Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Last 777-200ER?  
User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2135 posts, RR: 7
Posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 29486 times:

Per Puget Sound Test Flights, ANAs 777-281ER JA745A (L/N 1112) made her first flight on Thursday.

There is a very old 77E order for Asiana still on the books. Are Asiana still planning to take delivery of that order? If Asiana do not intend to take delivery of that 77E, then this ANA airframe may be the last 777-200ER ( # 421) built.


The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 29462 times:

Very interesting. It is very hard for me to believe that up to this month the 77E is the most produced variant of the 777. 77E =420 and 77W=406 as of the end of May.

I think the math works out that for any mission further than 1,500nm it is better to operate a 77L than a 77E which is similarly surprising to the statement above. An excellent aircraft for many customers in the late 90's early 2000's.

tortugamon


User currently offlineje89_w From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 2362 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 29187 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Interesting. On the Boeing Factory tour last month, I remember seeing this frame (L/N 1112) on its final assembly before it left the production hangar. I realized that this was one of the last B772ERs produced but now I wonder if it really is the last. Time will tell.

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9827 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 28855 times:

Asiana took delivery of a 772ER last year so I assume they will take another one which was ordered in 2008.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4783 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 28599 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):

I think the math works out that for any mission further than 1,500nm it is better to operate a 77L than a 77E

That mileage seems too low, the 77L is a lot heavier than the -E



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 28422 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
I think the math works out that for any mission further than 1,500nm it is better to operate a 77L than a 77E which is similarly surprising to the statement above.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
That mileage seems too low, the 77L is a lot heavier than the -E

I believe it is closer to 2000nm. And while the 77L is heavier, it also incorporates a number of aerodynamic tweaks that help efficiency.


User currently offlinejoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3188 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 28264 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
And while the 77L is heavier, it also incorporates a number of aerodynamic tweaks that help efficiency.

A number of which can be (and have been on a great scale) retrofitted to the 772, 77E and 773: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...03_09/pdfs/AERO_Q309_article02.pdf


User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 798 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 27871 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):

I think the math works out that for any mission further than 1,500nm it is better to operate a 77L than a 77E

That mileage seems too low, the 77L is a lot heavier than the -E

I think that as long as it is used for the ultra long haul destinations, it can be done profitable but for missions up to 10,000 km, the A330-300 has better performances with the A350-900 on its way. Not strange that the 772ER does not sell anymore, and neither the 77L (expensive fuel). But on the other hand, it killed the A343 and MD11.

However the bird (772ER) has changed the way of longhaul flying. Great but noisy bird.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20362 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 27825 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
I believe it is closer to 2000nm. And while the 77L is heavier, it also incorporates a number of aerodynamic tweaks that help efficiency.

Don't the engines have improved SFC, too?


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 27522 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):

I believe it is closer to 2000nm. And while the 77L is heavier, it also incorporates a number of aerodynamic tweaks that help efficiency.

Seems low given the much heavier weights and the only tweak is sexed up wings, also seems low given the order book.


User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 27394 times:

This topic has been discussed a few times. I think Boeing will continue to deliver the odd 777-200ER, though certainly not at the rate it previously did so.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
I think the math works out that for any mission further than 1,500nm it is better to operate a 77L than a 77E which is similarly surprising to the statement above.

Hardly justifies a subfleet. Particularly in the case of Asiana where they have no GE90 engines in their fleet and have no GE90 powered aircraft on order. I would certainly expect Asiana to take delivery.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):

  



First to fly on the Boeing 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE; NZ103, AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 27363 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 9):
Seems low given the much heavier weights and the only tweak is sexed up wings, also seems low given the order book.

Most 777-200LR customers are new to the 777 family so that they chose that model over the 777-200ER reinforces the claims that the 777-200LR is more efficient even on shorter stage-lengths.

As to why more were not sold, most existing 777 customers already had their 777-200ER fleets in place and were not topping up. Though of those that did, some (like DL) chose the 77L instead of more 77Es. Also, Airbus had consistently improved the A330-300 to the point that it was capable of performing a significant portion of 777-200ER missions with better economics. As such, that shrunk the market for the 777-200LR to missions with high payloads and long ranges.


