Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?  
User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2682 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14610 times:

I was wondering why some airlines bought the 777-200A instead of the 777-200ER since it is a less capable (and so less flexible a/c).
Regards


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777-200A was the initial model launched so it was the only one available. Also, many 777 operators wanted to start trans-Atlantic operations, first, and the 777-200A is quite good for that. And the US customers also wanted it for Hawai'i ops, which was also fine for a 777-200A.

User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2682 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14555 times:

Isn't the 772ER more efficient for long-haul routes?
Also, I guess that a 772ER can be sold more easily that a 772A IMO



אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5465 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14475 times:

Quoting LY777 (Thread starter):
I was wondering why some airlines bought the 777-200A instead of the 777-200ER since it is a less capable (and so less flexible a/c).
Regards

The 772A has a lighter structure than the ER, so on missions it can perform, it will be more economical. Its range is sufficient for regional routes and shorter transatlantic routes, where it is a very good aircraft. The real problem for the 772A is that the A333 is yet more efficient, and can perform almost all of the missions that the 772A can.

The fact that the A333 has largely eclipsed the 772A, while the 772ER generally outperforms the A343 on longer-range missions, is a great example of how subtle design decisions can have big effects on the competitiveness of an aircraft.


User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2682 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14461 times:

Which airlines have the 772A in their fleet?


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 5, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14461 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LY777 (Reply 2):
Isn't the 772ER more efficient for long-haul routes?

Yes it is, but it wasn't available for about 18 months after the 777-200A. For nine airlines, it was the right plane for the job so Boeing built it for them. So while a total of 88 sales to date is quite weak compared to the 430 of the 777-200ER, it still was desired by airlines who could have just chosen the 777-200ER and made it the "base" plane.


User currently offlineOceansWorld From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14407 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 4):
Which airlines have the 772A in their fleet?

CA, NH, BA, CX, CZ, EK, JL, TG, UA.

Quoting LY777 (Thread starter):
I was wondering why some airlines bought the 777-200A instead of the 777-200ER

UA went for the T7 to replace the DC-10 on intra US flights.

[Edited 2007-09-21 15:10:31]

User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2682 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14272 times:

Does BA still operate the 772A?


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offline747fan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1187 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14185 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 7):
Does BA still operate the 772A?

Yep, they sure do - their 777-200A have GE90-76B's. These birds are generally used on BA's shorter TATL flights such as LHR-BOS, JFK, EWR, IAD, and YUL (YYZ is 763 and 744). They're also used on flights to the Middle East such as LHR-DXB, DOH, TLV, etc. The 772A's basically supplement the 772ER's on these routes and like the rest of BA's LHR 777's, have a 4-class configuration. BA has 3 777-200A's: G-ZZZA, G-ZZZB, and G-ZZZC.


User currently offlineKtachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14148 times:

Well seeing how JL and NH have domestic modified B747-400 in their fleet, it is easy to see why there are 777-200s in the fleet. It initially filled the gap between the B767-300 and B747-400. This all changed when the B777-300 came in and it started to replace its 747 classics.

But even for CX, TG or or CA it is rather easy to see as they serve intra-Asian routes which don't require the range of a B777-200ER.



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14132 times:

UA was the launch customer for the 777...that's all. As always, the first models lack in many things, the later models contain improvements. The -ER model came later.

[Edited 2007-09-21 16:20:57]

User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8372 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14111 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

UA operated the first 777 service from LHR to IAD on June 7, 1995. It wasn't until July, 1997 that UA operated California to Europe 777 flights with the 777-200ER, it was 763ER for LAX to LHR until then. Since then UA has flown 777 to all corners of the world from LAX and SFO as well as Miami to EZE and GRU(since discontinued) & ORD to China.

User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14061 times:

Dont forget the 777, when it came out in 1994-95, was suppose to replace the D10 and L10 for domestic operations and transatlantic...it was never forseen that it would fly ultra long haul routes....this is interestign as this seems to happen with every aircraft type...it ends up flying missions other than originally intended


757 was suppose to be a 727 replacement not fly trans atlantic much less transcons

767 was to be a 707 and DC8 replacement and there was no such thing as ETOPS for about 3-4 years until after the 767 began flying.

