Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LH And The 777  
User currently offlineWN787 From United States of America, joined May 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 23690 times:

I might be a little behind here, but does LH have any 777's?

With the success of this twin engine wide body, why wouldn't an airline want one in its fleet?

I think QF doesn't have any 777's either right?

Who else? (Thinking of mostly the long haul major airlines when asking this one)


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 23695 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
I might be a little behind here, but does LH have any 777's?

They recently placed an order for the 777 Freighter, which is their first order from the 777 family.


Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
I think QF doesn't have any 777's either right?

That is correct.



Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
Who else? (Thinking of mostly the long haul major airlines when asking this one)

Well it depends on how you define "major", but they would include, IMO, airlines like IB, SA, US, SK and VS.

[Edited 2012-05-14 20:32:57]

User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 798 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 23590 times:

When having well maintainted B747-400s, a 777-300ER is not really required. For most of the missions, the A330-300 is cheaper to operate than the B777-200ER, only for the real long range missions, a 777-200ER is needed. As a replacement of the current 747-400, the 777-300ER is the most logical option (the A380 is too big and the 748 is a quad -> which is less efficient than the twin engines 77W).

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 23386 times:

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 2):
(the A380 is too big and the 748 is a quad -> which is less efficient than the twin engines 77W).

Actually, 748 is superior to 77W in terms of per-seat efficiency. That is, assuming you can fill the aircraft. The 748 is about eight years newer than the 77W


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 22957 times:

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 2):
As a replacement of the current 747-400, the 777-300ER is the most logical option (the A380 is too big and the 748 is a quad -> which is less efficient than the twin engines 77W).

LH has evaluated the 777-300ER twice, once as they decided on additional A340-600s and the second time when they evaluated a 747-400 replacement. The first time they decided in favor of more A346s the second time they opted for the 747-8I.
Usually LH does a very good job picking the right aircraft for their needs and if the 777-300 would have been a better fit we would have seen the 777W instead of the 747-8I.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineboeingorbust From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 22919 times:

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 2):
As a replacement of the current 747-400, the 777-300ER is the most logical option (the A380 is too big and the 748 is a quad -> which is less efficient than the twin engines 77W).

Even though LH just replaced a 744 with a 748 a couple of weeks ago... Not saying you're wrong but LH is doing it.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 22878 times:

I think it would be a better fit for Swiss, either a 77L or 300ER. The 77L can do all routes of any airline? But it wont carry more then 300 seats?

User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 22815 times:

Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
I might be a little behind here, but does LH have any 777's?

LH put its eggs into the A340 basket rather than the 777. Had they not purchased A340's I can see the 77W suitable for their route structure.

Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
I think QF doesn't have any 777's either right?

QF made a poor choice not choosing the 777 in the 90's and early 2000's, opting for more 744 and were the only airline to choose the 74E. It is too late for them to change their mind now as they have committed to the 788, 789 & A388 for long haul.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
Who else? (Thinking of mostly the long haul major airlines when asking this one)

Well it depends on how you define "major", but they would include, IMO, airlines like IB, SA, US, SK and VS.

You can add to that AY, CI, MU, LX & LA (though LA has the 77F)


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8517 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20721 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 5):
Even though LH just replaced a 744 with a 748 a couple of weeks ago... Not saying you're wrong but LH is doing it.

Lufthansa got a very "Good" deal from Boeing on the 748, Boeing needed a quality launch customer. Boeing would have been happy to sell LH 20 77W but Boeing needed the 748 order much more.


User currently offlinechris7217 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2002, 169 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20673 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

I believe MU recently ordered some 777's for their fleet (non-cargo).

User currently offlineFerroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19659 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 4):
LH has evaluated the 777-300ER twice, once as they decided on additional A340-600s and the second time when they evaluated a 747-400 replacement. The first time they decided in favor of more A346s the second time they opted for the 747-8I.
Usually LH does a very good job picking the right aircraft for their needs and if the 777-300 would have been a better fit we would have seen the 777W instead of the 747-8I.

As a traveller, I personally feel that the 34?s are much superior to the 77?s.
Reasons:
a)
2-4-2 in Y much more comfortable than 3-3-3 or 2-5-2
b)
Noise level in the 34s is much less than in the 77?s.

Again, my personal impression.

