Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ethiopian : A350-900 Vs 777-200LR  
User currently offlineFCKC From France, joined Nov 2004, 2348 posts, RR: 4
Posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8971 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...an-gears-up-for-2010-delivery.html

In about 3 months , ET will chose berween A350-900 and 777-200LR for a 15 units order.
787-9 seems to be out of the race

Who will be the winner ? I am not so sure ET likes Airbus.The sole Airbus they expected to get , an A340 was not taken up.
I guess they have some options on the 777 , and i see this plane as the winner.

43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2679 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8980 times:

why don't they consider the 787?


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8557 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8949 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting LY777 (Reply 1):
why don't they consider the 787?

they already have around 10 787s on order , but I guess they are looking for a larger capacity aircraft as well



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineAF022 From France, joined Dec 2003, 2160 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8931 times:

Didn't the CEO allude to the fact that their hub is very high when discussing the 787? That probably means there are range problems.

User currently offlineBmiBaby737 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1809 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8791 times:

Why don't you read the artical that was posted?

Quote:
In the frame are the Airbus A350-900 and Boeing 777-200LR. The 787-9 may be a consideration, but Wake says he is "not sure yet" that it will be suitable for operations from Addis Ababa, at 7,540ft (2,300m).

I must say, it would be rather nice to have Ethiopian order the 777-200LR!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30928 posts, RR: 87
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8650 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well terrain doesn't appear to be an issue, so a 77L will certainly be able to do the job with solid payload numbers. And Boeing probably has some sweeteners they can offer tied into the 787 delay.

So my money would be on a 77L order.


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8650 times:

Remind me where they fly to that needs the range of the LR?!


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 offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30928 posts, RR: 87
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8632 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 6):
Remind me where they fly to that needs the range of the LR?!

I imagine it's more hot and high performance. The 77L shines here on it's own, and then there is the GE "thrust bump" option to make it even better.


User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2972 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8632 times:

Well, both are outstanding aircraft, and most likely the decision will be made because of monetary reasons. (But not only the cost of the airframe. Costs of maintenance, ground handling, et al.

-BN



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8557 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8617 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 6):
Remind me where they fly to that needs the range of the LR?!

maybe they would like to change their ADD-FCO-IAD service to a nonstop . Also , because ADD is 'hot and high' maybe it is not so much a matter of range but of performance that is leading them to consider the LR..



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8604 times:

I think they'll take on the 77L, since they already have Boeing's in the fleet, as well as 10 ne787s but who knows. It kind of depends on when they want them. The 77L will look really nice in ET's livery. I wonder why they are looking at the 77L and not the regular 77E? For the extra rage and lift out of the hot/high ADD?


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12438 posts, RR: 37
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8484 times:

Certainly it seems that it's the 777LR's to lose, to Toulouse ... so to speak!

Don't forget also that with the A350 doing fairly well in orders now, it would probably be around 2015-16 before ET could get one, whereas they could presumably get a 777 within a year or two. (What's the current backlog for 777s?)


User currently offlineBehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4774 posts, RR: 43
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8428 times:

They should choose the B 77L which will easily seat 310 pax in their 2 class configuration and can be delivered in 3-4 years time.

Where as the A 359 is a larger aircraft that would seat 360 pax in a 2 class configuration which would be too big for ET. The A 359 too would be delivered earliest in 2018-19 which is way too late for ET.

The B 77Ls are ideal for nonstop flights to IAD, CAN, PEK, EWR, HKG in the long term future.

But seriously how cant the B 789 fly from ADD but the B 77L can from elevated heights?


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8387 times:

Airbus can easily offer an A358 with the A359 engines which should be superb in the "hot and high" case. The standard A358 engines are to be simple de-rates of the A359 engines.

The choice will depend on when they need them from.