A320 wasnt envisioned as a transcon aircraft.

etc etc


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14025 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The 777-200A was the initial model launched

Actually, the 772A and 772ER were launched at the same time

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 3):

The 772A has a lighter structure than the ER, so on missions it can perform, it will be more economical.

Not always.

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 3):
The real problem for the 772A is that the A333 is yet more efficient

Again, you speak far too generally. The A333 is an extremely efficient plane, but it's not always as capable as the 772A-- of which CX's operation provides a perfect example.

Among the 772A's biggest problem is not so much the A333, but the fact that the 772ER isn't that much more expensive, but farrrrrrrr more capable and versatile. The latter being the operative --> CO's operation comes to mind here, with nearly 16hr Asian flights that turn around and do 7hr hops to EuroLand, with the same ship. Can't do that with a 772A, which means that its opportunity costs can easily outweigh savings provided by its optimization to certain operations.


User currently offlineJFKPurser From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 486 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13947 times:

Quoting 747fan (Reply 8):
Yep, they sure do - their 777-200A have GE90-76B's. These birds are generally used on BA's shorter TATL flights such as LHR-BOS, JFK, EWR, IAD, and YUL (YYZ is 763 and 744). They're also used on flights to the Middle East such as LHR-DXB, DOH, TLV, etc. The 772A's basically supplement the 772ER's on these routes and like the rest of BA's LHR 777's, have a 4-class configuration. BA has 3 777-200A's: G-ZZZA, G-ZZZB, and G-ZZZC.

I have seen these often at BGI. I don't understand why BA would initially order such a small number of 777s with the GE90 engine and then switch by ordering the bulk of the 777 fleet with RRs. Can the fuel savings possibly offset the added cost of keeping spares and maintaining the GE90? Is the performance of RR powered 777ERs that much better than the GE90 powered 777ER which seems to have made more sense for BA to accquire?

I have noticed generally that the engine diameter of all GE90 powered 777s is substantially larger than the Trent powered ones -- even on early 777 models.I suppose that this is a benefit of the three-shaft design of the Trent -- it can produce more thrust with a smaller fan. Anyone?


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13113 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13929 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 3):
The fact that the A333 has largely eclipsed the 772A, while the 772ER generally outperforms the A343 on longer-range missions, is a great example of how subtle design decisions can have big effects on the competitiveness of an aircraft.

Good examples. To take it further, the 77W having a few hundred more nm of range than original promise has dramatically expanded its market. Another design change is that the A332 offered the range many airlines required and that expanded the market.

Now if Pratt hadn't botched the 4172. sigh... Simply due to a compressor bleed... sigh...  cry 

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
So while a total of 88 sales to date is quite weak compared to the 430 of the 777-200ER, it still was desired by airlines who could have just chosen the 777-200ER and made it the "base" plane.

Nice figures. Puts into perspective on how the 772ER and 77W dominate the 777 sales.  spin  Don't get me wrong, the 772A is very nice for intra-US, intra-Europe, or "short hop" trans Atlantic flights, but with point to point dominating, its not hard to see why the longer range models dominate.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 13):
Again, you speak far too generally. The A333 is an extremely efficient plane, but it's not always as capable as the 772A-- of which CX's operation provides a perfect example.

 checkmark  CX had a demand for cargo. However, they ordered the wrong cargo doors initially on their 772A's.  Wink (Small doors for luggage instead of the larger doors.) Oops... And with 29 A333's and only 5 772A's... I'm not sure its a good example comparing at this airline.  Wink

I happen to agree with the original posters premise of "why not order the more flexible aircraft." There is a reason 772A resale prices are depressed. There is a reason the 788 has sold in huge numbers but the 783 will be a relatively rare airframe. Cest la vie.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13929 times:

The 772A was initially designed to to US Mainland-Hawaii Routes and Larger US domestic routes and routes for CX and other Asian carriers that were considered, "regional." It was basically a plane to plane replacement for the DC-10's and L-1011's. Airlines also wanted something to replace their mid-sized long range fleet such as the A340 and MD-11 most notably. The 772ER out performed both of these aircraft in design, climb, cruise, and range. With the advent of the 772ER we started seeing more segments and less capacity, something the US airlines in particular were looking for. Frequency became important in the 90's and that's what the 772ER allowed them to do, much like the MD-11ER was designed for, but failed at. However, the MD-11 found a new home as a great cargo aircraft, where most of them are today, and I think that is because they were built tough and have a higher thrust to weight ratio than the 772ER, thus they can fly longer distances with more cargo.

The 777LR Freighter will be designed to out perform the MD-11 on freight routes, not sure how many of these have been ordered, but look for them to be the diamond in the rough for frieghter airlines when they want to start replacing the MD-11.

UAL


User currently offlineGeo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13833 times:

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 14):
I have seen these often at BGI. I don't understand why BA would initially order such a small number of 777s with the GE90 engine and then switch by ordering the bulk of the 777 fleet with RRs.

The three 772As ddon't operate to that part of the world so it must have been the GE powered ER models that you have seen. These are G-VIIA to Z and G-RAES.

The bulk of BAs 777 fleet are actually GE powered rather than RR powered.

Quoting 747fan (Reply 8):
Yep, they sure do - their 777-200A have GE90-76B's

The engines are actually the same as the -90Bs on the other GE powered aircraft only they are derated. The engines are actually interchangeable. This was altered sometime ago to reduce spares holding.



Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13794 times:

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 14):
I have seen these often at BGI. I don't understand why BA would initially order such a small number of 777s with the GE90 engine and then switch by ordering the bulk of the 777 fleet with RRs

Actually, the split between GE and RR in the BA fleet favours the GE engine.

GE Regs G-ZZZA/B/C, G-RAES, G-VIIA/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/J/K/L/M/N/O/P/R/S/T/U/V/W/X/Y - 27

RR Regs G-YMMA/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I/J/K/L/M/N/O/P - 16

It can be assumed that the 4 777s ordered earlier in the year will have RR engines, bringing the number up to 20.

GE engines are the only type based at LGW. Also, the only GE-powered, 3-class 777s are based at LGW. I believe those are regs G-VIIO/P/R. The rest are 4-class and rotate between LHR and LGW. The 'triple Z' aircraft (the 772A sub-fleet) are almost exclusively based at LHR due to their shorter range and larger First cabin (17 seats, compared to 14 or 13 for the rest), which make them ideal for the Middle East runs.

The RR fleet is almost evenly split between 3 and 4 classes. The first deliveries (G-YMMA-F or G, I forget exactly) are all 3-class while the rest were delivered in a 4-class configuration. Due to the fact that these planes were all ordered as 772ERs, a First seat was removed and replaced with a crew rest (13 F seats, compared to 14 or 17 on the GE fleet). No RR 777s are based at LGW.

LH423



« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13794 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 13):
Actually, the 772A and 772ER were launched at the same time

You are, of course, correct. It was poor wording on my part - I should have said "entered service".  Smile


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13778 times:

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 14):
I don't understand why BA would initially order such a small number of 777s with the GE90 engine and then switch by ordering the bulk of the 777 fleet with RRs.

I understand you're new... but there's only about ten thousand and one threads about this very topic in the data base. Do a search and you'll find all you wanna know  Smile

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 15):
Now if Pratt hadn't botched the 4172.

...and the PW2037. And the PW4092. And the PW4098. And the PW6000. And the....

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 16):
and I think that is because they were built tough

it's because they have a favorable payload-density profile

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 16):
and have a higher thrust to weight ratio than the 772ER

....though common sense (i.e. ratio of a trijet versus a twinjet) should've told you this--- the most powerful M11s (ratio 0.197) aren't anywhere near the level of the most powerful 772ERs (ratio 0.286).


