Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No 777-200LRs For Continental?  
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6490 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12316 times:

I was wondering, is there any reason why Continental continues to order the 777-200ER, rather than converting their orders to the 777-200LR?

Delta seems to be very impressed with their 772LRs, and has basically standardized on it rather than the 772ER. From what I have heard, DL finds the 772LR to be more efficient than the 772ER. Is there any reason why other U.S. airlines (especially CO) don't follow in Delta's footsteps?


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2619 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12292 times:

Commonality. The 772LR seems to be a niche aircraft that is more efficient on long hauls that the 772ER can operate. It must be due to the advanced wing. CO probably feels there are few routes that need the 772LR and commonality is more important.
The question should be if someone is going to come up with winglets or raked wing upgrades for the 772ER.


User currently offlineFL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1540 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12270 times:



Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 1):
Commonality. The 772LR seems to be a niche aircraft that is more efficient on long hauls that the 772ER can operate. It must be due to the advanced wing. CO probably feels there are few routes that need the 772LR and commonality is more important.
The question should be if someone is going to come up with winglets or raked wing upgrades for the 772ER.

How much different can they be? Both have GE90s. The raked wingtips are different. Can you tell me the specific differences?



717,72S,732/3/4/5/G/8/9,744,752/3,763/4,772/3,D9S/5,M8/90,D10,319/20/21,332/3,388,CR2/7/9,EM2,ER4,E70/75/90,SF3,AR8
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6490 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12276 times:



Quoting FL787 (Reply 2):
How much different can they be? Both have GE90s. The raked wingtips are different. Can you tell me the specific differences?

Exactly, considering DL's 772ERs have RR Trent 895 engines.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25168 posts, RR: 48
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12236 times:

$$$$Cost$$$$$

The 777LR is definitely a niche product as displayed by its anemic order book.

A rule of thumb is an airline buys as little airplane as they need, not over purchase MTOW or performance what will does not get used and does produce a validated ROI case.

Its quite likely the CO 772ER adequately cover its current, or expectant future network needs just fine without any justification to order swap out to the costlier LR.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineFlybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1801 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12237 times:



Quoting FL787 (Reply 2):
How much different can they be? Both have GE90s. The raked wingtips are different. Can you tell me the specific differences?

I believe the 777-200LR is the IGW version of the 777-200ER with many weight savings improvements across the whole airframe and interior. The 777-200LR represents the pinnacle of the 777 capabilities.



"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12209 times:

Because CO decided to get the 787-8 for 2009 delivery and then 787-9 and add on a couple 772ERs to their large fleet to tide them over to 2009.

With the delays in the 787 to 2011 for their first planes, they had to continue to buy 77Es, when it might have made sense, in hindsight, to not buy the 787 and buy a fleet of 8-10 77Ls for their longer flights instead, taking 787-8s much later in the game.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25170 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12209 times:

Is CO having trouble operating their current routes with the 772ER? If not, why fly around the additional weight of the 772LR and pay nigher landing fees and other unnecessary costs? For example, landing fees are normally based on MTOW which according to Boeing is about 110,000 lb. higher for the 772LR than the 772ER.

CO has 25 787s on order which will be more economical on future long range routes. Few carriers have enough ultra-longhaul routes to warrant purchase of the 772LR as reflected by the fact that almost 9 years after the 772LR program was launched there have been only 49 orders, and only 10 in the past 2 years.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30909 posts, RR: 87
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12101 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
I was wondering, is there any reason why Continental continues to order the 777-200ER, rather than converting their orders to the 777-200LR?

The simple answer is they might very well not need them. With polar routing over Russia, they are not adversely payload restricted to Asia from EWR. And depending on what their payload is, they might be doing okay to DEL and BOM.

I am sure GE will be happy to work a deal with CO to convert some 77E options to 77Ls should CO feel the need, but if they don't, then...


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4957 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12063 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7):
For example, landing fees are normally based on MTOW which according to Boeing is about 110,000 lb. higher for the 772LR than the 772ER.

Viscount724....are you sure ? I believe I read in a very recent thread that landing fees were based on landing weight. I can't find the link right at this moment.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25168 posts, RR: 48
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12010 times:



Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 9):
Viscount724....are you sure ? I believe I read in a very recent thread that landing fees were based on landing weight. I can't find the link right at this moment.

In the US they tend to be based on landing weight, in Europe MTOW.

