PanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3987 posts, RR: 93 Posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 12593 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW COMMUNITY MANAGER
Boeing and Air Austral have announced that the carrier has agreed to buy two B777-200LR for delivery in mid 2011 and 2012. This makes the carrier a new 77L operator and they will also take a third leased B777-300ER early 2011.
The 2 orders have been booked previously as UFO's
Boeing, Air Austral Announce Orders for Two 777-200LRs
FARNBOROUGH, United Kingdom, July 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) and Air Austral today announced orders for two Boeing Long Range 777-200LR Worldliners. The order is valued at $501 million at average list prices. The airplanes were previously listed on Boeing's Orders & Deliveries website as unidentified.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6868 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11924 times:
I'm curious, why the 77L? Do they intend to start flying to N.America?
rom1 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 134 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11878 times:
Apparently they intend to fly from Mayotte island to Paris, the short runway would require a 772LR to fly non-stop to Paris, keeping a fleet of only B777
varig md-11 From France, joined Jul 2000, 1568 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11752 times:
Mayotte island is a new French "departement" (sort of district) after its people chose this new administrative status by referendum. It implies changes and developments for this island.
It means its status will be the same as any continental departement, it means also UU will receive subsidies to insure "territorial continuity" with mainland as it is the case with Reunion and French West Indies
Till now Mayotte has no direct airlink with mainland France, the 77L is the only jet powerfull enough and common enough with the other UU 777 to be used on this line.
AF TW AA NW BA U2 TP UX LH SK AZ MP KL SN VY HV LS SS TK SQ RG
HAM From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 254 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 11145 times:
Some research revealed that Corsairfly uses their A330 on the Mayotte flights. The outbound leg is non-stop, the inbound leg makes a technical stop (I assume due to the 2000m runway) - does anyone know where? And can a 77L really fly Mayotte-ORY nonstop, taking-off from a 2000m runway with a full load?
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6868 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 11145 times:
Quoting rom1 (Reply 6): Apparently they intend to fly from Mayotte island to Paris, the short runway would require a 772LR to fly non-stop to Paris, keeping a fleet of only B777
Sounds like a huge waste of money to me for such an expensive airplane and what will likely be an expensive route to operate. I can't imagine there'd be such huge premium demand to operate this route non-stop rather than the much cheaper alternative with a connection.
DIJKKIJK From France, joined Jul 2003, 1669 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10220 times:
Quoting KFlyer (Reply 3): But to where would they fly them ? I thought a considerable demand was non-existent from RUN to US/America or Japan.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 5): I'm curious, why the 77L? Do they intend to start flying to N.America?
Quoting airbazar (Reply 9): Sounds like a huge waste of money to me for such an expensive airplane and what will likely be an expensive route to operate
You don't always have to operate an aircraft like the 772LR on an ULH flight to make it profitable/justifiable. EK is known to operate its 772LRs and its A340-500s to South Asian destinations sometimes, and AI is now operating its 772LRs on the DEL-CDG and DEL-NRT routes. These are hardly ultra long haul sectors.
Air Austral can use its LRs on the Paris-Reunion route. The additional capacity got by not filling the fuel tanks can be profitably used for cargo, for which there is very good demand on this sector.
Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7342 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9891 times:
Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 10): You don't always have to operate an aircraft like the 772LR on an ULH flight to make it profitable/justifiable. EK is known to operate its 772LRs and its A340-500s to South Asian destinations sometimes, and AI is now operating its 772LRs on the DEL-CDG and DEL-NRT routes. These are hardly ultra long haul sectors
Delta flying any USA to NRT route with a 777LR is not ultra long haul but an LR can carry more then a 777-200ER. ATL to J'berg is the ultimate ultra long haul do to the altitude, nonstop all the way back to ATL.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6868 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9057 times:
Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 10): You don't always have to operate an aircraft like the 772LR on an ULH flight to make it profitable/justifiable. EK is known to operate its 772LRs and its A340-500s to South Asian destinations sometimes, and AI is now operating its 772LRs on the DEL-CDG and DEL-NRT routes. These are hardly ultra long haul sectors.
True but EK and AI, and SQ, and DL, and many others who operate ULH aircraft on short routes are much much bigger carriers than Air Austral so the higher operating cost one 1 or 2 routes gets diluted more easily over the entire network. And they don't have to take tax payer subsidies to make it work either. If I were a French tax payer I'd be royally upset.
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8906 times:
Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 10): Air Austral can use its LRs on the Paris-Reunion route. The additional capacity got by not filling the fuel tanks can be profitably used for cargo, for which there is very good demand on this sector.
Great point. The 77L's can carry a helluva lot of cargo too.
Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 4): From the Boeing O&D spreadsheet (up to July 13) 777 order totals for each model currently are as follows;
61 777-200A
430 777-200ER 60 777-200LR
60 777-300A
429 777-300ER (will be 442 when Emirates 12 new orders are listed) 73 777F
I found it interesting that the 777F has already out sold the 77L.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8595 times:
Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 14): The 77E will slowly die in favor of the 77L. The question is: will PW and RR ever power a 77L ?