Ferroviarius


User currently offlinedlphoenix From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16368 times:

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 10):

As a traveller, I personally feel that the 34?s are much superior to the 77?s.
Reasons:
a)
2-4-2 in Y much more comfortable than 3-3-3 or 2-5-2
b)
Noise level in the 34s is much less than in the 77?s.

Again, my personal impression.

Ferroviarius

As an armcahir CEO, the applicable question is how much more will you pay to fly a 34? rather than a 77?
The same question applies to:
- Fly a 772 Vs A333 TATL (where the 333 has a CASM advantage).
- Fly a better seat leayout?

As long as the answer is 0 the airline decision will be driven by CASM.

DLP


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16104 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
Lufthansa got a very "Good" deal from Boeing on the 748, Boeing needed a quality launch customer. Boeing would have been happy to sell LH 20 77W but Boeing needed the 748 order much more.

Any launch customer for a new type gets a "good" deal.  

Also, LH has wanted a larger 747 since at least 2000. I don't know where they stood on the 747-500X and 747-600X, but I did read articles in the local Seattle papers in the early 2000's with LH's chairman pushing Boeing to launch the 747-X (they were not as interested in the 747-X Stretch as they had the A380-800 on order).

So once Boeing finally decided to build a larger 747, if any airline other than LH was first in line to buy it I'd have been surprised.

Boeing also can't discount the 747-8 too much, lest they impact 777-300ER Average Sales Prices. Boeing could have more 747-8 orders if they wanted as they have publicly admitted they have refused to meet the prices some customers have stated they were willing to pay to add the type.


User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 798 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12860 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Actually, 748 is superior to 77W in terms of per-seat efficiency. That is, assuming you can fill the aircraft. The 748 is about eight years newer than the 77W

The explains the number of new customers for the B748.....But actually you might be right, those GE90-115b's are a hell of engines, the power is intense but they burn quite a lot of fuel. But less maintenance and fleet communality weight higher for airlines i.s.o. a new plane.

Of the topic: what you just mentioned is the case for the A343 vs the 772ER too, isn't it? The A343 (X) relatively burns less fuel but is proclaimed as 'very unefficient'....

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 10):
As a traveller, I personally feel that the 34?s are Amuch superior to the 77?s.
Reasons:
a)
2-4-2 in Y much more comfortable than 3-3-3 or 2-5-2
b)
Noise level in the 34s is much less than in the 77?s.

Again, my personal impression.

This is off topic bt I agree with you. However, the reason for LH to stick to the A343 and A346 is that it has a huge fleet of A32S, A330, A340 and also the A380. This has a lot of benefits concerning maintenance, training etc.

[Edited 2012-05-15 11:11:52]

User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8517 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 12227 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):

Also, LH has wanted a larger 747 since at least 2000. I don't know where they stood on the 747-500X and 747-600X, but I did read articles in the local Seattle papers in the early 2000's with LH's chairman pushing Boeing to launch the 747-X (they were not as interested in the 747-X Stretch as they had the A380-800 on order).

So once Boeing finally decided to build a larger 747, if any airline other than LH was first in line to buy it I'd have been surprised.

Boeing was much more willing to deal for a 748 launch order then a 77W order. Another 20 77W does what for Boeing vs. 20 748 are ordered is much more significant.


User currently offlinekmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 165 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 11253 times:

...maybe LH just sticks to the A346es since getting rid of them would be much too expensive....i dare think that LH is nothing special and that there is no magical reason why they stick to the A346es and others don't....

User currently offlineOD-BWH From Kuwait, joined Jan 2002, 399 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 11252 times:

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 10):
As a traveller, I personally feel that the 34?s are much superior to the 77?s.
Reasons:
a)
2-4-2 in Y much more comfortable than 3-3-3 or 2-5-2
b)
Noise level in the 34s is much less than in the 77?s.

I agree with point (a); especially with the odd design of the 777 cabin layout; though I find the 777 cabin much roomier and smartly designed, especially if you're 6' tall and opt for a window seat all the time. Try to stand up while in your seat in an Airbus aircraft!

I disagree though on point (b)! 4 engines are by far louder than 2 engines! I've flown the A343; A346; B772; B773 several times and I can tell you that the 777s are much quieter than their Airbus counterparts. the 777 is even quieter than then twin engine 330!!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Actually, 748 is superior to 77W in terms of per-seat efficiency. That is, assuming you can fill the aircraft. The 748 is about eight years newer than the 77W

Plant efficiency wise, I believe so, but overall? I find this hard to believe. I don't think it's fair to compare them. As you said, the B748 is 8 yrs younger. However, operating a 4 engine aircraft is definitely more expensive than operating a twin engine one!