User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2612 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 27036 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Most 777-200LR customers are new to the 777 family so that they chose that model over the 777-200ER reinforces the claims that the 777-200LR is more efficient even on shorter stage-lengths.

As to why more were not sold, most existing 777 customers already had their 777-200ER fleets in place and were not topping up. Though of those that did, some (like DL) chose the 77L instead of more 77Es. Also, Airbus had consistently improved the A330-300 to the point that it was capable of performing a significant portion of 777-200ER missions with better economics. As such, that shrunk the market for the 777-200LR to missions with high payloads and long ranges.

   Don't think I could have said it any better. For this reason alone is why I think the 777-8LX will do well when launched. If more people knew this they would stop labeling the 77L as a "inefficient" aircraft



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineraggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 1005 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 26873 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):

But then again, most 77L customers also bought the 77W, so more commonality as opposed to a 77E together with 77W which don't share the same powerplant.




raggi



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlinexdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 686 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 23975 times:

Amazing that UA never ordered the LR or W versions.

User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 798 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 22591 times:

Quoting xdlx (Reply 14):

Amazing that UA never ordered the LR or W versions.

I can't imagine an airline can profitably operate a LR 777 unless you carry 50% premium passengers on top of a lot of economy plus passengers.......it is way too much plane with the current fuel prices (IMHO).

But, I agree with you that the 77W could be the easiest 747 replacement. You can operate them side by side with the 789/7810 and A359/A3510.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 22196 times:

I did not realize that the 772ER is still in production. I would assume that it would stop with the introduction of the new 777 variant.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinePA515 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2007, 927 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21415 times:

Quoting WestWing (Thread starter):
There is a very old 77E order for Asiana still on the books. Are Asiana still planning to take delivery of that order?

Looks like it. There was a Matt Cawby photo in the last week with a partly painted OZ tail in the Fuel Dock area next to the 6th 200LR for ET.

The last 200(ER) and the last 200(LR) on order.

Found the photo
http://paineairport.com/kpae6347.htm

PA515

[Edited 2013-06-15 12:33:30]

[Edited 2013-06-15 12:54:13]

[Edited 2013-06-15 12:58:01]

User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3366 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21055 times:

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 15):
I can't imagine an airline can profitably operate a LR 777 unless you carry 50% premium passengers on top of a lot of economy plus passengers.......it is way too much plane with the current fuel prices (IMHO).

Did you remember to included the cargo hold?



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21001 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Though of those that did, some (like DL) chose the 77L instead of more 77Es.

77E couldn't handle LAX-SYD or ATL-JNB.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20362 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 20322 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 16):

I did not realize that the 772ER is still in production. I would assume that it would stop with the introduction of the new 777 variant.

Why not? All 772-series aircraft use most of the same parts (the engines being the biggest difference) and the same tooling for assembly. And as long as replacement parts exclusively for the 772 continue to be manufactured for existing operators, those parts can be used to build new aircraft.

What I wonder is why any airline that operates the 77W wouldn't just convert their remaining 772 orders to 77L.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 20238 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
What I wonder is why any airline that operates the 77W wouldn't just convert their remaining 772 orders to 77L.

After the 77E mentioned in the opening post is delivered to NH there is only one unfilled 77E order and that's part of an order placed over 5 years ago. I personally doubt that any more 77Es will be built.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1472 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 20074 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
What I wonder is why any airline that operates the 77W wouldn't just convert their remaining 772 orders to 77L.

Might have something to do with the extra 50M or so Boeing would expect from such a conversion, and if you're paying that much why not go full hog and spec a 77W? Not as if there's many 15+ hour missions out there.

Or that the 77L needs to fly a lot longer than 2000NM to beat a 77E in the DOC vs Revenue game.

Or because the A350 and 787-9 are just around the corner, having between them killed the 77E/L very dead indeed.

Perhaps even a combination of it all.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 19920 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting xdlx (Reply 14):
Amazing that UA never ordered the LR or W versions.

They had the 747-400 so they didn't need the 777-300ER and until recently they operated their 777-200ERs below the maximum rated TOW and thrust (to save money on fees and maintenance) so they didn't need everything a 77E could give them, much less a 77L.  
Quoting brilondon (Reply 16):
I did not realize that the 772ER is still in production. I would assume that it would stop with the introduction of the new 777 variant.

