Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777 Engine Differences--PW Vs GE/RR  
User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8272 times:

I've seen a lot written on A.net over the years about the supposed differences between airlines with PW-powered 777s versus GE/RR-powered 777s. It's my understanding that there are no operational or cost differences on the majority of routes...My question is at what stage length do the GE & RR engines start to deliver more than the PW engines? In particular, I'm wondering about United's 777 fleet. PMCO 777s operate EWR-HKG/PVG/PEK/BOM/DEL. These are all pretty long routes that I imagine test the 772ER. Would PMUA 772ERs with PW engines be able to operate any/all of these routes? What penalties would there be?

Similarly, are there any United 772ER routes such as IAD-DXB or KWI, or LAX-SYD (sometimes operated by the 777) where United faces a penalty and would be better operated with a GE-powered 777?

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3186 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8212 times:

Quoting washingtonian (Thread starter):
or LAX-SYD (sometimes operated by the 777)

No, LAX-SYD is not "sometimes" operated by the 777. It is operated by a 744; as it was in the beginning, is now, and forever shall be...  

While only anecdotal evidence, I know a CO 777 driver who says they consistently take weight hits going to China and India. It's not a question of "if", but a question of "how bad". So while UA's 777's do tend to operate shorter stage lengths transoceanically, they aren't *that* much different performance or capability wise. The increased power of the CO birds with GE motors will only be noticed out of performance-critical airports. JNB, DEN, etc.



A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
User currently offlinescorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 400 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7880 times:

Quoting washingtonian (Thread starter):
Similarly, are there any United 772ER routes such as IAD-DXB or KWI, or LAX-SYD (sometimes operated by the 777) where United faces a penalty and would be better operated with a GE-powered 777?

I'm sure they took penalties, but UA have, on occasion operated their 777 ORD-HKG which is their longest route. (for a while it was operating the second, service that didn't run every day)


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3186 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7649 times:

Quoting scorpy (Reply 2):
I'm sure they took penalties, but UA have, on occasion operated their 777 ORD-HKG which is their longest route. (for a while it was operating the second, service that didn't run every day)

This is also incorrect. The non-daily second service was SFO-HKG, not ORD-HKG. The 2nd daily frequency was dropped when UA started their LAX-HKG service back in... I want to say 2007... which was then subsequently dropped and the 2nd frequency on SFO-HKG was never brought back.



A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24792 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7578 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 1):
No, LAX-SYD is not "sometimes" operated by the 777. It is operated by a 744; as it was in the beginning, is now, and forever shall be...

The 777 was indeed planned for SYD and even loaded in CRS. It was pulled and reverted back to the 744 about 2mos out.

And no the 744 wont be doing Australia forever.

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 3):
The non-daily second service was SFO-HKG, not ORD-HKG.

No really ORD-HKG was indeed scheduled and operated on a 777 one season. Winter 06/spring 07

Google Flyeryalk and you'll see folks discussing it that flew it, quite happily it seems for those in Y.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinescorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 400 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7485 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
No really ORD-HKG was indeed scheduled and operated on a 777 one season. Winter 06/spring 07

Google Flyeryalk and you'll see folks discussing it that flew it, quite happily it seems for those in Y.

Indeed. At the time, UA was flying to HK more than twice daily, with additional flights on some days from SFO and ORD. Those flights were the ones that were shifted to LAX, and the 777 did sometimes operate the ORD flight. Not sure about SFO as I never fly to Asia from there. As LAXintl says, this was the flight to take if you were going to be stuck in Y.


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3186 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7454 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
And no the 744 wont be doing Australia forever.

Thank you for correcting my obviously tongue-in-cheek comment  



A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7408 times:

The PWs sound amazing, that's the most important difference to me. They don't look nearly as impressive, but that vacuum cleaner woo-woo-woo does it for me every single time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuLMJXemd-Y



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineN243NW From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 1624 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7198 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 7):
The PWs sound amazing, that's the most important difference to me. They don't look nearly as impressive, but that vacuum cleaner woo-woo-woo does it for me every single time:

   I don't know why, but I just don't find the GE90 sound to be that exciting. Give me the buzzsaw of a PW or Trent instead.



