have signed on for that.

I think the goal was something like a 240 seat 3-class jet that could do the SYD-LHR 350-360 days a year without a fuel stop, and the 77L couldn't do that. The best they could get, reportedly, was 240 seats at 9 months a year, or far fewer seats, fewer than SQ puts on the A345, which was not economical.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7202 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 5):
Can a A380 be tweaked to fly that route nonstop?

If launched, the A380-800R would have a center wingbox fuel tank (like the A388F can be optioned with), but I don't believe this will give her the legs, either.


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7184 times:

I´m talking about non-stop with -LR (LHR-SYD n back)

Micke



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineCJAContinental From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7126 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 8):
I´m talking about non-stop with -LR (LHR-SYD n back)

How long would that flight be?



Work Hard/Fly Right.
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7041 times:

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 5):
Can a A380 be tweaked to fly that route nonstop?

Pull off a couple hundred pax, replace them with gas, then maybe.

772LR, with a bit less weight and full aux fuel should be able to run the route nicely, the question is how big the market is for the non-stop.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6963 times:

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 5):
Can a A380 be tweaked to fly that route nonstop?

Economically? I can't image the A388 QF already has on order could be stripped down to the extent that sufficient range could be obtained for year-round, non-stop operations. Not without a cruise ship configuration of less than 300 seats that would carry an ungodly premium.

If SYD-LHR is ever going to become economical, I'd put my money on a growth variant of either the 787-8 or 787-9.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21526 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6750 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 10):
772LR, with a bit less weight and full aux fuel should be able to run the route nicely, the question is how big the market is for the non-stop.

Actually, i think it's not the question at all. There is demand for that, plenty.

The problem is the same that faced Concorde. Concorde, despite what some believe, was not a money loser for those operating it. The sunk costs were the sunk costs, but using the given that the plane already existed in fleets for BA and AF, on a per flight basis, a Concorde made money. But, the costs were higher per pax than flying that same passenger in F on a 747 or 777. There was more profit to be made putting that passenger in F class than in Concorde class. And with no other alternatives (no competing supersonic flights), if Concorde ceased to fly, passengers were not going to stop traveling.

You can make the same case against the 77L non-stop in a low density configuration. If the costs of that trip to the airline are appreciably higher than sending them one-stop on a 744 SYD-LHR, then even though you may even be able to charge a premium for the non-stop, it likely wouldn't be enough to compensate for the added costs. That's why QF wouldn't consider it unless they could assure pax it would be non-stop (so they could charge more) and unless they could fit at least a medium density configuration on the jet, to bring down CASM to a level that made it a better business decision than just flying that pax on the one-stop...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4830 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6663 times:

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 9):
How long would that flight be?

Somewhere between 18 and 20 hours depending on winds etc vs 22.5-23.5 hours for the normal flights.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8370 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5590 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The difference is that QF 1 from SYD to LHR could leave at 9:00pm instead of 5:00pm for the stop in Bangkok arriving at LHR at the same time. The return could leave LHR at 5:00pm arrivng in Sydney around 8:00pm, the customer gets a full day at each end. QF can charge a small premuim for the nonstop but it should be a First, Business and Premuim Economy plane, let the leisure traveler paying little take the flights stopping in Bkk or SIN

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5154 times:

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 14):
The difference is that QF 1 from SYD to LHR could leave at 9:00pm instead of 5:00pm for the stop in Bangkok arriving at LHR at the same time. The return could leave LHR at 5:00pm arriving in Sydney around 8:00pm, the customer gets a full day at each end.

Suggest you put the "day" in inverted commas, the pax will definitely be "in inverted commas" after 18-20 hours!!  Wow!


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6449 posts, RR: 54
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3372 times:

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 5):
Can a A380 be tweaked to fly that route nonstop?

No, the present A380 cannot do it with any viable payload.

But the interesting thing is what happens to the A380 when the next generation engines are online from RR and possibly GE.

Of course at some time the A380 will take advantage of the new engine technology as the B787, B747-800 and A350 are based on. Obviously the A380 will not for a substantial period of time be the only long range plane which relies on what is expected soon to be outdated engine technology. But it is also natural that Airbus cannot announce new and improved versions of the A380 as long as it hasn't even entered scheduled service.

But it is very likely that a good part of the A380s on order will be re-negotiated and will fly with for instance a RR Trent 1700 variant instead of present day Trent 900. That could possibly make the A380 interesting on a LHR-SID non-stop route.