If you're willing to pay for it, Boeing is willing to build it (within reason).  
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
What I wonder is why any airline that operates the 77W wouldn't just convert their remaining 772 orders to 77L.
Quoting B777LRF (Reply 22):
Might have something to do with the extra 50M or so Boeing would expect from such a conversion...

I've heard that the difference in Average Sales Price between a 777-200ER and 777-200LR was far, far, closer than the difference in Average List Price. I expect a significant part of that is GE's willingness to make deals on the engines (especially if it is to convert a customer who would order a 77E with RR or PW power).

NH's recent 777-200ERs are said to have been compensation for 787 delivery delays. As for OZ, I am guessing they need them for missions beyond the capabilities of their A330-300s and they could not wait for their A350-900s.


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 19470 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
77E couldn't handle LAX-SYD or ATL-JNB.

Hmm why do you think it couldn't handle either? I admit the JNB-ATL routing might be difficult on strong headwind days but LAX-SYD should be easy to accomplish considering it has a higher range than the 744 and 744ER


77E range =7725nm



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3778 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 20268 times:

A 77E can do LAX-SYD, although not with the uplift of the 77L. In the early days of its LAX-SYD route, DL actually subbed in the 77E occasionally when they couldn't logistically work in the 77L


PHX based
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 19846 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 24):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
77E couldn't handle LAX-SYD or ATL-JNB.

Hmm why do you think it couldn't handle either? I admit the JNB-ATL routing might be difficult on strong headwind days but LAX-SYD should be easy to accomplish considering it has a higher range than the 744 and 744ER


77E range =7725nm

Also have to consider the economics, cargo capacity etc.


User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2135 posts, RR: 7
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 17096 times:

Quoting PA515 (Reply 17):
Looks like it. There was a Matt Cawby photo in the last week with a partly painted OZ tail in the Fuel Dock area next to the 6th 200LR for ET.

The last 200(ER) and the last 200(LR) on order.

Thank you so much for pointing out that photograph. So it is the Asiana aircraft pictured there which may be the last 77E built. I assume we will know the line number of that frame fairly soon.

Both the NH and OZ 77Es referenced in this thread are equipped with P&W engines. There are only four other remaining orders for Boeing civilian aircraft with P&W engines (767-300s). The decades-long association between Pratt&Whitney and Boeing Commercial Airplanes appears to be destined to become exclusively military (KC46).

On the 777-200LR topic, apart from the last -200LR for ET, Boeing's O&D site shows three other -200LR orders. One is a BBJ for an undisclosed customer and two were ordered by Turkmenistan Airlines. Turkmenistan's first 77L is reportedly in service as a BBJ for VIP/Govt. use. Perhaps these two are intended for commercial airline use?

[Edited 2013-06-15 22:23:32]


The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 15681 times:

Aeroflot's website say they are expecting to take delivery of 777-200s this year. The order was placed two years ago and includes 777-300ERs also.
http://www.aeroflot.com/cms/en/about/company_profile
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-300ers-and-two-777-200ers-354149/



First to fly on the Boeing 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE; NZ103, AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlinebmibaby737 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1836 posts, RR: 9
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 15459 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 28):
Aeroflot's website say they are expecting to take delivery of 777-200s this year. The order was placed two years ago and includes 777-300ERs also.

I believe they converted them all to 300ERs as the only orders on Boeings website are:

Aeroflot - Russian Airlines Russian Federation Europe 777-300ER GE 28-Feb-2011 8
Aeroflot - Russian Airlines Russian Federation Europe 777-300ER GE 11-May-2011 8


User currently online7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1770 posts, RR: 16
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 15436 times:

From Boeing's website:

422 ordered/420 delivered

Remaining deliveries 1-ANA, 1-AAR


User currently offlineCargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15027 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 30):
From Boeing's website:

422 ordered/420 delivered

Remaining deliveries 1-ANA, 1-AAR

It hasn't been updated to include the past month yet. The ANA (JA745A) has already been delivered (saw the departure in person).


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 14466 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bmibaby737 (Reply 29):
I believe (SU) converted them all to 300ERs...