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13113 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13522 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 20):
...and the PW2037. And the PW4092. And the PW4098. And the PW6000. And the....

 cry 

All true. Except did you mean PW4062 with the compressor surge? The PW4092 is but a derate of the PW4098 and as far as I know it never progressed beyond paper. (Then again, only Korean Airlines received PW4098's.)

But as far as this thread is concerned, the PW4077/PW4084 met promise!  bigthumbsup  Ok, low cycle life (due to the guide swirlers), but it met promises.  Smile

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offline747fan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1187 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 12941 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 20):
and the PW2037. And the PW4092. And the PW4098. And the PW6000. And the....

...poor exhaust emissions of the PW4090, as well as mediocre fuel economy. UA's planes with the PW4090 are not as capable range-wise as CO's GE90 planes (GE90 772ER's are probably the most capable) and DL/AA's Trent 892 planes. Sometimes you may think UA 777's have gigantic JT8D's mounted on them due to the excessive exhaust smoke.  Wow!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages


The PW2037 initially wasn't a very reliable engine with a much shorter service life than the competing RB211-535, but is now competitive. The PW4098 was basically the same as the PW4090 - poor emissions and even worse fuel economy. the PW4092 never even materialized, and the PW6000 has been somewhat of a flop. But on a positive note, the 94" PW4000 family (PW4056, PW4060, etc.) and the 100" PW4000 family (PW4064, PW4068, used solely on the A330) have been fine. Then you have their success stories such as the JT3D, JT8D, and JT9D (although it was troublesome initially, it turned out to be a great engine). And those 3 engines each make magnificent sounds, especially the powerful groan of the JT9D!  bigthumbsup 
The main reason the sales of the 772A have bottomed out is simply because most airlines want a more flexible airplane. Exceptions to this are JAL and ANA for high-density domestic shorthaul flights in Japan. Its not a much different concept than the 744D.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9637 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 12803 times:

Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 6):
UA went for the T7 to replace the DC-10 on intra US flights.

No that isn't entirely true. The 777s first operated transatlantic routes. These flights replaced 767s on many transatlantic routes. UA then reconfigured 767-300s for domestic use which replaced the DC10s. So no the 777s did not replace DC10s for the most part with the exception of the 6 planes configured for use to Hawaii.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 12291 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 21):
All true. Except did you mean PW4062 with the compressor surge? The PW4092 is but a derate of the PW4098 and as far as I know it never progressed beyond paper. (Then again, only Korean Airlines received PW4098's.)

No, meant PW4092. They couldn't make it work even as a concept, despite (IINM) it actually being offered for a short time.

Quoting 747fan (Reply 22):
UA's planes with the PW4090 are not as capable range-wise as CO's GE90 planes

 checkmark 

Quoting 747fan (Reply 22):
(GE90 772ER's are probably the most capable)

In longer ranged applications, yes. The Trent800 definitely holds the advantage on shorthaul, and they're pretty evenly matched in mediumhaul.

Quoting 747fan (Reply 22):
and DL/AA's Trent 892 planes.