Maybe also the extremely slow sale of A380 during the last two years can be attributed to secret tales that Airbus (of course) will strap new engines under the A380 wing when they are available and have proved their value. One guess could be that potential A380 customers want to wait and see performance and maintenance costs on these new engines before they decide on such a large investment.

I would like to be able to read the small letters in the Qantas sales contract for their recent follow-on A380 order. I would gladly take a bet on the fact that it contains a clause about "alternative engine options".



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4327 posts, RR: 28
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3323 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 16):
But it is very likely that a good part of the A380s on order will be re-negotiated and will fly with for instance a RR Trent 1700 variant instead of present day Trent 900. That could possibly make the A380 interesting on a LHR-SID non-stop route.

"Interesting", perhaps. But are you implying that the next gen engines will alone boost the A380's range from 8,000nm to the over 9,000nm needed for SYD-LHR? That's roughly a 12% increase in range. That seems quite a bit from engines alone.

(Note: I'm not saying you're wrong; just questioning if indeed that much efficiency is to be recognized from slinging new engines on the wing.)

Regards,

R



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineGrantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3304 times:

Surely pulling as much weight off the 777 in general would make the case for the A350 that much harder. Wouldn't that be motivation enough?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3302 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 16):
But it is very likely that a good part of the A380s on order will be re-negotiated and will fly with for instance a RR Trent 1700 variant instead of present day Trent 900.

So you feel RR will just write-off the development cost of the Trent 900 and take the earnings hit killing the program will entail moving the A380 to the Trent XWB?

Trent XWB's must have a heck of a profit margin built into them...  scratchchin 


User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3185 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 10):
Pull off a couple hundred pax, replace them with gas, then maybe.

772LR, with a bit less weight and full aux fuel should be able to run the route nicely, the question is how big the market is for the non-stop.

Depending on who you listen to, Qantas would be aiming for a first/business only setup as it is easier to charge extra for those fairs, and those people would be more willing to pay.

For the 744s flying the route they could potentially have a smaller first/business setup in the upper deck (example) and use the freed up space for more economy tickets, and if so desired, maybe something like the United economy plus to give some people extra leg room, and of course, for such a long flight, charge a bit more there as well.

Think of it this way, if Qantas is asking both Boeing and Airbus for a plane that can fly this, you know they already have the market for it. Between the ability to charge more for their product, and be able to provide a faster non stop service, it becomes an appealing flight.

No need to interupt sleep mid flight for the stop over... add in some showers, and you can get of the plane fully rested, clean, and ready to do business.


User currently offlineAerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 802 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
So you feel RR will just write-off the development cost of the Trent 900 and take the earnings hit killing the program will entail moving the A380 to the Trent XWB?

I don't think this is the issue, as long as the new engines are also RR, then the revenue remains in the company. Would make the 1700 much more successful



What?
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2284 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3004 times:

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 14):
The difference is that QF 1 from SYD to LHR could leave at 9:00pm instead of 5:00pm for the stop in Bangkok arriving at LHR at the same time.

There's no way that you could save four hours on that non-stop flight. A 777 is slower than a 747. In addition, it is very possible that a 777 doing SYD-LHR will even be forced to fly at a reduced speed to save fuel and make it the whole way. You also have to remember that the 747 only stays for around two hours in BKK. I'd guess that the non-stop flight would save maximum two hours.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2284 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 13):
Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 9):
How long would that flight be?

Somewhere between 18 and 20 hours depending on winds etc vs 22.5-23.5 hours for the normal flights.

A quick calculation:

The regular cruise speed of a 777 is 0.84 Mach, which is around 897 km/h at cruising altitude.

The great circle distance between SYD-LHR is 17,016 km.

At that distance and speed, the flight time will be 18 hours and 58 minutes.

However, we do know that:
a. The great circle distance crosses over the Himalayas. The non-stop flight would have to go either north or south of the Himalayas, thereby making the flight slightly longer (my guess would be 10-15 minutes).
b. Due to the extreme distance, the 777 might be forced to fly at a slower speed than the regular cruise speed.
c. There are headwinds on SYD-LHR, which will also add time to the flight (my guess would be around one hour).
d. The block time, or scheduled flight time, is always much more than the actual time of distance divided by airspeed. Block time also makes room for taxiing, climb, approach, and taxiing at arrival airport. For such a long time, my guess is that QF would have to add at least 40 minutes to the estimated flight time.