User currently offlineDirectorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1677 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8379 times:

The B77L is too much of a 'niche' airliner to suit ET, even with the 'hot and high' requirements. The airline currently deploys the 767s on the big routes to Africa, and they need something of that size to operate the dense medium-length sectors. The B787-3 would be ideal for this.
15 77Ls for ET would be too much. It's a big like the A346-if it's not used on the right route, then it becomes a big money-loser. Even if ET wants to serve CAN, PEK, HKG, BKK, IAD, ORD nonstop, 15 of those birds would be too much.


User currently offlineBehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4774 posts, RR: 43
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8352 times:

Yes they need maximum 11 B 77Ls not 15 !

2 each for CAN PEK HKG IAD EWR respectively and 1 spare to fill in the gaps for rotation purposes.

BKK is an idea B 788 route....traffic volume from Africa to CAN and HKG is higher than BKK!


User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1587 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8270 times:



Quoting Behramjee (Reply 12):
But seriously how cant the B 789 fly from ADD but the B 77L can from elevated heights?

I guess to ET it's a matter of payload. They can fill a 77L to capacity with cargo and pax to almost every destination of interest to them, The 789 could possibly be restricted to some of their furthest planned destinations ...

But I wonder why they are not so sure about the 789, but don´t seem to have those reservations about the 359?  Confused



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30928 posts, RR: 87
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8271 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Behramjee (Reply 12):
Where as the A 359 is a larger aircraft that would seat 360 pax in a 2 class configuration which would be too big for ET.

The 777-200LR is a bit larger then the A350-900XWB, actually, and will hold more seats.



Quoting Directorguy (Reply 14):
The B77L is too much of a 'niche' airliner to suit ET, even with the 'hot and high' requirements. The airline currently deploys the 767s on the big routes to Africa, and they need something of that size to operate the dense medium-length sectors.

Boeing and GE will probably offer them 77Ls for close to the same price for 77Es, so it might just work out better for ET to take the 77L.


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8209 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
I imagine it's more hot and high performance. The 77L shines here on it's own, and then there is the GE "thrust bump" option to make it even better.

The outbound flights should be relatively light. It's the inbound flights into Addis Ababa that are completely loaded with bags and cargo. When I walk past the Ethiopian checkin desks here in Hong Kong, everyone has at least 2 trolleys each laden with boxes stacked taller than a person.



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 offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8047 times:



Quoting Behramjee (Reply 12):
They should choose the B 77L which will easily seat 310 pax in their 2 class configuration and can be delivered in 3-4 years time.

Where as the A 359 is a larger aircraft that would seat 360 pax in a 2 class configuration which would be too big for ET.

That's incorrect. The A350-900 has less floor space than a 777-200LR.

NS


User currently offlineCchan From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 1759 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7678 times:



Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 18):
The outbound flights should be relatively light. It's the inbound flights into Addis Ababa that are completely loaded with bags and cargo. When I walk past the Ethiopian checkin desks here in Hong Kong, everyone has at least 2 trolleys each laden with boxes stacked taller than a person.

They allow 30-40 kg of check-in luggage per passenger, a lot of the stuff in the boxes are things that people intend to sell in Africa to make money. Sometimes I wonder how many TVs, DVD players, or home theater systems each flight carries. Same scene at the KQ check-in counters.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9041 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7547 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
the GE "thrust bump" option to make it even better.

Have you seen how small that bump is ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineDkny From Ethiopia, joined Mar 2004, 714 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6974 times:

I think ET will stick with Boeing. Maybee a combination of the 777-200LR and the 777-300ER would do. They need the capacity on a lot of routes. They do DXB 3 times a day, and two of the flights leave 30 minutes from each other both in ADD and DXB.

User currently offline77West From New Zealand, joined Jun 2009, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6182 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 21):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
the GE "thrust bump" option to make it even better.

Have you seen how small that bump is ?

I think the point is the 777-200LR is a very capable hot-and-high aircraft, much like the 757. Few if any operators use the -200LR for its maximum range, but its excellent payload capability out of marginal airfields far offsets its slight operating cost increase. Regardless of thrust bumps or other minor tweaks to the airframe-engine platform.