No way. Not at this point, and not given the exclusivity GE has with LR 777s.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7609 times:
Quoting KFlyer (Reply 3): But to where would they fly them ?
I think it's been discussed here before that the 772LR generally becomes cheaper to operate than the 772ER after a distance that is substantially inferior to the max range to the 772ER. No idea what the consensus numbers were (could have been around only 8000 km/5000 mi, not sure at all), so for the long-haul routes between Reunion/Mayotte and Paris, I'm pretty sure the 77L is now the way to go over the 77E (the 77E does it fine for sure, but the 77L probably does it better).
That's the same reason why the sales of the 773 almost instantaneously died as soon as the 77W became reality. The 773 has a max range of over 10,000 km (in no way it's a short range airliner despite what some tend to think : http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=107), a range which is fine for most routes of most airlines, yet all airlines then looking to get a 777-300 fleet preferred the 77W despite its higher cost (and even those already operating the 773A). Pushing an aircraft close to its max theoretical range usually means a higher operating costs, and sometimes payload restrictions as well...
Plus the issues with Mayotte's short runway, apparently, which i was not aware of.
icna05e From France, joined Feb 2006, 289 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7118 times:
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 16): the sales of the 773 almost instantaneously died as soon as the 77W became reality.
Hadn't it died about 3 to 5 years BEFORE the 77W was born?
Anyways, amazing how the 77E was king of its "sub-"generation, and how this title now belongs to the 77W over the 77L. Few of the traditional ER customers jumped ship to the bigger one though (yet?)
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6256 posts, RR: 39 Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4843 times:
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 16): I think it's been discussed here before that the 772LR generally becomes cheaper to operate than the 772ER after a distance that is substantially inferior to the max range to the 772ER.
As soon as you exceed the range where your payload has to be reduced below MZFW you are trading cargo for fuel. With the 77L this point is much farther out, and hence the 77L becomes more profitable. That is why the 77F is based on the 77L rather than the 77E; cargo operators seldom need ULH range, but every bit of payload helps.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9067 posts, RR: 13 Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4627 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 12): True but EK and AI, and SQ, and DL, and many others who operate ULH aircraft on short routes are much much bigger carriers than Air Austral so the higher operating cost one 1 or 2 routes gets diluted more easily over the entire network.
My thoughts precisely. Either way, it's good to see another 77L operator.
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10 Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4503 times:
Quoting icna05e (Reply 17): Hadn't it died about 3 to 5 years BEFORE the 77W was born?
I think closer to 2 years before the first 77W was produced. The 77W's biggest advantage is its much higher MTOW which allows it to tank much more fuel, or take on much more payload. Likewise however, you haven't seen 773A operators stop flying them even in the wake of 77Ws in the same fleet. The 773A is much cheaper to operator than the 742/743s it was designed to replace. The 77W is more of a 744 replacement.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
To clarify, the 777-300A has received 8 orders since 1997 the last being 2 for Cathay Pacific in March 2004. The last 777-200A order was ANA for 2 in December 2001.
motorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2747 posts, RR: 10 Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4053 times:
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 15): Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 14):
The 77E will slowly die in favor of the 77L. The question is: will PW and RR ever power a 77L ?
No way. Not at this point, and not given the exclusivity GE has with LR 777s.
Which just makes the A333 more attractive as a 77E, 772 replacement.
Quoting KFlyer (Reply 3): But to where would they fly them ?
Would the 77L would be better on the RUN-SYD-NOU run than the 77E due to the ETOPS diversion?
Regards
MH
come visit the south pacific
25 Viscount724: You're right. I had the Boeing orders data sorted by carrier instead of by date.
26 sunrisevalley: This list frequently does not give the airplane manufacturer and the operator credit for knowing their product/ business. Assuming 300-passengers and
27 KFlyer: Thanks for everyone's responses. Perhaps they are taking it without the auxiliary fuel tanks then ?
28 BMI727: Almost every operator so far has gone without the tanks. EK might have had some woth one tank, but those have been removed if they were ever installe
30 AA777223: It will not carry a larger volume, but it will sure carry more dense cargo.
31 sunrisevalley: I should have noted that the 77E would be right at MZFW of 195t with a TOW of ~283t for that sector length. That TOW needs a runway length of ~9500 f
32 BMI727: Actually, due to the fact that the 77L and 77E have the same MZFW (I think) the 77E can carry slightly more payload on shorter routes.
33 OldAeroGuy: Although the 772LR has a higher OEW than the 772ER, its MZFW is also higher. The 772LR can a carry more payload on all routes: 772ER: MZFW - 430.0 KL
34 BMI727: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/777_payload.pdf According to this chart, the 77E can carry a bit more on shorter routes, but that is a 77
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3987 posts, 
From Hungary, joined Jul 2010, 28 posts, 
From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1208 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6868 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 134 posts, 
From France, joined Jul 2000, 1568 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 254 posts, 
The 77L's can carry a helluva lot of cargo too. 
From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2358 posts, 
From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9067 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21460 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2747 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
