Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fuel Efficiency Of Boeing 777-300  
User currently offlinecelestar From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 398 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10196 times:

Boeing B777 family is a great sales success. The first B777-300 was designed to replace B747-200 in mid to short haul flight. What was the saving from this replacement in terms of fuel, roughly speaking? B777-300 seems to be sold mostly in Asian carrier, and for the last ten years, the model that is selling well is the ER or the LR model. How much of percentage, up to now, for the total sales of 777 family is the regular 300 version vs the ER version? Do we agree that B777-200 non-ER version is not a great sales success? Why? I tend to think it is not as efficient as the A330 family in the routes it compete. Appreciate some knoweldge person to share some thoughts on this remarkable B777 family.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBreninTW From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1629 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10183 times:

According to Boeing's O&D:

Total 777 deliveries to date: 1017
777-200: 88
777-200ER: 417
777-200LR: 54
777-300: 60
777-300ER: 338
777F: 60

For some reason Boeing's 777-family report isn't reporting the non-ER/LR versions, so these numbers might be a little out.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2297 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10116 times:

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 1):
For some reason Boeing's 777-family report isn't reporting the non-ER/LR versions, so these numbers might be a little out.

Thats because they are no longer offered, they did the same with the 747, but from what I remember your numbers are correct.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30884 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10021 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing marketing claims the 777-300 burns 33% less fuel and has 40% lower operating costs than the 747-200. With a 3700nm range at MZFW, it was a purely regional plane which was why it generally was of interest to Asian carriers (SQ, CX, KE, TG, NH and JL) and EK. A total of 60 airframes were delivered to 8 carriers.

The 777-200 has indeed been eclipsed by the A330-300. While the 777-200 can lift more payload weight or fly farther than the A330-300* with the same payload, the A330-300 is a significantly lighter airframe, which makes it a fair bit more fuel efficient.

Once the A330-300 TOWs started to grow, that pretty much killed the 777-200 and allowed the plane to muscle in on territory formerly controlled by the 777-200ER (if you didn't need the extra range).



* - 45t payload with a 254t TOW for the 777-200 and 235t TOW for the A330-300E using Airbus and Boeing Payload-Range charts from their respective ACAPS. The A330-300X will see a TOW increase to 240t at which point it will fly about 300nm farther than the 777-200 with 45t.


User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10016 times:

All versions of the 777 can still be ordered and delivered. However, no one else will order any.


Christopher W Slovacek
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4941 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 10012 times:

The link below provides a performance summary on all 777 versions. Fuel burn per seat in the standard Boeing configuration might help you.


www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/777_perf.pdf


User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9963 times:

Correction to my above post:

Any 777 model can still be bought, but the 200, 200ER and 300 will not see anymore orders. The 300ER and 200F certainly will.



Christopher W Slovacek
User currently offlinecelestar From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 398 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9837 times:

Therefore, one can reasonably say, that the B777-200 and B777-300 was a sales failure?
Or, a more correct way to say, they paved the way for the successful sales for their long range family member - the ER/LR models? Correct me if I am wrong, I though the B777-200 would be a ideal upgrade for existing US domestic carrier who are using the old 767-200/300. I thought with all the retired DC10 and Tristar, the 777-200 or 300 would be a nice replacement plus upgrade in capacity. Maybe it is bad economy condition, we still see so many of these old birds flying and most US domestic carrier choose to buy 777-200ER (recently some limited 777-300ER) for international route. I understand the impact of 911 to the airline industry but still, overall speaking, not wanting to get into the Boeing vs Airbus fight, A330 seems to a good product and investment in this segment. The A340 was a total sales failre, being outdated so quickly.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30884 posts, RR: 86
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9793 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting celestar (Reply 7):
Therefore, one can reasonably say, that the B777-200 and B777-300 was a sales failure?

As individual models, yes.

The 777-200 and 777-200ER were (effectively) developed in parallel so airlines knew a more capable model was going to be available within a few years of the EIS of the 777-200. As such, customers either skipped the 777-200 and waited for the 777-200ER or they ordered a smaller number of 777-200s and a larger number of 777-200ERs depending on their needs.

