Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Didnt CO Order The 777-200LR?  
User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5662 times:

When Boeing took the 777-200LR around the world, they brought it to EWR and showed it to CO exec's and employees. Continental was/is looking to expand internationally, mostly in Asia and the 777-200LR had the capability to connect CO's two main hubs to Asia nonstop. Right now they have a of really long haul route bordering ULH such as EWR-HKG These flights are at the edge of the 777-200ER range so they carry no cargo. Wouldn't the 777-200LR helped the profitability of these routes?

So why didnt CO pull the trigger.

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAtlantaflyboy From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5611 times:

Maybe they feel that the cost/benefits of using the 787's they have on order far outweighs the costs of adding a sub-fleet type for a handful of routes? Just a guess ........

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5518 times:

Two reasons:

1. CO already had a large 772ER fleet; ordering a handful of the 772LR variant did not make much economic or operational sense. CO aggressively schedules its 772ERs, and each aircraft flies both longer and shorter segments, meaning that one day a particular 772ER will fly from HKG to EWR and the next may fly from EWR to LGW. Adding the 772LR variant would complicate scheduling....and CO successfully uses the 772ER on its route system, it does not ""need"" the extra capability of the 772LR. Also consider that the 772LR is a more expensive airplane to acquire and the 772LR is yet another subtype with some specific parts and features. Long story short, CO determined that it did not need the 772LR and therefore did not order it.

2. Think 787....CO has a good number of 787s on order (and many think that CO has more 787s on order than have been announced) and the 787 is CO's future long haul airplane; some variants of the 787 will have range capabilities that approach those offered by the 772LR.


User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5494 times:

I gotcha Dutchjet, the reason I brought this up is that the 777-200LR is available now, they wont be getting their 787's IIRC 09-10. So the 777-200LR could help the expand now and then let the 787's come in and the 777's could fly the longest routes.

Thanks guys for clearing that up.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5392 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It is kind of odd that DL, who uses RR power on their 772ERs, added the 77L whilst CO, who uses GE power, did not.

77L's are going for prices similar to 772ERs, but it does look that CO has sufficient capacity to tide them over until the 787s start to arrive.


User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8442 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5296 times:

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 3):
So the 777-200LR could help the expand now and then let the 787's come in and the 777's could fly the longest routes.

What routes would CO fly that would require a 772LR during this expansion. Unless they want to start flying EWR-SIN nonstop I don't see why they would need it.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5286 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
It is kind of odd that DL, who uses RR power on their 772ERs, added the 77L whilst CO, who uses GE power, did not.

All part of a deal worked out in connection with DL's reorganization: Boeing was insisting that DL start taking delivery of some ordered airplanes, DL needing longhaul airplanes and already planning to open some long segments, GE providing some of DL's financing, etc. A very complicated situation for all of the parties involved that resulted in a win-win-win solution: 772LRs for DL. Also consider that many think that DL also has orders/commitements for the 773ER which are not yet announced; as you know, the 772LR and 773ER have a lot in common including engines.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
77L's are going for prices similar to 772ERs

It seems that DL upgraded its order for 772ERs to 772LRs for not extra cost, but I am not sure that Boeing is making this deal with other carriers. Airplane pricing is so very complicated, so its very unclear.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8464 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5253 times:

EWR-HKG may be a challenge for the 772ER but, you know what, it pulls through and does the job.

CO has the right fleet for their overall ops. They stretch it to the limit sometimes, but the point is, they meet their goals. Boo-hoo if the cargo bin is empty on a couple of those flights. I don't hear CO crying about it.


User currently onlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2613 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5159 times:

COs 772ERs do the job without a subfleet situation. I think CO is OK with letting EWR-BOM (longer than EWR-DEL) take some weight restrictions starting this fall and wait to do EWR-BLR until the 787 arrives instead of buying the 772LR.

With ULH routes requiring two aircraft each in most cases, it would take a decent order for CO to buy 772LRs for the only potential routes a 772LR would be needed vs. a 772ER: EWR-JNB, EWR-BLR, EWR-MNL, IAH-DXB and these can be operated by the 787 when it arrives.