Additionaly enroute Navigation overflight fees are near always based on MTOW.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineRwy04LGA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11984 times:



Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 3):
Exactly, considering DL's 772ERs have RR Trent 895 engines

Are they not 892s?



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6490 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11968 times:



Quoting Rwy04LGA (Reply 11):
Are they not 892s?

Originally, yes. However, they have been upconverted to Trent 895s.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4957 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11956 times:

CO's longest routes are about 7400nm ESAD westbound. The 777E can do about 380K lb + MZFW over this distance. This is somewhat better than max passenger load in CO's configuration.

User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9349 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11929 times:



Quoting Rwy04LGA (Reply 11):
Are they not 892s?

not anymore. IIRC Around the time DL started n/s to BOM they upgraded to 895s to get a bit higher thrust.



yep.
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16862 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11930 times:



Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
I was wondering, is there any reason why Continental continues to order the 777-200ER, rather than converting their orders to the 777-200LR?

Delta seems to be very impressed with their 772LRs, and has basically standardized on it rather than the 772ER. From what I have heard, DL finds the 772LR to be more efficient than the 772ER.

The 777-200LR is the same as their current 777-200ERs except with longer range but also a higher CASM, if anything CO would go for the 777-300ER which has a lower CASM. The 777-200LR does not provide any additional revenues (more seats) vs their current 777-200ERs , cargo is not the driving force behind many of these ultra long haul flights.

CO will wait for their 787-9s for the Ultra long haul routes, it's not like the economy is demanding those types of routes right now. The 787 delays mean CO's 787-9s will be delivered during an economic recovery period (hopefully), vs the near unprecedented period of economic turmoil airlines are currently operating.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2134 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11894 times:

There was discussion about a year back where some CO insider reported that while all eight orders were booked as 77Es, only the first two were definitely 77Es . It was not definite at that time what model the remaining six were going to be - the implication being that the six latter 77E orders could possibly be placeholders for 77L or 77W.

Is that door closed now - is it known for certain that the last six will definitely be 77Es?



The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offlineAlangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11866 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 15):
The 777-200LR does not provide any additional revenues (more seats) vs their current 777-200ERs , cargo is not the driving force behind many of these ultra long haul flights.

Cargo might not be a driving force, but surely HKG-EWR is one route where a 77L would carry a better payload. Or do Freight Forwarders prefer to put the freight onto 747Fs that will be doing a stop in Anchorage anyway?

If I am right, AC is the only airline from North America that operates 77Ws. Now that CO is flying into LHR, an extra 50 seats would make good use of the slots at that airport, even though the distance between IAH/EWR and LHR does not require the range of a 77W.

Anyway, I think I have read on this forum that CO likes to rotate its 777 fleet around the network, and would prefer not to have a sub fleet of 77L just to operate a small part of that network.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16862 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11812 times:



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 17):
Cargo might not be a driving force, but surely HKG-EWR is one route where a 77L would carry a better payload. Or do Freight Forwarders prefer to put the freight onto 747Fs that will be doing a stop in Anchorage anyway?

CO has been flying EWR-HKG nonstop for 8-9 years now with the 777-200ER, when they launched the route it was the longest nonstop in the World. They obviously are happy with the performance with the 777-200ER on the route and will wait another 3-4 years for the 787-9.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11545 times:



Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
I was wondering, is there any reason why Continental continues to order the 777-200ER, rather than converting their orders to the 777-200LR?

Why pay the extra $30m when you don't need the added capability? It is an a.net myth that airlines have to buy the latest aeroplanes. It's like buying a B747 when you only need a B767. You don't want the extra things that you are paying for - be it seats, range or payload.

Quoting FL787 (Reply 2):
How much different can they be? Both have GE90s.

That's like saying 2 cars are the same if they both have Michelin tyres.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 9):
Viscount724....are you sure ? I believe I read in a very recent thread that landing fees were based on landing weight. I can't find the link right at this moment.

Airport fees are based on MTOW. ANSP fees are also based on MTOW. And there are standard values to use. Aircraft are not weighed individually. That's another a.net myth.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The simple answer is they might very well not need them.

Some common sense on this thread finally!



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5249 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11453 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 18):
SA)">CO has been flying EWR-HKG nonstop for 8-9 years now with the 777-200ER, when they launched the route it was the longest nonstop in the World.

Actually, ATL-JNB which SA was flying nonstop at the time was a longer flight.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11386 times:



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 17):
Now that CO is flying into LHR, an extra 50 seats would make good use of the slots at that airport, even though the distance between IAH/EWR and LHR does not require the range of a 77W.