DL now employs the Trent895


25 Lightsaber : I didn't think it had ever been offered. There was a PW4090 derived 4092... but that never went beyond paper in engineering, so I'm surprised it was
26 FlyDreamliner : PW hasn't gotten anything right on the civilian side since what.... IAE V2500? UA's 777-200ER's have their MTOW paper derated by 8,000 lbs over the m
27 AirEMS : aren't these most of the launch customers? -Carl
28 ConcordeBoy : And even then "they" f^cked that up, else the A340 might've actually gone on to become a much more successful aircraft. ...which is something they ca
29 Viscount724 : BA has some 3-class 777s from LHR. Several of their Canada and USA routes (YUL for example) do not offer first class service.
30 747fan : Interesting, I never knew they were more efficient in terms of SFC than the Trents, although I knew the GE90's were the best. Correct me if I'm wrong
31 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : indirectly: lower MTOW --> due to lower legal spoolup thrust allotment --> due to emissions failures ...that being the understatement of 2007
32 TrijetsRMissed : The half dozen domestic 772A's in UA's fleet only replaced the Hawaii and hub to hub routes that were DC-10 staples. The majority of the routes the 5
33 Post contains images BA777ER236 : You can do more than assume, it's a signed deal. BA will probably take the 4 options as well bringing the total to 24. There are 4 now, G-VIIT was co
34 PM : Add Air India and, imminently, Royal Brunei. Why didn't you say sales? Boeing lists 165 GE 777-200ERs ordered against 175 RR-powered planes. (PW make
35 Post contains images 747fan : I though some of BA's 777's already had an overhead crew rest area. Not to go off topic, but BA has a "subfleet" of lower MTOW 744's that don't have
36 Post contains images BA777ER236 : All of the RR 777s have an overhead crew rest area for the cabin crew, but the rest area for the flight crew is currently as described. I didn't make
37 NASBWI : Ehhh, doesn't the A340-200/300 use CFMs? I know Snecma is one of the partners for CFM, who's the other? And also, who makes the IAEs?
38 PM : GE RR and PW have 32.5% each. A consortium of Japanese companies has 23% and MTU has 12%.
39 747fan : That's interesting; I did know that some BA 772ER's didn't have crew rests, but I didn't think it was all of their GE90 birds, which make up the majo
40 Tdscanuck : It uses CFM's precisely because IAE failed to deliver the original engine. Search the forums for "IAE Superfan" if you want to know more. The Superfa
41 Post contains images BA777ER236 : We have 2 certified MTOWs for the IGW GE90-85B a/c: 267 & 275 tonnes(rounded). Currently, we have no GE90-90B powered a/c, although G-VIIO,P,R had th
42 Post contains links and images 747fan : BA777ER236: thanks for your very informative post above, that was exactly what I was wanting to know. Judging by the lower MTOW of the GE90-85B planes
43 Post contains images BA777ER236 : You wouldn't notice the difference out of LHR (for e.g.) because, as you say, it has a lower MTOW, and for most t/os the thrust level would be simila
44 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...actually, an 8K lb deficiency. (See below) In case anyone's wondering, figures are in metric tonnes. Interesting, why'd they decide to scale them
45 Post contains images BA777ER236 : I don't know the details of cost/benefit analysis on this, but I would think that, although the engines are identical, it costs more from GE for the
46 ConcordeBoy : Yes, I recall; though tell me, were they scheduled anywhere in the USA other than TPA? ...MCO maybe?
47 747fan : The username 777fan is already taken, but I like the 747 a bit better anyway. But as you can tell, I'm also a big 777fan. I'm assuming that most 777
48 CX flyboy : Actually CX never wanted the 777-200, but they were one of the airlines on the team of airlines who provided feedback to Boeing during the design proc
49 Lutfi : What CXflyboy said... The A330 was the L1011 replacement for CX, but CX also wanted a B747-200/300 replacement aircraft for dense regional routes, the
50 Post contains images BA777ER236 : We would use full power if significant windshear is reported or if the runway is contaminated (by snow/slush or deep standing water) or if the brakin
51 Post contains images Carpethead : CX was so unhappy about the 772 that they ended up buying the prototype (re-engined to boot!).
52 PM :
53 Post contains images CX flyboy : Who said that CX were unhappy with the 772? I might buy an Aston Martin and also an Audi RS4 (for the school trips and shopping runs ), and I might p
