Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777LR Vs 777ER  
User currently offlineGoblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8820 times:

I haven't flown on either but would like to some day. I'd like to know the following please...

What are the major differences between the two?
Why would an airline chose one over the other?
Which is better selling at the moment? Why?
Why would Boeing add more fleets in production w/ an already overdue 787, 747i?
Lastly, any links to more info would be great.


From the airport with love
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1507 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8782 times:

I assume you mean 200LR vs. 200ER, and not 200LR vs. 300ER. I'm answering accordingly, of the top of my head.  

1. Range. The LR flies far.
2. Range for the LR. Is anyone buying ERs anymore?
3. Hmmm...LR would be my guess, but that's not saying much. I thought ER sales had pretty much dried up. The planes coming off the line were sold long ago. Overall though, the ER has outsold the LR.
4. The LR flies further than any other production airliner. It enables routes the 787 and 748 could never fly.

The Boeing commercial page and the wikipedia page on the 777 would be great places to start.


User currently offlinelucky777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 549 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8504 times:

Here's a quick question....what is the range of the LR without the auxiliary fuel tanks?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8419 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777-200LR is just a freight train. It can lift five more tons (at maximum payoad) than the 777-200ER and fly it almost 2000nm farther.

Also, Boeing and GE are offering pricing very close to what a 777-200ER would run, so pretty much any carrier in the market for a 777-200 is buying the LR model, even if they don't need the raw lift or range.

I believe Widebodyphotog has also noted that beyond 2000nm, the 77L is the more efficient platform than the 77E, and most 77E missions exceed that.


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7184 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8419 times:

Quoting Goblin211 (Thread starter):
What are the major differences between the two?
Why would an airline chose one over the other?
Which is better selling at the moment? Why?
Why would Boeing add more fleets in production w/ an already overdue 787, 747i?
Lastly, any links to more info would be great.

1) Range and Payload MTOW related reasons.
2) 77L is having somewhat of a resurgence now airlines are having to work around the 787 failure to deliver anywhere near on time.
3) There is not much difference. Same reason as Airbus still has A343s technically available - it doesn't cost them anything substantial to offer what is a very similar aircraft.

Quoting Delimit (Reply 1):
2. Range for the LR. Is anyone buying ERs anymore?

How about CO. They've had 2 delivered this year so far..

Quoting Delimit (Reply 1):
Overall though, the ER has outsold the LR.

The 300ER is flying out the door faster though. The 77F as well.


User currently offlineBasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1320 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8302 times:

Quoting Delimit (Reply 1):
Is anyone buying ERs anymore?

No orders at the moment as far as I know.

Quoting Delimit (Reply 1):
I thought ER sales had pretty much dried up. The planes coming off the line were sold long ago.

BA ordered 4 (delivered in mid 2009) in early 2007 and OZ ordered 2 (which are not delivered yet) in mid 2008, I think these are the most recent orders.



'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2403 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8192 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 4):
How about CO. They've had 2 delivered this year so far..

Mostly because CO already had a fleet of 20 777-200ERs, and did not want to take on such a small subfleet of 77Ls. Worth noting is that the 77L is about 15,000lb heavier than the 77E.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8162 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 5):
BA ordered 4 (delivered in mid 2009) in early 2007 and OZ ordered 2 (which are not delivered yet) in mid 2008, I think these are the most recent orders.

NH ordered a set of five this time last year to cover delays in getting their 787s.


User currently offlineDLdiamondboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7909 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 4):
The 300ER is flying out the door faster though. The 77F as well.

Per Boeings website 1166 of all 777 variants have been ordered. 777-300ER is the best selling variant followed by the 777-200ER. The 777-200LR is the lowest selling.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6875 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7419 times:

Quoting DLdiamondboy (Reply 8):
The 777-200LR is the lowest selling.

The 77L almost didn't appear; it was a natural addition with the 77W, but there was little demand for it. That is why the 77W appeared first; but enough airlines desired the 77L that Boeing went ahead and certified it.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6992 times:

Now with A350-900 approaching, buying any B777-200 is a daring undertaking. Residual value may be hurt after the usual utilization of ~10-12 years. A B772L might make a good converted freighter, though.
I think when the B777-200ER is replaced by B787-9 and A350-9, they will replace many DC10s and even B747-200/400 converted freighters.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6875 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6932 times:

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 10):
Now with A350-900 approaching, buying any B777-200 is a daring undertaking.

You still have to meet today's needs. Just as when you buy a computer, you know something better is coming tomorrow. If you have need of an aircraft today the A359 will do you no good at all, and if the best plane for your mission is a 772 then you need to buy it. Yes, residual value will suffer some when better planes become available, but don't forget that it will take many years for them to be widely available, and many more before they are readily available on the used market.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinec5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6841 times:

Has there been another airplane that has been out for years, been succeeded by a longer, better airplane, then taken some points from that better plane, appled it to the original and succeed as a new airplane. If not, why couldn't it? Take the 767 for argument. In theory, could the 763ER be fitted with 772 engines, 764 wings, and come out as the 767-300LR?


"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6875 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6772 times:

Quoting c5load (Reply 12):
In theory, could the 763ER be fitted with 772 engines, 764 wings, and come out as the 767-300LR?