Depends: how are their loads, or - far more important - their yields to LHR? Having B77Ws just for LHR seems a bit of an expensive exercise: if they have, say, 3 or 4 routes which can - profitably - sustain a B77W, it might make sense, though even that is far from certain.

If you end up making (and these numbers are completely made up) $100,000 more on the extra seats and, perhaps, cargo that you can sell to LHR, but end up flying empty seats on some other routes, making you cut your revenue on those routes by a sum totalling more than those $100,000 you got extra out of LHR, you end up losing money looking at the complete picture.

If they cannot fill those extra 50 seats with reasonably yielding passengers, year-round, on a selection of routes that won't require them to park the aircraft on the ground for much time anywhere inbetween, it could work.

Whether that's the case, only CO knows for sure. Given the fact that they've not ordered the B77W yet, I'm inclined to think that they don't see a place for it in their fleet.



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offline9V-SPJ From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 752 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10250 times:

The 200LR has the wing and landing gear of the 300ER, has additional strengthening in the fuselage, a 13 ft longer wingspan than the 200ER, greater fuel capacity than the ER (without the AUX tank), is about a foot taller than the 200ER.

9V-SPJ


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2619 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10092 times:



Quoting 9V-SPJ (Reply 22):
The 200LR has the wing and landing gear of the 300ER, has additional strengthening in the fuselage, a 13 ft longer wingspan than the 200ER, greater fuel capacity than the ER (without the AUX tank), is about a foot taller than the 200ER.

More like a 300SP than a 200 variant? Has anyone bought the 300LR with Aux tanks?


User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9926 times:



Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 19):
Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 9):Viscount724....are you sure ? I believe I read in a very recent thread that landing fees were based on landing weight. I can't find the link right at this moment.
Airport fees are based on MTOW. ANSP fees are also based on MTOW. And there are standard values to use. Aircraft are not weighed individually. That's another a.net myth.

When Sunrise said "landing weight" I think he was referring to Maximum Landing Weight - which is what fees in the U.S. are based off of a majority of the time. It would be silly to think that each plane at an airport has to be weighed.