That is correct


User currently offlineHeeseokKoo From South Korea, joined Jan 2005, 666 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14509 times:

Asiana is getting one 772ER in July, its 13th 772ER, and it will be used for upgrading product to JFK beginning July 22nd. I'm surprised to know that it will be possibly the last 772ER ever built.

User currently offlineChicagoFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14355 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
I've heard that the difference in Average Sales Price between a 777-200ER and 777-200LR was far, far, closer than the difference in Average List Price. I expect a significant part of that is GE's willingness to make deals on the engines (especially if it is to convert a customer who would order a 77E with RR or PW power).

I totally believe this! What basically happens is that Boeing themselves would come to an airline and show charts with 777-200LR inferior to 777-200ER on operating cost (whatever deals GE makes on the purchase price, the maintenance on the GE90 is far greater than on any of the -200ER engines and landing fees will also be higher; if pilot pay or nav fees are MTOW based, you have another potential cost hit) so an airline would be reluctant to pay much more for the performance. Most of the revenue benefit of the LR is on the payload/cargo side (rather than on the range--there are very few desirable ULH routes out there), and the cargo market has tanked in recent years.

So in my view the -LR has little to do with the -ER demise. As above posters mentioned, the 787 would have made the -200ER obsolete, then the 787 delays handed it a lifeline, but Airbus also improved the A330 quite dramatically... Personally, I am a big fan of 777-200ER (my favorite widebody, when it's 9 abreast--I would fly on it rather than on the 787) but I too can recognize the inevitable!


User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2135 posts, RR: 7
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13453 times:

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 33):
Asiana is getting one 772ER in July, its 13th 772ER, and it will be used for upgrading product to JFK beginning July 22nd. I'm surprised to know that it will be possibly the last 772ER ever built.

Thanks for the confirmation. By the way, the OZ 77E (ln 1117 or 1118 (?) ) has not made her first flight yet. Perhaps this one is being painted on-site at PAE and will make first flight in full livery.



The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offlinePA515 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2007, 927 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13199 times:

Quoting WestWing (Reply 35):
Thanks for the confirmation. By the way, the OZ 77E (ln 1117 or 1118 (?) ) has not made her first flight yet. Perhaps this one is being painted on-site at PAE and will make first flight in full livery.

The OZ 77E should be L/N 1117 and a JJ 77W L/N 1118. The JJ aircraft made an appearance a few days after the OZ.

PA515


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2495 posts, RR: 8
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13137 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
I think the math works out that for any mission further than 1,500nm it is better to operate a 77L than a 77E
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
I believe it is closer to 2000nm.

Huh? This was closer to 3500+nm.

Quoting joost (Reply 6):
A number of which can be (and have been on a great scale) retrofitted to the 772, 77E and 773: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...2.pdf

Wow. I'm definitely no aeronautical engineer, but I can easily see how the new, smaller 737-style vortex generators would cause less drag than those old blacksmith VGs.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
77E couldn't handle LAX-SYD

According to whom??? JNB has its own issues being high. It could easily go ATL-JNB, but not the reverse.

Quoting ChicagoFlyer (Reply 34):
So in my view the -LR has little to do with the -ER demise.

What demise? Of course the LR didn't have anything to do with it. Your post hits on a lot of important points.

People, the ER just became saturated in the market for its time period and potential. The LR didn't offer much over that based on what operators were using. Most operators who had the ER or competing planes A343-313X had no need for LRs. Even if they did, they would have had to pay tens of millions, just to replace an almost comparable ER? Doesn't make sense.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2135 posts, RR: 7
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11575 times:

It is now five weeks since l/n 1117 for OZ was first pictured out of the factory floor on Matt Cawby's website but this aircraft still has not flown. This long a time is a bit unusual for a 777 so I'm curious now what the delay is due to. Per the information in Reply 33 above, it seems OZ had originally planned an in-service date of July 22 for this frame - this is all before the hull loss in SFO.


The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1159 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11600 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PA515 (Reply 36):
Quoting WestWing (Reply 35):
Thanks for the confirmation. By the way, the OZ 77E (ln 1117 or 1118 (?) ) has not made her first flight yet. Perhaps this one is being painted on-site at PAE and will make first flight in full livery.

