Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SIA's B777-200LR  
User currently offlineAirbus A380 From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 522 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1705 times:

I read recently in a book about long-range aircraft ecnomics, which at one part described about the B777-200LR. It said that SIA, (at that point of time of publication) had an outstanding order of 33 B777-200s including B777-200LRs.

Is that true that SIA ordered them?

Regards
Airbus A380

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13739 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1684 times:

The magazine / publication's 'facts' are flawed.

Singapore Airlines has never ordered the 777-200LRs. However, it could be confused with the 777-200ERs which SIA has indeed ordered.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineAirbus A380 From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1676 times:

Hmm.. I don't think they confused B772LR with the B772ER because on the B772LR factfile column, it stated the a/c will have greater range than B772ER and 2003 as the 772LR entry date. The book also compared the B772LR with B744ER, A345 and A380.

Regards
Airbus A380


User currently offlineQatarAirways From Qatar, joined Sep 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1670 times:

Airbus A380,

I don't want to Hijack your thread but I have a further question. How come Singapore Airlines didn't order the B777-200LR? It would fit better than the A340-500 especially with such a small fleet. Is it because of the Engines?


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1862 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1663 times:

It's not because of the engines. When SQ ordered the A345, the proposed B772LR at that time was not competitive.

User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13739 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

Airbus A380: In that case there is no confusion, just a false information  Big grin


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offline9V-SVC From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 1797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1589 times:

SQ didnt make any orders for the B777-200LR main reason is because of the engines . Unless B777-200LR is powered by RR trents , I cant see them ordering B777-200LR and besides they have already ordered the A340-500 which i feel will suit their network ( long-haul ) perfectly. Without ETOPS problems for such long flights .

Charles



Airliners is the wings of my life.
User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1862 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1570 times:

I'll repeat it again. SQ didn't order the -200LR because the -200X at the time the A345 was launched wasn't as good as the A345. It has nothing to do with the engine at all. The original -200X was not going to be with GE engines exclusively. In fact, Rolls had a Trent 8104 for the earlier version of the -200X. Will SQ ever order the B772LR and/or B773ER with the GE90? I can tell you with reasonable confidence that they will eventually. They might not order the B772LR, but they will likely order the B773ER within a few years' time.

User currently offlineJAL From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 5083 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1553 times:

Does anyone think that SIA will dump the A340-600 in favour of the 777-200LR?


Work Hard But Play Harder
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13739 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1546 times:

Dynkrisolo, what's your theory. To replace the Megatops? This was mentioned in Flight International because of comparable capacity between Megatops and Jubilee 300 ERs and the fact that the latter is much more fuel efficient.

JAL: A340-500s  Big grin Dunno, SIA doesn't really want GE as that would just increase maintenance costs again. Stupid Boeing doing a GE exclusive deal. Most illogical. More probably is the 747-400XQLR. More pax, less operating costs (in theory at least).



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineAdol From Malaysia, joined Jul 2001, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1469 times:

Let the time tell.

Operated A310/B757
Chose A310

Operated A343/B772ER
Chose B772ER (but still operates some of the A343)

Who knows that they might try B772LR? They always can opt for B772LR if they find A345 does not meet their requirement. With tons of money they can surely do that. Anyway either A345 or B772LR will be stunningly beautiful in SIA livery.

Cheers!

adol


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1862 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1397 times:

My theory? The operating economics of the B773ER will inevitably drive many current B747 operators to look at the B773ER very carefully. It's 10% smaller, but it has much lower operating cost. The B773ER can easily be used to replace the majority of SQ's B744 routes. For those routes which have high capacity needs the A380 will do the job.

User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1382 times:

Just wait for Boeing to save the day with the

747-400WEHAVEMORELETTERSTHENYOU

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy  Smile/happy/getting dizzy  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineJAL From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 5083 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1332 times:

They should have offered the 777-200LR/300ER with engines from all 3 manufacturers!!


Work Hard But Play Harder
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3010 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1306 times:

They should have offered the 777-200LR/300ER with engines from all 3 manufacturers!!

The other two manufacturers do not offer engines in the 110,000-115,000 pound thrust range that the GE90's on the 772LR/773ER have.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineAndrew From Singapore, joined Dec 1999, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1274 times:

LOL@Hkgspotter! Good one with the XQLR, mate!


Andrew


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...
PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications V2 posted Sun May 28 2006 10:17:08 by LTU932
PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications... posted Mon May 22 2006 03:17:35 by Blrsea
2nd PK B777-200LR Due JFK 2149z Tonight! posted Thu Mar 23 2006 16:52:34 by RobK
Do You Think B777-200LR Will Be Far Superior Than? posted Sun Mar 5 2006 00:17:03 by AirCanada014
B777-200LR World Tour Update posted Thu Jul 14 2005 10:24:20 by HAWK21M
B777-200LR In Beijing! posted Tue Jun 28 2005 05:45:50 by Smeagol
B777-200LR World Tour Schedule. posted Mon Jun 27 2005 09:14:15 by HAWK21M
B777-200LR Sets New M T O W Record posted Mon May 9 2005 11:47:38 by Greaser
Expect To See B777-200LR & A380 At Paris Show posted Wed Mar 16 2005 18:42:43 by Jacobin777
B777-200LR posted Thu Jul 18 2002 07:11:57 by United777