If any 772s are to be ordered (or received from AZ if they go under), the ER version would allow expansion to other potential routes: EWR-PVG, EWR-ICN, IAH-TLV plus potential additional frequencies on existing 772ER routes.

While it may be a little frustrating to see opportunities for CO to expand with widebody services go unmet currently, remember CO will be added a significant number or 787 aircraft along with 739ER aircraft, that will release more 752 aircraft for international services. As most legacies drop ASMs, CO is continuing to grow even before these significant additions.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4914 times:

Quoting CO787EWR (Thread starter):
so they carry no cargo.

sometimes


User currently offlineNuggetsyl From United States of America, joined May 2006, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4861 times:

the 777lr can fly 9,450 nautical miles

the 787-8 can fly 7,650 to 8,200 nautical miles
the 787-9 can fly 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles

How many cities MUST HAVE cities does cal miss by not having the extra miles??? Also if cal every did open a west coast base the 777lr would not every be needed, unless you had a must fly city thats 9450 nm away that paxs have to have a direct flight to.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4819 times:

Quoting Nuggetsyl (Reply 10):
How many cities MUST HAVE cities does cal miss by not having the extra miles???

For most carriers, payload would be the deciding factor, not range. The question would be how many cities in their network could generate sufficient demand to justify the increased payload capabilities offered for the price of the Worldliner.

CO seems to think not many.


User currently offlineBAalltheway From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3453 times:

Perhaps if ol' Gordie was still at the helm, things would be different...

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3415 times:

Quoting BAalltheway (Reply 12):
Perhaps if ol' Gordie was still at the helm, things would be different...

Gordie was not known for buying airplanes that CO did not need, if anything, Bethune always took the ""less is more"" approach and used smaller aircraft on routes to protect yeilds (think about CO's 762ERs and 735s) and believed in pushing airplanes to their operational limits (752s on transatlantic routes, 737s on transcons, etc). CO operates its longest routes with the 772ER without difficultly, is simply does not need the 772LR.


User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2830 times:

The 772ER is capable of hauling a fair cargo load quite regularly on EWR-HKG. The 772LR would certainly have greater capability, but would not result in such a dramatic increase that ordering the airplane is a no-brainer, at least for CO.

DL's situation is different- many Asian destinations DL would like to serve are out of the 772ER's range from ATL. The LR opens up a number of key markets the ER cannot reach.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16854 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2733 times:

Having one 777 type is the best way to go from an operational perspective, that way they can standardize on their operations. A 777-200LR can easily sub for a 777-200ER, however a 777-200ER cannot easily sub for a 777-200LR. CO has their fleet plan right, for '08 they will have modest growth with a few more trans-Atlantic 757 routes thanks to the 18 737-900ERs they will be taking delivery of in '08. Those 737-900ERs will free up 757-200s in domestic and Latin American operations from IAH, so those 757-200s can move to EWR.

After '08 begins 787 service with CO, that will see new and exciting international route developments that build upon what the 777 had started in '98. I remember when EWR-HKG was reported in the Newark Star Ledger a few days before CO announced it officially, many here did not believe the report and stated that the 777-200ER could not operate such a long flight. Just wait until the 787 arrives.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
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...
Should CO Order The 777-300ER? posted Wed May 31 2006 23:33:52 by Cslusarc
Why Didnt KLM Order The B 773ER? posted Sat Nov 15 2003 22:49:53 by Behramjee
So Why Hasn't BA Ordered The 777-200LR Yet? posted Sat Aug 18 2001 00:54:29 by 777236ER
Will Any US Airline Order The 777-300ER? posted Fri Dec 15 2006 15:21:10 by RootsAir
Airbus, Why Not Take On The 777? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 06:26:10 by Tangowhisky
Have Qantas Ordered The 777-200LR? posted Sat Aug 13 2005 13:48:22 by EZYAirbus
Headwinds Buffet Boeing's Plans For The 777-200LR posted Mon Jul 25 2005 15:17:10 by MidnightMike
Has The 777-200LR Departed LGW Yet? posted Sun Jul 10 2005 16:06:04 by CX flyboy
Continental And The 777-200LR posted Fri Jul 2 2004 20:45:23 by Bsmalls35
Why No Wingtips On The 777? posted Thu Dec 25 2003 18:13:33 by Moolies