Motorhussy
Topic Author
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Sun Aug 31, 2003 11:24 pm

What are the most obvious and not so obvious city pairs for these two aircraft?
SIN, BKK & KLI to LAX & JFK, but what else?
SYD-AKL-JFK?
SYD-PRT-LHR?
YVR-SYD?
What have Air Canada, Emirates and Qatar got planned?
And who's ordered the 777-200LR?
come visit the south pacific
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Sun Aug 31, 2003 11:36 pm

Other possible routes are ones the 777-200ER serves as well. The LR variant will be able to carry more payload on these routes. For example, CO flies from Newark to Hong Kong non-stop now, but they would have advantages using an LR variant on the same route.

I'm sure ConcordeBoy will be able to tell you more. He's a 777-200LR fanatic.  Big thumbs up
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
Motorhussy
Topic Author
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Sun Aug 31, 2003 11:42 pm

Thanks B_n will look into that.
come visit the south pacific
 
wolfy
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2001 12:07 pm

AC A340-500

Mon Sep 01, 2003 12:36 am

One of the route which AC planned to start with A345 was YYZ-JNB, others are YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG.

Wolfy
 
tsentsan
Posts: 1921
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:48 pm

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Mon Sep 01, 2003 1:10 am

Where is PRT?

*filler*
NO URLS in signature
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:21 am

Qatar hasn't ordered any 345, but I know somewhere down the road they might be interested in Doha to the US East Coast and West Coast using the 345 or 772LR. Emirates' near-term and mid-term plans include DXB-SYD and DXB-JFK and other North American destinations. EVA Air and PIA have ordered the 772LR. I believe EVA's plan for the 772LR is Taipei and the US East. I believe PIA's plan is also for the US East Coast.
 
Motorhussy
Topic Author
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:45 pm


Tsentsan

Apologies, PRT should read PER. Referring to a possible SYD - PER - LHR route where QF could fly Australia UK direct/non-stop.


Dynkrisolo

Qatar hasn't ordered any 345, but I know somewhere down the road they might be interested in Doha to the US East Coast and West Coast using the 345 or 772LR.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © French Frogs AirSlides
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jonathan Derden - SPOT THIS!



?

Regards
MH
come visit the south pacific
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:03 pm

The Qatar government has ordered one 345 for official use not for commercial services.
 
Motorhussy
Topic Author
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:32 pm

Kewl, thanks! Oh to have that oil wealth!

Looks good in their colours 'though.
come visit the south pacific
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 7:44 am

BR and PK have ordered the 772LR

BR is currently said to be calculating the use of the bird for nonstop service to PTY (yes, Panama) on behalf of the Evergreen group. The original plan to use it nonstop to EWR was reconsidered due to improvement in 773ER specifications.

PK has issued statements about using the birds from KHI to either IAH or LAX nonstop, but nowhere near finalized.

Yahoo Orders Group reports that KU is considering ordering the 772LR to expand their N.American services. Also, QR is to decide between the 772LR and A345 (despite already operating the A346) in 2004... stating that commonality is of little interest to them (the chatter QatarAirways can expand on that more than I)
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:02 am

Any truth that the 772LR only meets its specified range with two optional tanks that replace 4 LD3 containers ? someone mentioned this and it would impact the cargo space compared to the A345 if true ?

RickB
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:53 am

Any truth that the 772LR only meets its specified range with two optional tanks that replace 4 LD3 containers ?

Boeing makes it very clear that the 772LR's greater range is provided by two optional tanks in the cargo hold, though they only replace two LD3s, not four.

Some consider this an advantage, as the aircraft can be operated as a superhigh-powered 772ER* without the fuel tanks, with an enormous MTOW (the 772LR will have a higher MTOW than any twinjet ever designed); and don the extra tanks should an operator desire to use the bird for ultralonghaul.


*The disadvantage here, is that even the de-tanked 772LR is significantly more expensive than a GE90-94B powered 772ER with all options standard.


someone mentioned this and it would impact the cargo space compared to the A345 if true

To some extent. Though keep in mind that this is offset by two other factors:

1) the 772LR can hoist more cargo by weight than the A345
2) the A345 must take up valuable cabin or cargo area for crew rest, while the 772LR doesnt have to

[Edited 2003-09-02 01:54:09]
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:04 am

Well, we'll find out what will it be like to fly a really long flight when SQ starts its LAX-SIN non-stop service using the A340-500 in 2004. You have to wonder will it be able to make it west bound, or will SQ need to use HKG as a technical stop for fuel during the winter months?
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:07 am

The A340-500 will be able to make LAX-SIN easily year round.

It will likely be able to make it JFK-SIN year round.

N
 
ted747
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:28 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:12 am

But do people really want to fly JFK - SING non stop - thats a bloody long haul.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:16 am

As a frequent business traveller I will say I unequivocally choose nonstop travel whenever possible.

I need time at home, and I need time at my destination. I can only spare time at another airport when travelling for leisure.

N
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:10 am

Well, we'll find out what will it be like to fly a really long flight when SQ starts its LAX-SIN non-stop service using the A340-500 in 2004

SIN-LAX (8770mi) is fairly long, but it's not as if ATL-JNB (8439mi) and EWR-HKG (8065mi) arent already significant indicators of what ultralonghaul nonstops are like in their own right...  Laugh out loud
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:13 am

Gigneil:


The A340-500 will be able to make LAX-SIN easily year round.