B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
User currently offlinescorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 400 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6971 times:

The payload range charts available here:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7772sec3.pdf

Indicate that while there is a difference, it is not huge.

Taking a UA aircraft at 648,000 MTOW vs a CO aircraft and 656,000 it would appear the difference is around 300nm. So this probably means the UA aircraft take more of a hit on routes like EWR-HKG if they tried it...

this diagram shows differences in engine selection (although assuming the same MTOW)

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/777_payload.pdf

The difference between the GE and the PW on the 777-200ER looks even smaller. The scale makes it hard to read, but at max payload maybe 100nm...

I think this otherwise small difference gets way overblown on a.net.

Now the non-ER 777 that UA has, thats another story.


User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6420 times:

Quoting scorpy (Reply 9):
The payload range charts available here:

Thanks!

Quoting scorpy (Reply 9):
The difference between the GE and the PW on the 777-200ER looks even smaller. The scale makes it hard to read, but at max payload maybe 100nm...

I guess we'll see if they put a PMUA 777 on EWR-HKG!


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24794 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6284 times:

Quoting scorpy (Reply 5):
Google Flyeryalk and you'll see folks discussing it that flew it, quite happily it seems for those in Y.

Indeed. At the time, UA was flying to HK more than twice daily, with additional flights on some days from SFO and ORD. Those flights were the ones that were shifted to LAX, and the 777 did sometimes operate the ORD flight. Not sure about SFO as I never fly to Asia from there. As LAXintl says, this was the flight to take if you were going to be stuck in Y.

I doubt the unfortunate passengers in the middle seat in the 5-abreast center section were very happy. I bellieve UA is switching from 2-5-2 to 3-3-3 on some (or all?) of their 777s, matching CO and DL. That will leave AA as one of the only 777 operators in the world with 2-5-2 seating in Y. Still better than 10-abreast.


User currently offlineJA8119 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2011, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6203 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):
That will leave AA as one of the only 777 operators in the world with 2-5-2 seating in Y

What about MH?


User currently offlinescorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 400 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6129 times:

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 10):
I guess we'll see if they put a PMUA 777 on EWR-HKG!

It will be interesting. This route may be one of the ones that the ~400nm difference starts to really come into play, given EWR is just a little further than ORD is (from HKG)....


User currently offlinehal9213 From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5844 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 7):
The PWs sound amazing, that's the most important difference to me. They don't look nearly as impressive, but that vacuum cleaner woo-woo-woo does it for me every single time:
Quoting N243NW (Reply 8):
I don't know why, but I just don't find the GE90 sound to be that exciting. Give me the buzzsaw of a PW or Trent instead.

Whaaaat? If anything is "wooooohh"ing, thats the RR on spoolup!!    And buzzing away like a sore throat is the lovely deep toned GE90-115    It makes itself noticable on startup miles away.   
Haha, talk about religion... Now we got a PW4k-fan, RR700-fan and a GE90-fan, all complete.   


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 777 Engine Differences--PW Vs GE/RR
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...
CFM Vs RR Vs GE Vs PW posted Tue Mar 1 2011 07:40:39 by mir2069
A330/777 Engine Changes To RR Trent posted Sat Jul 17 2010 14:22:39 by faro
Engine Thrust: Rating Vs. Real Differences posted Sun Sep 24 2006 20:49:42 by A342
A380 Vs 777 Engine Size posted Wed Mar 1 2006 22:43:06 by Okees
Engine Mountings Down Vs. Side posted Sun Feb 6 2011 12:06:06 by MadDogJT8D
Boeing 777 Engine And APU Questions posted Wed Dec 29 2010 14:36:15 by Thrust
777 Engine Startup - Why Such A Low Sound? posted Mon Jan 18 2010 12:43:13 by Edoca
GE/RR Team Plans To Resume F136 Testing In May posted Wed Apr 1 2009 08:04:41 by Aviationbuff
777 Engine Question posted Mon Dec 31 2007 13:26:48 by Thrust
777 Engine Change posted Thu Dec 6 2007 10:08:13 by LMP737

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format