The question here, other than for LH; what value does Boeing see in the 748 when they have the 77W!



A300, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, A346, A388, B734, B738, B744, B772, B773, F70, MD11
User currently offlineairboe From San Marino, joined Jan 2011, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 11031 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Also, LH has wanted a larger 747 since at least 2000. I don't know where they stood on the 747-500X and 747-600X, but I did read articles in the local Seattle papers in the early 2000's with LH's chairman pushing Boeing to launch the 747-X (they were not as interested in the 747-X Stretch as they had the A380-800 on order).


It is also widely believed, that LH had a BIG check in the "Boeing Bank" for letting LH down when Boeing closed "Connexxion".
As narrowbody not was an option and 77W didn't fit the LH strategy the only option was 748.
And LH has proved to be an airline that profitably can run a lot of quads.

KR



keep it free of the propellers
User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3345 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 10133 times:

As others have said, instead of the:
  • 77W LH has the A346.
  • 77L and 77E LH has the A343.
  • 77E and 772 LH has the A333

And to replace the 744 LH chose to grow capacity with the 748. The long range fleet now comprises the A389, 748, A346, A343 and A333.

Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1413 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9794 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):

Actually, 748 is superior to 77W in terms of per-seat efficiency. That is, assuming you can fill the aircraft. The 748 is about eight years newer than the 77W

If you totally take out of consideration MX, landing fees, staffing, acquisition cost penalties and a host of other problems quads come with (such as their inability to operate intermediate range flights with any efficiency), sure.

Quoting dlphoenix (Reply 11):

As long as the answer is 0 the airline decision will be driven by CASM

Lol, not really. CASM is a small factor, but as mentioned above, there's always much more to that story. The 330 has a host of other advantages (including a superior ability to "right-size" for a given market) that the 777 struggles with. But if it were just a matter of CASM, any 77E could be configured to come out ahead of any 333. There's a great deal more space to work with and the fuel burn is not that much higher.

Quoting kmz (Reply 15):
..maybe LH just sticks to the A346es since getting rid of them would be much too expensive....i dare think that LH is nothing special and that there is no magical reason why they stick to the A346es and others don't....

I have a sneaking suspicion that the 346 will become for LH what the MD90 is becoming over at DL. No one wants them elsewhere, but they work well in these respective systems and can be had for cheap, so why not stock up?



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinekmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 165 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9609 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 19):
I have a sneaking suspicion

i tend to agree


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8517 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7780 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 19):
I have a sneaking suspicion that the 346 will become for LH what the MD90 is becoming over at DL. No one wants them elsewhere, but they work well in these respective systems and can be had for cheap, so why not stock up?

There are a few airline wanting A346 airplanes, AR is always rumored to be looking for a few. SAA may want a few to expand their flights.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6900 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 21):
There are a few airline wanting A346 airplanes, AR is always rumored to be looking for a few. SAA may want a few to expand their flights.

SK is also on the list of interested parties.


User currently offlineboeingorbust From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6501 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 5):
Even though LH just replaced a 744 with a 748 a couple of weeks ago... Not saying you're wrong but LH is doing it.

Lufthansa got a very "Good" deal from Boeing on the 748, Boeing needed a quality launch customer. Boeing would have been happy to sell LH 20 77W but Boeing needed the 748 order much more.

Kinda interesting that Boeing would develop the 748 at all for non cargo ops.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6476 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 23):
Kinda interesting that Boeing would develop the 748 at all for non cargo ops.

Statements by the company implies that they believed the passenger model would be the more popular one.

Honestly, I don't think Boeing could have made the economic case for the 747-8 if they expected the majority to be freighters as I believe the sales they could expect were too low.