The OZ 77E should be L/N 1117 and a JJ 77W L/N 1118. The JJ aircraft made an appearance a few days after the OZ.

Is Asina going to need to repiace the 777 they lost in San Francisco?   



Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
User currently offlineTristan7977 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11406 times:

This means no more RR Trent 800, PW4098, and less powerful versions of the GE90.


Flying is my life. It's as if it were in my blood.
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5311 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 10303 times:

Doesn't AA have some 77Es still on order? I would assume that some of these will convert to 77W. Yet, I bet there are routes in which a 777-200 makes better sense than the -300. So, would AA shift those 77E orders to 77L orders? Since they are now flying the 77W, it probably makes no differnence if they get RR-powered planes or GE-powered planes for future 777-200s.

User currently offlineSomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3516 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 10199 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 41):
Doesn't AA have some 77Es still on order? I would assume that some of these will convert to 77W

These orders have already been converted to the 77W


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20362 posts, RR: 59
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10150 times:

It's interesting. The 777-200 frame is dead except for the freighter variant. Not surprising, given that Airbus replaced it with their newer HGW A333s and Boeing with the 789/J.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 39):
Is Asina going to need to repiace the 777 they lost in San Francisco?

They might, but there is no reason that they have to buy a new one. Plenty of airlines are planning on selling their 772's. Alternatively, they could replace it with a new A333.


User currently offlineHeeseokKoo From South Korea, joined Jan 2005, 666 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9427 times:

Quoting WestWing (Reply 38):
It is now five weeks since l/n 1117 for OZ was first pictured out of the factory floor on Matt Cawby's website but this aircraft still has not flown. This long a time is a bit unusual for a 777 so I'm curious now what the delay is due to. Per the information in Reply 33 above, it seems OZ had originally planned an in-service date of July 22 for this frame - this is all before the hull loss in SFO.

OZ already delayed its deployment to July 29th. Between 22nd and 28th, already tight 772 rotation (due to the accident) becomes even more tight as OZ won't cancel any flight.


User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1876 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8718 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
77E couldn't handle LAX-SYD or ATL-JNB.

As to the first part of your post, UA 117 and UA 895 would like to disagree with you. Both are longer than Lax-Syd distance wise and both operate with 777-200er equipment. I could also add Ewr-Bom at almost the same distance as Ord-Hkg, again, longer than Lax-Syd.



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2612 posts, RR: 2
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8387 times:

Matt Cawby has a photo of HL8284 coming out of the paint hanger on the 13th:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/9282204692/



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently onlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3833 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8267 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 41):
Doesn't AA have some 77Es still on order? I would assume that some of these will convert to 77W.

If I remember correctly, AA converted all their 77Es on order to the 77W recently, at the same time they boosted their 77W orders.



"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2135 posts, RR: 7
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7508 times:

HL8284 made her first ("B1") flights today, July 17 as BOE587 PAE to MWH and MWH to PAE.


The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2135 posts, RR: 7
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6630 times:

Asiana HL8284 (ln 1117) PAE to ICN delivery flight was on Friday July 26 (link: AAR274D).

If this is really the last 777-200ER, then there have been 422 frames of this variant delivered between 1997 (original moniker 777-200IGW) and 2013. Of course, the 77W will likely pass 422 next month.



The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offlineNYCAAer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 693 posts, RR: 3
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6062 times:

At AA, since we've taken delivery of the 77W, the pilots I've flown with have told me that the economics of the 77W vs. the 772 are much better. We've been carrying more cargo than ever before on the JFK-LHR-JFK and JFK-GRU-JFK sectors, with more passengers, and the 77W barely burns much more fuel than the 772. I doubt AA will ever confirm the options for any remaining 772s, given how great the economic performance of the 77W has been. There are 12 more 77Ws on order, and the rest of the new widebodies will be the A350 variants inherited from US and the 787s. Whether or not AA will get more 77Ws after these 20, we don't know.

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6010 times:

Quoting NYCAAer (Reply 50):
I doubt AA will ever confirm the options for any remaining 772s

I thought they already converted their 77E options into 77W orders? Glad to hear the investment is working out for AA.

tortugamon


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6036 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 51):
I thought they already converted their 77E options into 77W orders?