Why would you do that? Just buy a 787. Besides, the 772 engines are too large and heavy to fit on any variant of a 767.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19495 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6680 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 9):

The 77L almost didn't appear; it was a natural addition with the 77W, but there was little demand for it. That is why the 77W appeared first; but enough airlines desired the 77L that Boeing went ahead and certified it.

It kind of had to. Basically, it's just the 77W in a 772 airframe.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6631 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777-200LR and 777-300ER programs launched together in 2000, but lack of interest in the 777-200LR had Boeing stop design work on it for about a year until BR and PK placed orders in 2002, at which point they started up again.

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6875 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6433 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
It kind of had to. Basically, it's just the 77W in a 772 airframe.

They didn't HAVE to; they still had to spend considerable money certifying it. If nobody wanted it, why spend the money, even if (as you correctly state) most of the work had already been done? There was still more required.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2338 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5667 times:

The 77L is the best performing ultra long haul aircraft currently in production. In simple terms, it is fully modernized and current. Going forward the 787 will push much of this technology further.

The 77E is a design and product of the early/mid 90s. To put in perspective, the technology was predicated on delivering a type that would compete against the MD-11.

The 77L will be a mainstay in legacy fleets around the world for another 20 years. It's role will be replaced with flagship A350 and potential 787 future derivatives, but secondary support fleets will persist - much like DC-10 and 747 classics did in the '90s and the MD-11 with KL still today.

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 10):
I think when the B777-200ER is replaced by B787-9 and A350-9, they will replace many DC10s and even B747-200/400 converted freighters.



Yes, that's probably true... albeit in 10-12 years.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
They didn't HAVE to; they still had to spend considerable money certifying it.



Not considerable - that's a stretch. However, Boeing IS spending considerable money certifying the 787.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 4):
Quoting Delimit (Reply 1):
2. Range for the LR. Is anyone buying ERs anymore?

How about CO. They've had 2 delivered this year so far..



Two airframes delivered in 2010 isn't saying much; it's December 26th..



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4932 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5418 times:

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 6):
Worth noting is that the 77L is about 15,000lb heavier than the 77E.

But at a passenger load of about 300 passengers the TOW of the 77L is only 9000lb above the 77E. This is due to lower fuel load because of the better airframe engine performance of the 77L. This gap is probably closer today, the above data was from 2005.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6875 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5134 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 17):
Not considerable - that's a stretch.

It depends on your perspective. Compared to a new aircraft, yes, it is small. But if it came out of your pocket I think you'd consider it considerable. Just the flight testing alone has to amount to many, many millions.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinestitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5058 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
They didn't HAVE to; they still had to spend considerable money certifying it. If nobody wanted it, why spend the money, even if (as you correctly state) most of the work had already been done? There was still more required.

Well by certifying the 777-200LR, it should have helped streamline the certification of the 777 Freighter, so there was a benefit of doing so even if orders had been thin.



Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 10):
I think when the B777-200ER is replaced by B787-9 and A350-9, they will replace many DC10s and even B747-200/400 converted freighters.

Based on rumors of the conversion cost, 777-200ERs will only be viable for low-density package freight using the current main deck. To carry general cargo densities (160kg/m3) requires the entire main deck to be removed and replaced with the aluminum deck from the 777 freighter and that cost is said to be up to $100 million.

  

Nobody is going to do that, since the 777 Freighter is similar in price (when you add in the cost of the airframe) and would offer much better performance and better economics. So MD-11s flying general cargo loads and 747-200Fs will be replaced by 777 Freighters, which is actually good for Boeing since it means more sales.


User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2338 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4982 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19):
It depends on your perspective. Compared to a new aircraft, yes, it is small. But if it came out of your pocket I think you'd consider it considerable.



Why should we compare it to if it were out of our pockets? That's not relevant figuring Boeing is No 28 on the Fortune list. Boeing had nearly $12B in gross income last year and was well in the black during the cerification of the 77L.

So in the bigger picture, the millions spent on flight testing the 77L was not great enough to warrant the decision not to certify it, especially when adding the Freighter to the equation. The 77L is a niche aircraft, but it has sold - and will continue to do so.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/financia...ng-company/ba/nys/income-statement

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...500/2010/industries/207/index.html



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 777LR Vs 777ER
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boarding/De-planing Through L1 Vs. L2 posted Sun Dec 5 2010 22:54:54 by KGRB
Turbofan Thrust Lapse Rate - Core Vs. Bypass posted Sun Oct 10 2010 08:02:41 by titanmiller
Wingspan Vs. Wing Area posted Thu Oct 7 2010 08:47:43 by tsugambler
B727-23 Vs B727-123 posted Sun Oct 3 2010 21:02:47 by longhauler
Sharklets Vs Winglets posted Sat Sep 25 2010 12:57:34 by Goblin211
The 717 Wing Vs. The MD-80/MD-90 Wing posted Thu Sep 16 2010 09:36:32 by tsugambler
Wheels Vs Skids On Helicopters posted Tue Sep 7 2010 13:31:17 by SandroMag
Taxi Into Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait posted Sun Aug 15 2010 13:24:43 by accidentally
Nose Shape Of 787 Vs. Traditional Shape posted Thu Aug 5 2010 12:18:03 by tsugambler
Boeing 747-100 Having 2 Vs 3 Windows posted Wed Aug 4 2010 16:52:20 by airlinereporter

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format