By the time the 777-300 entered service (mid-1998) the number of 747-200Bs in use on regional missions were probably not very large. So the inherent market for the model would not have been very large.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19513 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9713 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The 777-200 and 777-200ER were (effectively) developed in parallel so airlines knew a more capable model was going to be available within a few years of the EIS of the 777-200. As such, customers either skipped the 777-200 and waited for the 777-200ER or they ordered a smaller number of 777-200s and a larger number of 777-200ERs depending on their needs.

Another way of looking at it is that the 77A was approximately a direct DC-10/L-1011 replacement. The 772's performance is far greater than the DC-10/L-1011 could ever have offered (you can fly a 772 from SFO to SYD; you can't do that with a DC-10/L-1011).

88+60 airframes is nothing to sneeze at. They just don't compare to the 77W and 772.

The 77L probably isn't a "failure," either. There is absolutely nothing in that airframe that doesn't also exist in either the 77F or 77W. The avionics, systems, wings, engines, interior, landing gear, etc. etc. etc. are all identical to the 77W or 77F. The design costs had to have been negligible with the only major expense in the program being certification. Obviously, I don't know the "break-even" number for the 77L but I'd bet that as few as ten frames would have done the trick. Boeing was well aware that it wasn't going to be a fast seller, but it was too easy not to design.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30884 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9565 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well the 777-200LR and 777 Freighter are effectively the same airframe aside from the floor beams, so between the two of them, they've likely paid off the R&D bill.

User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9551 times:

I doubt Boeing lost money on any of their 777 programmes and therefore turning a profit for a profit-seeking manufacturing business, I don't think any 777 variant can be deemed a failure.

User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1172 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9548 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
Any 777 model can still be bought, but the 200, 200ER and 300 will not see anymore orders.

While I agree with you on the -200 and -300, I wouldn't be so sure about the 777-200ER. ANA recently took delivery of a few and ASIANA will soon take delivery of one (HL8254) that is currently undergoing flight-tests at Seattle. I think its likely that the 777-200ER will see a few more small orders.



Air New Zealand; first to commercially fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9345 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
254t TOW for the 777-200

The information that Boeing provides about the 772's highest MTOW option is confusing, to say the least.

254t obviously comes from the payload-range chart http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7772sec3.pdf (page 4), dated July 1998.
The Airplane description http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7772sec2.pdf (pages 3 to 5) dated July 1999 says 242.63t (and obviously refers to the 772ER as the HGW option, not listing the heaviest variants), while Boeing's 772/772ER Technical Characteristics page http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_200product.html states 247.2t.
The 247.2t number is consistent with the EASA TCDS http://www.easa.europa.eu/certificat...28IM%29_Boeing_777-09-20072011.pdf (page 7), no such data in the FAA TCDS.


And the A330 payload-range chart STILL refers to the 233t MTOW versions of both the -200 and -300.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineat From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1027 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9090 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 12):
While I agree with you on the -200 and -300, I wouldn't be so sure about the 777-200ER. ANA recently took delivery of a few and ASIANA will soon take delivery of one (HL8254) that is currently undergoing flight-tests at Seattle. I think its likely that the 777-200ER will see a few more small orders.

Yes I agree as well. The 200ER remains the best selling, and arguably the most versatile, of all the 777s.
The question is how much more than a 200ER does the LR cost? If it's a small amount, then I can't see why anyone would order the 200ER, even if they don't need the extra range of the LR per se. But if the price differential is huge, than I can see a number of airlines continuing to order 777200ERs, esp as it is a nice fit sizewise between the smaller787 and larger 77W.


User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2297 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9079 times:

Quoting at (Reply 14):
The question is how much more than a 200ER does the LR cost? If it's a small amount, then I can't see why anyone would order the 200ER, even if they don't need the extra range of the LR per se. But if the price differential is huge, than I can see a number of airlines continuing to order 777200ERs, esp as it is a nice fit sizewise between the smaller787 and larger 77W.