25 gigneil : KE also operates the 747-400ER. NS
26 N766UA : They still ain't sellin' the 748.
27 Stitch : They operate the 747-400ERF, but not the 747-400ER (passenger model).
28 gemuser : In your opinion! In my opinion and other (industry) people, they made exactly the right decision, at the time. The only reason it is questionable now
29 WN787 : Isn't Boeing slowly working on a common type rating for "all" or most A/C? Has the 34? series even come close to 1000 frames built compared to the 77
30 columba : Even if Boeing is slowly working on common type rating this was not the case when LH ordered the A342, A343, A333 and A346. As far as I know only the
31 sweair : Yeah with the 748 and 380 I see no place for 777X at LH. The 748i and the 77X will be almost of the the same capacity. And with the 350-1000 coming I
32 anfromme : It's not like 787/A380 precludes the 777, is it? Off the top of my head, SIA are planning to do it, as are AF and Qatar. Qantas actually evaluated th
33 columba : I don´t. There are not many European airlines that fly the 777W at the moment. AF-KLM and BA. Both are airlines that want a balanced fleet of Airbus
34 joost : No, that would be virtually impossible. For completely new aircraft types, they do, but not for newer versions of existing designs: - The 777 was the
35 jfk777 : With a LH "launch" order Boeing thought it could sell more 748's. remember thet was 2006, who knew 6 years later sales would be so bad. The fact ther
36 sweair : They couldn't make the 748i too good, that would have killed the 777-9X for sure. The 748i is less of a NG than the planned 777-X. Maybe they should h
37 anfromme : I think you got the chronology wrong there. When the 747-8 was launched - in 2005 - the 777-9X wasn't even a pipe dream. Boeing was never faced with
38 sweair : Well IF the 748 had the same treatment as the 777 will get it would be a hard competitor. A new cfrp wing, lighter skin, weight trimming in the frame
39 yyz717 : You missed the 346, which the 77W is superior over. The analysis they missed out on was the initial 346 to 77W one. Clearly, the 346 was an inefficie
40 B777LRF : Back when Boeing drafted the 777, LH was very much a 4-engines 4 long-haul airline, to the extent the then DFO (allegedly) refused to cross oceans on
41 Stitch : I believe LH ordered the A340-600 when what would become the 777-300ER was still the 777-300X and only a design concept.[Edited 2012-05-17 10:51:34]
42 SEPilot : As Stitch says I believe LH ordered the A346 long before the 77W showed itself to be as good as it turned out to be. I believe that the design goal f
43 anfromme : Leading up to what Boeing at the time was calling the "747 Advanced", they had been studying different 747 derivatives with different levels of chang
44 AADC10 : LH did not order 777s because the A330 is similar enough and just as USA carriers lean toward Boeing, Euro Zone carriers lean toward Airbus. That has
45 motorhussy : Buddy, you're forgetting the A380 factor. Airlines that may look for growth beyond the 744 have two options and one (the market has determined) is su
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...
LH Are The 777 And 787 In Their Future? posted Sun Oct 30 2005 22:45:33 by Georgiabill
LH And The B777 posted Wed Jan 11 2012 12:22:20 by kamboi
DL And The 777 To JNB Some Help Please posted Wed Feb 4 2009 00:57:25 by SA744
DTW, LH, And The 744 posted Sun Sep 28 2008 12:15:14 by Falstaff
Qantas Rules Out The 747-8I And The 777. posted Thu Mar 13 2008 04:33:56 by Thorben
BA New Club And The 777 posted Sun Aug 19 2007 20:39:07 by BAStew
The 777-400, And The 777-500 posted Fri Jun 8 2007 19:49:23 by DL767captain
LH And The 340-600 posted Thu May 17 2007 16:56:15 by EA772LR
DTW And The 777, Will It Ever Return As A Regular? posted Thu Jan 25 2007 05:32:15 by LHboyatDTW
Lufthansa And The 777 posted Sat Nov 18 2006 15:16:06 by LHStarAlliance
DL And The 777 To JNB Some Help Please posted Wed Feb 4 2009 00:57:25 by SA744
DTW, LH, And The 744 posted Sun Sep 28 2008 12:15:14 by Falstaff
Qantas Rules Out The 747-8I And The 777. posted Thu Mar 13 2008 04:33:56 by Thorben
BA New Club And The 777 posted Sun Aug 19 2007 20:39:07 by BAStew
The 777-400, And The 777-500 posted Fri Jun 8 2007 19:49:23 by DL767captain
LH And The 340-600 posted Thu May 17 2007 16:56:15 by EA772LR
DTW And The 777, Will It Ever Return As A Regular? posted Thu Jan 25 2007 05:32:15 by LHboyatDTW
Lufthansa And The 777 posted Sat Nov 18 2006 15:16:06 by LHStarAlliance