54 KochamLOT : This question gets at a good point. Although the development of the 764 was a bit later, that wouldve been a more solid choice for airlines for low ra
55 ConcordeBoy : Seems people constantly underestimate the A-market 777s' range... both of them can fly just about anything a 763ER can be used upon, and we've seen h
56 TrijetsRMissed : Well the 772A has a range of 3780 nm, the 763ER's max range is 5875 nm, so there is a considerable difference. The 773A has adequate range but the ge
57 LH423 : On the GE fleet, the crew rest seats are 40D, E and F. On the res systems, these seats will never show up as they're never allowed to be sold commerc
58 ConcordeBoy : ...where are you getting these (erroneous) figures from? 772A's range is 5235nm 763ER's range is 5975nm
59 747fan : I'm almost positive that BA has always had 9 abreast on their 777's. I'm pretty certain the only carriers that have 10-abreast 777's are EK and AF, s
60 Post contains links and images TrijetsRMissed : From this erroneous website.... http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=106 The 247 tonne MTOW 772A's top out at a range of 5150nm, but by in lar
61 N1120A : Depends on how long. Within its range band, the 772A is the most efficient 772 BA decided to convert several existing 744 orders to 772ERs. They were
62 ConcordeBoy : Incorrect. " target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/info/stats....d=106 There's your first mistake.... Boeing seems to believe otherwise But at a sli
63 Post contains images 747fan : How long ago did BA operate 10-abreast 777's? Were they only on leisure markets out of LGW? These birds indeed have a range of about 3800 nm. and I b
64 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ended in 2002
65 Viscount724 : EK has announced that some of their A380s will have 2-class 644 seat configurations for use on certain regional routes with little high-yield demand
66 N1120A : Yes, I know that. Still, both engine choices are listed at the full 7700nm range. Ok, 2 class and packed in. That makes sense. In a true internationa
67 CX flyboy : Actually just looking at a flight plan now of a 247tonnes 772A, and at a HKG-BAH flight length of 3754nm, it is already departing at MTOW with the ZF
68 Post contains images TrijetsRMissed : Well, that is why I said "almost." But for fun, 7240/2 = 3620. So off by a 160 nm. Yes, only only a handful of ER's were produced, but all full PIP i
69 Tdscanuck : Use the Airport Planning Documents...they don't fudge the numbers there. Tom.
70 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...on this site: yeah, pretty much. Bingo
71 Post contains images BA777ER236 : Yes, I was referring to f/c and FAs, but on most of the routes that we fly with the GE90 a/c, the pilots have no rest facilities because we only use
72 N1120A : And the GE90 has run up to 127,500. Maximum thrust is not the point, maximum reliable, efficient and clean thrust is. The intent of the Trent 8107 wa
73 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Trent8104. 127,900 That rendition of testing for the Trent8104 was but the staging ground for a to-be-developed 120" fan Trent8115. There is little r
74 N1120A : 400 pounds? Sheesh Yes, and that would have meant a pretty sizable rework and delays to the EIS for the 77W. Of course, with the 787, it looks like w
75 Post contains images BA777ER236 : I don't think this is the case, have you any proof, rather than speculation, that the Trent on the 77W would have delayed EIS. As I recall, RR were r
76 ConcordeBoy : Not really. One of GE's primary advantages was that they would be able to scale the heavily-fortified GE90 up to 11X,000lb thrust levels more quickly
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...
Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300? posted Wed Aug 1 2007 05:50:00 by United Airline
Why Did AA Buy The MD-11? posted Wed Jan 31 2007 17:24:33 by BALandorLivery
Why Did Nobody Buy The ATP? posted Sat Jan 31 2004 21:17:47 by Applepie81
Why Did American Buy The A300-600R? posted Fri Nov 23 2001 20:21:11 by TranStar
Gulf Air - Why Did It Reject The 777 posted Fri May 18 2001 01:55:11 by GF-A330
Why Did Qantas Get The 747-400ER? posted Wed Aug 29 2007 14:06:33 by FlyTUITravel
Why Did BA Order The A320 Family Over The 737NG? posted Sat Aug 18 2007 02:07:23 by BHXDTW
Why Didn't CO Buy The 763 posted Sun Aug 5 2007 05:17:45 by DL767captain
Why Didnt CO Order The 777-200LR? posted Mon Jul 30 2007 02:55:27 by CO787EWR
Why Did AL Purchase The 328 Jet? posted Sun Dec 31 2006 05:46:05 by Cubsrule