It will likely be able to make it JFK-SIN year round.


I can assure you this will not be the case. If so, SQ would not configure their 345 with 190 or so seats.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:27 am

I think they're shooting for more of a luxurious experience than anything else.

N
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:57 am

Perhaps the all F/C config of the SQ 345 is to ensure nonstop ops on SIN-LAX by lowering revenue weight (if not revenue).

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:12 am

Gigneil:

Trust me, it's related to payload/range issues.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:17 am

So assumably the 777-200LR will have similar issues negotiating SIN-LAX and will likely not be able to do SIN-JFK at all either?

Its not a substantially more capable aircraft.

I can't believe both manufacturers would come to market with a plane not capable of traversing this, the single most pointed at route in the world in this range class.

N
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:36 am

Boeing's 777-200LR full passenger payload range chart (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html) shows Singapore on the very edge of the Los Angeles range circle; in fact, it's on the line, but more inside than outside. Eastbound, LAX is well inside the Singapore range circle. Airbus' A340-500 SIN chart clearly excludes even a SIN-LAX flight (http://www.airbus.com/product/a340_a500_performance.asp).

The latest specs give the 772LR about 300nm more range than the A345. This doesn't sound like enough to make the difference between an A345 payload restriction to 200 pax and a 772LR full load of 300. Perhaps the 772LR has a flatter payload-range slope than the A345. Published charts don't look very different, though.

--B2707SST

Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
Greg
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:53 am

SQ will initially be severely discounting the flights out of LAX at least until they determine demand (our travel department received our corporate discount scheme a month ago). Apparently, they want Raffles to develop a large following with the nonstop service (how can they not!).

As much as I'm not a fanatic of SQ--the nonstop flight will save hours off the travel time. We'll use it.
 
irishpower
Posts: 370
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:18 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 12:22 pm

SIN-LAX
SIN-SFO
SIN-JFK
SIN-ORD
BKK-LAX
BKK-JFK
KUL-LAX
DXB-JFK
DXB-SFO
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13174
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 12:50 pm

"DXB-JFK"

Malysian already flies EWR-DXB with a 777-200ER, on the way to Kula Lumpur.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Motorhussy
Topic Author
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:01 pm




One thing I know for sure, the A345 has the ability to fly SIN - LAX return year round with a normal full three-class configuration including standard freight.

SQ have chosen not to configure their craft like this in order to take advantage of the planned influx of premium passengers coming to them as they'll be the only airline offering this non-stop alternative.

Business passengers will always pay a premium for time saved and this will take hours off the current alternatives. It will be faster than a 772LR too due to no ETOPS constraints across that vast expanse of the Pacific.

Regards
MH
come visit the south pacific
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:35 pm

Concordeboy,

Just checked Boeing's website and it specifically mentions that each optional fuel tank takes the place of 2 LD3 containers - in which case the 2 optional tanks required would replace 4 LD3 containers on the 777 in order to meet its specified maximum range - presumably this would then impact how much freight it can carry as its more likely to be volume limited rather than weight limited ?

RickB
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5179
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 7:44 pm

Air France has fleet of 25 B777, all are -200ER version waiting April 2004 to be the launch company for the brand new -300ER  Love

The longest ever flight operated regularly by the 777-200ER for AF is PARIS-CDG ---> Santiago de Chili-SCL NONSTOP
 
Motorhussy
Topic Author
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:31 pm

FLYSSC

What's that got to do with this thread?

MH
come visit the south pacific
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:56 pm

Motorhussy:


One thing I know for sure, the A345 has the ability to fly SIN - LAX return year round with a normal full three-class configuration including standard freight.

SQ have chosen not to configure their craft like this in order to take advantage of the planned influx of premium passengers coming to them as they'll be the only airline offering this non-stop alternative.


This is absolutely incorrect. It is severely payload restricted. SQ believes the strategy of relying on premium traffic for ultra long haul flights will work for them. So, they are willing to take the risk of restricted payload.

Gigneil:


So assumably the 777-200LR will have similar issues negotiating SIN-LAX and will likely not be able to do SIN-JFK at all either?


Yes, but I would say the 772LR might have a payload advantage equivalent to a double digit number of extra passengers. For SQ, Airbus had to increase the 345 MTOW by 7t (read: extra fuel tanks) to meet SQ specific guarantees.

RickB:

Airbus is doing the same. I don't think I need to tell you why Airbus recently increased the MTOW of 345/6 by 3t and offered an "optional" 372t 345 to SQ. The baseline 345/6 already carries about 10% more fuel than the 772LR/3ER. With the additional lower-deck crew rest, I doubt the 345 would have any volumetric cargo advantage over the 772LR.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A340-500 Or 777-200LR City Pairs?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:40 am

It will be faster than a 772LR too due to no ETOPS constraints across that vast expanse of the Pacific.

Too bad there will be no such ETOPS "constraints" to obstruct the aircraft's path  Insane


SIN-LAX can easily be operated within the already-existing ETOPS180, and the 777NGs are expected to receive ETOPS ratings between 180/207-240 at service entry, with possible 330minute eventual certification  Laugh out loud
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!