"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
25 Stitch : Well in this case, it would be more like the difference between a LandRover and a LandRover Sport. Same chassis and seating and cargo volume with the
26 9V-SPJ : Delta's 772LRs do not have auxiliary fuel tanks. 9V-SPJ
27 TristarSteve : In Europe the landing fees are based on the declared MTOW, The weight that is on the placard in the cockpit. We operate A319. The MTOW for this aircr
28 Tdscanuck : As far as I know, only one operator got the aux tanks. They're all certified to have them, but very few missions need them. Tom.
29 Stitch : I hear the opposite - that most everyone did order them, but they don't always put them in. *shrug* In the end, it really doesn't matter since they'r
30 CALMSP : we have the option of converting orders to a -300, which I would love to see!! Obviously, the first two coming on are -200's, but a nice fleet of 6 -
31 FUN2FLY : I think LHR could use one, as well as CDG and FCO at times too. Would be good for us junkies, but CO lives by the no one ever regrets flying too smal
32 CALMSP : yeah, I wouldn't put any hopes on them being on any Europan routes anytime soon if we had them right now. Can you imagine only 49 people on a 777-300
33 Gigneil : It can... such as seat premiums for offering longer flights, or in many other ways. The 777-200LR very likely has a lower CASM at DL than their ERs.
34 DeltaL1011man : This may not be true. CO may really really really want a better airvraft for said route BUT its not worth it to buy 3 77Ls for one route. One would h
35 DLPhoenix : DL is using its 777s exclusively on long routes. Shorter routes that require more capacity than a 763 are served with 764s (and probably A333 in the n
36 Cws818 : CO would not have posted the results that it has since G. Bethune took the helm if it, as an organization, were ignorant of the fact that "there is a
37 USAirALB : I think that when CO gets their 787's, you'll see a BIG expansion of GUM. Right now, it would not be profitable for them to fly EWR/IAH-GUM. IAH to GU
38 Burkhard : To my understanding, the 77L is the 77W with shorter body, and is not competitive unless you need that range. 77L to 77W are similar to A345 vs A346.
39 CALPSAFltSkeds : I don't see a huge buildup at GUM due to the answer why EWR-GUM goes over ANC. GUM is too far south to provide a good connection point to parts of As
40 STT757 : With regards to Guam I do expect over the next decade a increase in service to/from the Island as the US Military shifts nearly 25,000 service members
41 CALMSP : LAX-GUM would think is on the horizon for the future. If it were timed right, one could have connections from all three hubs prior to the departure.
42 Stitch : In general, a customer 777-200LR (77L) configured identically to a 777-200ER (77E) will weigh around 7 tons more. The main difference is that it will
43 CALPSAFltSkeds : Potential times LAX 1130 GUM 1830 Connects via LAX EWR (0730-1045*) * slight re-timing CLE (0840-1047) IAH (0910-1045*) * slight re-timing Connects t
44 SeaBosDca : Surely you mean 50t, or about 110klb... Are there lower paper MTOW options for the 77L? I know that seems very counterintuitive, but it might make th
45 Stitch : I meant 100t, but alas I was looking at the 772 (247t) and not the 77E (297t) when comparing them to the 77L (347t). So yes, 50t is the correct answe
46 Jfk777 : If there was any airline thw 77L was made for its Continetal, may be from EWR the 77E works, even to HKG. Houston to Dubai would be a neat trick for a
47 Threepoint : Well, I'm certain all the operators have equal justification for the 77L, including AC, who has a bunch of 'em, and uses them with great success on t
48 STT757 : CX who also flies nonstop NY-Hong Kong nonstop does not operate the 77L, they prefer the 77W. Again if CO were to acquire another 777 type it would b
49 Jfk777 : Cathay loves their 77W for JFK and YYZ but this is about CAL. If 77W work for then then 77L would too. I have to believe a 77L to HKG would take more
50 STT757 : But the 77W takes more cargo and passengers, if CO felt it needed more cargo lift to HKG they would go for the 77W. Ordering the 77L now would be a m
51 SeaBosDca : The 789 is not comparably capable to the 77L. People have this idea that the 787 is a ULH aircraft. It isn't. It has longer range than previous aircr
52 STT757 : Boeing max ranges: 777-200ER 7,700nm 777-300ER 7,900nm 787-8 8,200nm 787-9 8,500nm 777-200LR 9,450nm The 787-9 has 800nm more range than the 777-200E
53 Stitch : It is important to note those are design ranges achieved with different payloads. A 777-200ER will carry tons more payload at design range then a 787
54 SeaBosDca : As I recall, these are the ranges that were quoted back when people thought most 787s would be 8 abreast. IIRC they are now down to something like 77
55 CALMSP : wasn't SQ pulling the service??? Also, maybe a 787 might be a better fit than the 345.
56 Stitch : SQ was seeing mostly Business Class demand on the route, so they reconfigured the A340-500s with Business Class only seating. I don't know how the ec
57 Kiwiandrew : shouldnt that be SIN-(ICN)-YVR rather than YYZ ?
58 Max999 : I recall reading on a.net that Boeing offered DL the 772LR at the same price they would have paid for their 772ER options. The reason was that Boeing
59 Stitch : YYZ is Toronto, isn't it? So yeah, it should be YVR for Vancouver. Well it likely isn't a huge difference in production costs between a 77E and 77L,
60 Jfk777 : 787-9 may be sexy and the new kid at the airport but teh 77L is still the long range king of the airplanes and it looks a hell of a lot better then a
61 STT757 : I think the numbers speak for themselves. Total of 77Ls either delivered or on order; 49 Total of 787-9s on order; 214
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 No 747-330s For Lufthansa? posted Thu Aug 28 2008 03:54:01 by Columba
Why No US-immigration For Diverted Flights? posted Mon Aug 4 2008 08:00:40 by 2travel2know
Why No Tu 154s For Interflug? posted Mon May 12 2008 04:31:13 by Columba
Why No 2-Liter Bottles For Beverage Service? posted Thu Apr 3 2008 04:43:32 by Luv2cattlecall
Why No International Website For US Airways? posted Wed Jan 9 2008 15:30:07 by Gilesdavies
Why No First Class For US Airways Express CR9's? posted Sun Jan 6 2008 20:23:13 by AA767LOVER
Why No Tu-204s For Aeroflot? posted Sun Aug 5 2007 19:05:22 by PillowTester
Why No 777-100 Than 767-400er posted Tue Sep 12 2006 15:17:11 by Albird87
Why No Leather Seats For BA Long Haul? posted Wed Sep 6 2006 19:23:42 by 8herveg
Why No 777-style Pivot Bins On Boeing Narrowbodies posted Mon May 8 2006 21:38:44 by 1337Delta764