That is correct. Boeing's O&D page shows 47 77Es ordered and 47 77Es delivered and 20 77Ws ordered and 8 delivered.


User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3359 posts, RR: 46
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5996 times:

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 45):
As to the first part of your post, UA 117 and UA 895 would like to disagree with you. Both are longer than Lax-Syd distance wise and both operate with 777-200er equipment. I could also add Ewr-Bom at almost the same distance as Ord-Hkg, again, longer than Lax-Syd.

The common denominator with those three routes is they're polar, which reduces the "effective length" westbound. A 77E would struggle to handle the winds associated with LAX-SYD and ATL-JNB.

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4417 posts, RR: 19
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5765 times:

Quoting xdlx (Reply 14):
Amazing that UA never ordered the LR or W versions.

Not really. United was in no financial condition to order either plane for much of the 21st century, has no need for the 77L's performance specs, and had an ample fleet of 747's to tide it over until more financially attractive options than the 77L/77W (such as the A350-1000) entered the marketplace.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineflight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5722 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 54):
has no need for the 77L's performance specs

EWR-HKG, EWR-BOM, ORD-HKG among others could easily benefit from the 77L.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5727 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 53):
A 77E would struggle to handle the winds associated with LAX-SYD and ATL-JNB.

Before AF447, I never realized the havoc that the Intertropical Convergence Zones could have on aviation. Aren't SFO/LAX-AKL and LHR-EZE about the farthest that a 77E has ever been scheduled which crosses the equator in this manner?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8513 posts, RR: 6
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5664 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flight152 (Reply 55):
EWR-HKG, EWR-BOM, ORD-HKG among others could easily benefit from the 77L.

Who needs a 777LR. JFK and ORD to Hong Kong are flown by Cathay using 777-300ER's. UA has flown Newark to both Hong Kong, Mumbai and Dehli using Continenatl 777-200ER with GE 90 engines.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5484 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 56):
Aren't SFO/LAX-AKL and LHR-EZE about the farthest that a 77E has ever been scheduled which crosses the equator in this manner?

NZ uses the 77E YVR-AKL which is further than the other routes you mention.

YVR-AKL 6,121 nm
LHR-EZE 5,999 nm
SFO-AKL 5,663 nm
LAX-AKL 5,652 nm


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2495 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5203 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 53):
The common denominator with those three routes is they're polar, which reduces the "effective length" westbound. A 77E would struggle to handle the winds associated with LAX-SYD and ATL-JNB.

Not really. As was said before LAX-SYD-LAX is not a problem for a passenger load, sure the 77L could uplift more cargo. ATL-JNB isn't a problem at all either, you'll find though the reverse is because of winds and the elevation of JNB. ATL-JNB used to be flown nonstop all the time by the 744, and the 77E has ~450nm more range. SA used to fly JNB-SID-ATL-JNB with the 744.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 56):
Before AF447, I never realized the havoc that the Intertropical Convergence Zones could have on aviation. Aren't SFO/LAX-AKL and LHR-EZE about the farthest that a 77E has ever been scheduled which crosses the equator in this manner?

AFAIK, SIN-LAX is, though that wasn't scheduled. Like Viscount said, NZ's flights are. SQ subbed 77Es a few times going nonstop SIN-LAX on the A345 route. They had to stop on the way back of course. That's 7621nm great circle, with routing consideration close to the max range of the airplane at nominal passenger load.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5015 posts, RR: 4
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4938 times:

Quoting WestWing (Thread starter):
There is a very old 77E order for Asiana still on the books. Are Asiana still planning to take delivery of that order? If Asiana do not intend to take delivery of that 77E, then this ANA airframe may be the last 777-200ER ( # 421) built.

HL8284 rolled out of the paint hangar on the 13th of July 2013.

http://i.imgur.com/yyyvawb.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/9282204692/

This is the final 777-200ER that rolled out of the factory, unless Asiana decide to order one more as a replacement for HL7742. But I doubt that Boeing will have a available delivery slot early enough to make it worthwhile. So this will be the 422nd and last 200ER that will be delivered. The 4th this year after ANA already took delivery of their last 3 earlier this year.