77West
User currently offlineDirectorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1677 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6147 times:



Quoting Dkny (Reply 22):

Is it actually 21 flights a week, or just 3 flights on certain days? Are they all nonstop or do at least some of the flights stopover in Djibouti?


25 Stitch : (See next post)[Edited 2009-06-13 06:44:02]
26 Post contains links 77West : Thrust of the -115B is 115,300lbs, and this is flat rated to 32 degrees C, hereafter you use standard de rated thrust as applicable. The thrust bump
27 Stitch : Ah, thanks. Still, a 77L is going to be a freight train for ET so I think it still has the edge.
28 AF022 : I don't think they have operated 3x/day for a while.
29 Gigneil : The 777-300ER and -200LR's hot and high field performance were key reasons why SAA selected the A340-600 with options for the -500. Their field perfor
30 77West : This might have been a factor, but it was a purely political decision, as the Department of Public Enterprises freely admit. The Boeing 777 has super
31 Zeke : I went to the presentation GE had with us over this, the performance benefit was small, and I would not describe it as giving any very significant ga
32 Stitch : Well according to 77West it's for hot, not high airports, anyway. Still, I have to believe a 77L will lift more into and out of Addis Ababa than an A3
33 Ikramerica : Isn't it also a matter of when? 77Ls can be had within 2 years, A359s will take 6 or 7 from now due to backlog. 77L is absolutely heavier and uses mor
34 Cloudyapple : Being hot is the same as being high. PV/T=c simple physics. Not sure if the quoted person knew what he was talking about. Nominal performance is one
35 Cloudyapple : Until you know the weights of the flights, the takeoff configs, engine settings, atmospheric conditions, and a whole bunch of other things, your conc
36 Astuteman : On the basis that the A350-900XWB is a 268 tonne aircraft, and the 772LR is a 350 tonne aircraft, that sounds pretty much a given. The question reall
37 Post contains links 77West : Not according to Boeing's intended use of the thrust bump option. There is a lot more to it than that. I did know the configuration for the flights g
38 Brons2 : The A350 will also be a high(ish) MTOW twin. It will probably have the same issues as the 777 on Hot and/or High airports. The reason the A340 worked
39 77West : Thank you, this is the main point in this whole debate. Both options will face the same regulatory and performance penalties when talking about hot a
40 Phollingsworth : While high JNB is not particularly hot. The issue with the 777 vs A340 out of JNB is two fold. One, the 77W is tire speed limited on high altitude ai
41 Zeke : I have personally seen our 773ERs having to delay takeoff out of HKG because of a 2 kt tailwind. I also know for a fact that the 773ER gets tyre spee
42 77West : Indeed two very valid points. In Eithiopians case, both the A350 and 77L would suffer the same penalties given they are very similar twinjets. If the
43 Gigneil : No doubt. NS
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...
A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX posted Fri Dec 10 2004 07:00:59 by Clickhappy
A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR posted Wed Aug 6 2003 23:18:13 by Osteogenesis
777-200LR Vs -200ER And 744 posted Mon Oct 17 2005 23:28:45 by DesertRat
777-200LR Overtakes A350 In Orders? posted Tue Jun 14 2005 13:20:28 by Squirrel83
Boeing 777-200LR Vs __________? posted Wed Feb 16 2005 00:26:06 by Aerlingus330
MCO-ATL 777-200LR Service Today posted Fri Mar 13 2009 10:09:54 by SMFBase
Emirates 777-200LR Configuration posted Sat Feb 28 2009 22:35:28 by Airxliban
Qatar Recieves First 777-200LR, 6th Overall 777 posted Mon Feb 9 2009 07:35:25 by QatarA340
EK 777-200LR To PER?!? posted Wed Jan 7 2009 00:14:44 by CXfirst
Future 777-200LR Orders? posted Sat Jan 3 2009 15:46:27 by CX747