All taken together, my guess is that the block time for SYD-LHR would be around 21 hours, plus/minus 30 minutes.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5658 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

Quoting Jbernie (Reply 20):
Depending on who you listen to, Qantas would be aiming for a first/business only setup as it is easier to charge extra for those fairs, and those people would be more willing to pay.

QFs aim with the non-stop is to capture as much traffic between Oz & the UK as is *economically* possible. FULL STOP.

The reason is to compete with SQ, EK, MH, TG, CX, VS, JL, KE and every other Tom, Dick & Harry on the Kangaroo route by offering something they CAN NOT offer -nonstop- service (except VS, thats an interesting winkle!). Not just to F/J pax but ALL. As far as QF is concerned ANY pax not flying them or BA between Oz & the UK is a pax and revenue poached by these upstart interlopers! You don't have to hang around the company & its operations very long to be immersed in this attitude.

That's want they WANT. What they can do is, of course, another matter. They will peruse a premium only service, if it makes economic sense, but just as a pit stop on the road to lifting ALL Oz/UK traffic non stop, if that is the only way to cut the interlopers out of the market.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
25 Prebennorholm : Right, that will not be done by new engines alone. But there are a lot of uncertainties. First of all we know little more than years old round perfor
26 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...though don't quite think the market is there, particularly considering that most large airliners flying today can do LHR-SID nonstop
27 FlyDreamliner : What about high premium routes run on the A345. You can get from SIN-LAX or SIN-EWR one stop, or for more money, you can do it non-stop, on a mostly
28 Stitch : Yes, but RR still has hundreds of millions, if not billions invested in the Trent 900 program. The actual amount appears to be an industry secret, bu
29 Post contains images Astuteman : The Trent XWB is going to happen anyway. If the prospect of selling further A380's with Trent 900's is negligible, but the prospect of selling A380's
30 Ikramerica : This is exactly the same case I explained. SQ has already learned that this route, while giving them an "edge" marketing wise, is not making them the
31 Stitch : QF looked at it, but the plane could only fit 120 seats on a NS LHR-SYD run, which was below what Boeing could offer on the 772LR which itself was co
32 Prebennorholm : Dear Stitch, the Trent 900 with its contra rotation layout is a stepping stone to the Trent 1000 and Trent 1700. Just like Trent 5-6-7-800s were step
33 Prebennorholm : Absolutely right, Astuteman, the Trent 900 is very likely the most advanced engine in its class flying today. But if the Trent 1000 and 1700 deliver
34 Post contains images Jacobin777 : given the numbers of the two, I would say a "B787-9ER" version would probably offer the best balance of pax/range.... ..but the problem is that SIN-N
35 Antares : Just for the mix, the calculated maximum saving westbound for a non-stop Sydney-London flight was 90 minutes, rather less than I would have expected,
36 Stitch : Of course, it does. But I don't believe RR suddenly had a revelation in building efficient engines between the Trent 900 and the Trent 1000, especial
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...
Qantas To Announce Order For Mix Of Boeing, Airbus posted Thu Oct 6 2005 01:26:55 by AeroPiggot
Boeing To Use 772LR To Break Nonstop Flight Record posted Wed Sep 29 2004 22:19:25 by ConcordeBoy
Notes From Talking To VP Of Boeing! posted Tue Aug 3 2004 19:49:03 by BCAInfoSys
Missing Boeing Linked To Crash Of B727 posted Sun Jan 4 2004 08:07:17 by 777ER
New Boeing Airplane To Include Range Of... posted Fri Apr 27 2001 02:06:08 by Jiml1126
Wher To Find Fair Comparision Of Boeing Vs. Airbus posted Wed Mar 14 2001 20:09:16 by Sbbre44
SAS Ordered To Stop Parts Of FF Program posted Tue Feb 27 2001 14:06:30 by The Ticketor
A350 Program To Cost US$15 Billion posted Thu Jan 25 2007 21:28:48 by Pygmalion
Port Authority Of NY/NJ To Buy Stewart Airport posted Thu Jan 25 2007 05:25:22 by Werdywerd
Value Of Boeing Deliveries Greater Than Airbus's? posted Thu Jan 18 2007 20:38:33 by AerospaceFan