JohnClipper From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2005, 765 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7310 times:
BA ordered 5 B777-236s (non-ER) aircraft - G-ZZZA through G-ZZZE. Any reason why only a small number were ordered? Or why they were ordered in the first place? G-ZZZA, ZZZB and ZZZC are still in the fleet - where do they operate to?
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7345 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7199 times:
These non-ER 777 were first made by Boeing in 1995 /96 before the summer 1997 arrival of the 777-200ER. Since these non-ER were able to fly from LHR to the east coast and Chicago they still had enough range to fly a large chunk of the world.
No, all 3 of BA's daily LHR-HKG flights are B744 operated. It is an extremely busy route for BA (and VS/CX etc) so they need the B744 capacity. This is rumoured to be one of the first routings for BA's A380's when they arrive in 2012.
Theginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1110 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7045 times:
I would imagine they were ordered as at the time the 777-200 ER wasn't going to be available until 1997, and they can still be put to use on a lot of BA's network.
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1965 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6322 times:
The first 5 777-236s (G-ZZZA/ZB/ZC/ZD/ZE) were also delivered with a greater number of First Class seats (17) and were predominately used on Middle East flights, though they also crop up elsewhere on the BA network where the range allows this.
Two (ZD/ZE) were disposed of though the first three keep flying, and retain the larger First cabin. Whether they will once BA launches its new First product next year remains to be seen.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6621 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6050 times:
Quoting JohnClipper (Thread starter): BA ordered 5 B777-236s (non-ER) aircraft - G-ZZZA through G-ZZZE. Any reason why only a small number were ordered?
Boeing formally launched the 777 programme on 29 October 1990 with initial deliveries to the first of 34 ordered by UA scheduled for mid 1995. These aircraft were 777As (MTOW 234,000Kg, range 7,700Km - 4,200nm). An order followed from All-Nippon (December 1990, 15 777A aircraft). The launch customer for the 777B or 777IGW (MTOW 263,080Kg, range 12,220Km - 6,660nm) with structurally strengthened wings and a new centre-wing fuel tank was Euralair (June 1991, 2 aircraft).
The BA order followed on and was for 15 aircraft. It was placed on 21 August 1991 with deliveries scheduled to commence in September 1995.
The first 5 of these BA aircraft were specified as 777As. The specification fitted the BA need for an aircraft capable of flying a full payload to the Middle East and to the Eastern Seaboard of the USA. The remaining firm order for 10 aircraft and all 15 of the options taken out by BA at the same time specified the 777B.
I do not think any reason has ever been given for this differentiation. But note that at BA's home base, LHR, the airport operator, BAA, charges landing fees based on the MTOW of the aircraft. As a result at least some (all?) of the aircraft in the BA 757 fleet (that is used only for short haul operations) are certified to a lower MTOW than that specified by Boeing so as to reduce LHR landing fees.
I am guessing that it is possible that BA saw a need for just five aircraft with the lower MTOW and shorter range of the 777A and that without the additional fuel tanks and wing stregthening that there was a significant purchase cost saving over the 777B. Certainly there should be an operating cost advantage in terms of both fuel consumption and landing fees for the A model. However since subsequently two 777As delivered to BA in November and December 1995 were returned to Boeing in the summer of 2002 and initially parked at Marana, AZ, I am again guessing that the flexibility of a predominently 777B fleet was seen as more advantagous than the fuel and landing cost savings. I also note that a significant majority of BA's flights to the Eastern Seaboard are now 744 flights. I also note that over the years BA has reduced 772 flights to the Middle East by substituting the 744 for the 772 on flights to CAI and some flights to DXB and that they have ceased to serve to all destinations in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Finally I note that there was a thirteen month gap between the delivery of the the last BA 777A (12 January 1996) and their first 777B (6 February 1997). So another explanation is that BA ordered their 5 777As as a stop gap while they awaited the certification of the 777B by then as launch customer.
Here it is worth noting that the first flights of the first two 777Bs destined for BA were on 4 October 1996 and 6 December 1996. But these two aircraft were not delivered to BA until 3 July 1997 and 23 May 1997 respectively. Both were first used for flight testiong of the 777B with the US registrations N5022E and N5023Q. Meanwhile the third BA 777B flew on 8 January 1997 and was delivered as G-VIIC much earlier on 6 February 1997.
While the above data and comments do not fully answer the original question they do suggest some possible answers.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 10, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6028 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 9): Finally I note that there was a thirteen month gap between the delivery of the the last BA 777A (12 January 1996) and their first 777B (6 February 1997). So another explanation is that BA ordered their 5 777As as a stop gap while they awaited the certification of the 777B by then as launch customer.
Sort of how BA just ordered some additional 77Es as a stopgap order before deciding on the remainder of their future medium and long haul fleet replacement. BA wanted the 777s ASAP, and knew that they would always have a place to use those 777-200s unless the UK got magically farther away from NYC and the middle east in the future.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 11, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5904 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10): and knew that they would always have a place to use those 777-200s unless the UK got magically farther away from NYC and the middle east in the future.
Maybe that's another consequence of Global Warming???
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Just as an aside, I was on Continental Airlines 737-800 N24224 on Friday the 23rd from Newark to San Jose, CA on Flight 246. I typed in 'N24224' in the search field at this web site, and it showed no such flight. Instead, it said this plane went from Newark to Phoenix. How could this mix-up occur?
Not all flights are recorded... the details are put on by individuals placed around the globe. If that individual doesn't pick up the aircraft on their 'box' or they choose to ignor such aircraft, it wont be recorded and placed on the website.
Kimberlyrj From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 385 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3535 times:
Hello
Quoting JohnClipper (Thread starter): BA ordered 5 B777-236s (non-ER) aircraft - G-ZZZA through G-ZZZE. Any reason why only a small number were ordered? Or why they were ordered in the first place? G-ZZZA, ZZZB and ZZZC are still in the fleet - where do they operate to?
I like working on the above aircraft, can sometimes mean shorter long haul flights and while they are not ‘er’ so could be seen by some crew as not as good, I like em…
Does anyone know if there are any plans to retire them, or keep them in service?
Also, do you think our wonderful leader will ever order the B772LR or B773? Hope he does…
Albird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2863 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 9): But note that at BA's home base, LHR, the airport operator, BAA, charges landing fees based on the MTOW of the aircraft
Most airports charge landing fees by MTOW and also with the small fleet of As in BAs fleet i dont see this as a main reason for BA having them.
More to the fact that these aircraft can fly to the USA and Middle East at with no weight penelties and so are actually more efficient for the routes that BA use them on compared to the ER. (less weight, less fuel burn... etc).
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3805 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1969 times:
Quoting BmiBaby737 (Reply 14): Not all flights are recorded... the details are put on by individuals placed around the globe. If that individual doesn't pick up the aircraft on their 'box' or they choose to ignor such aircraft, it wont be recorded and placed on the website.
That's really too bad. In this case, the plane wasn't 'ignored,' it was totally wrongly/falsely identified. Someone posting details that N24224 went from EWR to PHX as Flight 1635 when in fact it was doing Flight 462 EWR-SJC begs the question: How does that occur? I don't want to hijack this thread, so it doesn't need a response here. But it's a curiosity on my part and a realization that ACARS is pretty much a 'caveat emptor' sort of thing: Buyer Beware.
Sponsor Message: 
From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2005, 765 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2006, 1961 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1636 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7345 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Oct 1999, 1378 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