EK8413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineHeeseokKoo From South Korea, joined Jan 2005, 666 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4724 times:

Quoting WestWing (Reply 49):
Asiana HL8284 (ln 1117) PAE to ICN delivery flight was on Friday July 26 (link: AAR274D).

Arrived ICN on July 27th 12:30pm-ish and its first revenue flight is July 29th to JFK, at 10am. It looks to me a quick process, but I guess it's doable.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4367 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 58):


Those are north south routes. Not the same as routes that encounter a significant amount of the jet stream.


User currently offlineEjazz From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2002, 725 posts, RR: 34
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4289 times:

The longest B777-200ER flight in my logbook was with SQ from Las Vegas - Hong Kong. Flight time 16 hours 8 minutes. Obviously load restricted. Although double crew I remember it seeming to never end through a very dark night.


Etihad Girl, You're a great way to fly.
User currently offlineHeeseokKoo From South Korea, joined Jan 2005, 666 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3979 times:

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 61):
Arrived ICN on July 27th 12:30pm-ish and its first revenue flight is July 29th to JFK, at 10am. It looks to me a quick process, but I guess it's doable.

In fact, this fleet is used for a couple of flights on July 28th, too. 10am to NRT and 8:10pm to HKG. That's less than 24 hours after it arrives to ICN. It was quick.


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4417 posts, RR: 19
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3903 times:

Quoting flight152 (Reply 55):
EWR-HKG, EWR-BOM, ORD-HKG among others could easily benefit from the 77L.

Not really. The GE90 77Es can handle all of those routes with relative ease. Payload restrictions are rather uncommon these days (ORD-HKG is currently run with a P&W bird with a slightly lower MTOW, which does lead to more frequent payload restrictions).



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineflight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 3418 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 65):
The GE90 77Es can handle all of those routes with relative ease.

Oh ok. When I was left behind in HKG last summer due to payload restrictions it must have meant the 77E was perfect for that route. My bad.


User currently offlinenomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 3375 times:

ORD/NYC to HKG on a 77W are routine, no need for a 77L.

User currently offlineflight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 16 hours ago) and read 3264 times:

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 67):
ORD/NYC to HKG on a 77W are routine, no need for a 77L.

Who said there was a need for additional seats?


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2495 posts, RR: 8
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 2987 times:

Quoting Ejazz (Reply 63):
The longest B777-200ER flight in my logbook was with SQ from Las Vegas - Hong Kong. Flight time 16 hours 8 minutes. Obviously load restricted. Although double crew I remember it seeming to never end through a very dark night.

Wow the winds on that were fierce for it to be that long. That should usually be a ~14.5-15 hr flight. Interesting though, forgot SQ even served LAS, let alone LAS-HKG-SIN.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 65):
Not really. The GE90 77Es can handle all of those routes with relative ease. Payload restrictions are rather uncommon these days (ORD-HKG is currently run with a P&W bird with a slightly lower MTOW, which does lead to more frequent payload restrictions).

Yeah, and they've been doing it for years. Maybe, maybe if more cargo uplift were needed a 77L could benefit those routes, but that's assuming it is needed... There's a heck of a lot of cargo capacity going to/from HKG anyway.



oh boy!!!
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...
The Future Of The Current SQ 777-200ER Routes posted Tue Oct 25 2011 12:54:23 by SASMD82
Can The 777-200ER Do BOM-EWR/JFK Non-stop? posted Sat Dec 5 2009 00:28:24 by Jayeshrulz
777-200ER - Is The End In Sight? posted Wed Oct 21 2009 09:18:07 by WINGS
The Last Of The 777-300s (non-ER)? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 00:43:19 by WestWing
Last 777 In PHX On To The 744 YES! posted Sun Mar 28 2004 05:53:53 by AV8AJET
First Photo Of The First KLM 777-200ER .. posted Tue Aug 12 2003 16:21:26 by Keesje
Will Qantas Eventually Get The B 777-200ER/300ER? posted Fri Mar 9 2001 04:11:37 by United Airline
CX Changing Its Tune To The 777-200ER? posted Sat Feb 3 2001 01:36:39 by CX747
There Is No Such Thing As The 777-200ER? posted Sat Nov 27 1999 17:16:36 by Lufthansa
SQ 777-200ER Retrofit posted Tue Jun 11 2013 05:49:34 by megatop