The LR costs 31.1 million more according to Boeing lists prices. Prices are no longer listed for the 777-200/300 and hence not being offered, same for the 747 which only has prices for the 747-8I/8F.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/index.html



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30884 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9015 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 15):
Prices are no longer listed for the 777-200/300 and hence not being offered, same for the 747 which only has prices for the 747-8I/8F.

While not formally listed, if an airline wanted a 777-200 or 777-300, Boeing could build it for them as the airframes are effectively the same as the 777-200ER in terms of parts and the 777-200ER is still on offer.

The 747-8 represents a rather significant change from the 747-400 in enough areas that Boeing has chosen to no longer offer the earlier models for sale.


User currently offlineat From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1027 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8998 times:

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 15):
The LR costs 31.1 million more according to Boeing lists prices. Prices are no longer listed for the 777-200/300 and hence not being offered, same for the 747 which only has prices for the 747-8I/8F.

Wow, does this mean that the 200ER is not for sale anymore? If so, that seems premature to me. May be they want airlines to order the more expensive LR models?


User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2297 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8979 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
While not formally listed, if an airline wanted a 777-200 or 777-300, Boeing could build it for them as the airframes are effectively the same as the 777-200ER in terms of parts and the 777-200ER is still on offer.

True, but who would order one when the 200ER is still available?

Quoting at (Reply 17):
Wow, does this mean that the 200ER is not for sale anymore? If so, that seems premature to me. May be they want airlines to order the more expensive LR models?

It is still available, if you look at the link from my previous post your still see a price for it.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30884 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8919 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 18):
True, but who would order one when the 200ER is still available?

Evidently, nobody.  


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8295 times:

Quoting celestar (Reply 7):
Correct me if I am wrong, I though the B777-200 would be a ideal upgrade for existing US domestic carrier who are using the old 767-200/300. I thought with all the retired DC10 and Tristar, the 777-200 or 300 would be a nice replacement plus upgrade in capacity.

Correct. But the US airlines ended up replacing those domestic widebodies with 737NGs/A320s/757s. So no more domestic widebodies and thus no more 777-200s.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30884 posts, RR: 86
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8286 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting celestar (Reply 7):
I thought with all the retired DC10 and Tristar, the 777-200 or 300 would be a nice replacement plus upgrade in capacity.

When it came to DC-10 and L-1011 replacements, UA and AA went with the 777-200, while DL and CO went with the 767-400ER.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3394 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8135 times:

Quoting at (Reply 14):
I can't see why anyone would order the 200ER, even if they don't need the extra range of the LR per se

If you already operate the 200ER, and don't operate the 300ER or 200LR, ordering a 200LR would add a new type to your fleet. So its more than just how many dollars you drop when you pick up the keys to your new plane.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Fuel Efficiency Of Boeing 777-300
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...
X-Ray Of A Boeing 777 posted Thu Feb 4 2010 15:44:33 by Qslinger
Fuel Efficiency Of Q-400, ATR-72 And CRJ700 posted Mon May 12 2008 00:03:43 by Panais
Fuel Efficiency Of In-flight Refuelling Pax A/c posted Thu Jul 6 2006 08:08:11 by Art
Fuel Consumption Of Boeing 737 posted Wed Oct 25 2000 06:03:49 by Aero42
Comparing Fuel Efficiency Of JT3D-3/7's & JT8D-9's posted Wed Oct 11 2000 23:44:40 by Happy-flier
Boeing 777 Fuel Consumption posted Tue Jun 15 2010 02:41:26 by dkramer7
777-300 Boxes On Top Of Fuselage posted Sun Nov 19 2006 17:10:06 by SABE
Which A/c Burns Alot Of Fuel B747-400 Or A340-300? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 00:41:40 by AirCanada014
Boeing 777 Outer Ailerons Behaviour On Finals posted Thu Feb 16 2012 04:31:14 by madog
What The Secret To The Boeing 777 Safety Record? posted Mon Nov 28 2011 15:29:09 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format