Bsmalls35
Topic Author
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:32 am

Continental And The 777-200LR

Sat Jul 03, 2004 3:45 am

I was just reading another thread about Cathay's recently launched service between NY and Hong Kong on the a340-600 and possible payload restrictions. Since Continental offers service from EWR on the 777-200ER I assume they have payload restrictions too. Would the 777-200LR have the legs to carry a full load of passengers and cargo on the route? Will Continental ever order the 777-200LR?
 
scottysair
Posts: 6442
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:07 pm

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sat Jul 03, 2004 3:46 am

The answer is no and it will not orders with 777-200LR either.
 
slider
Posts: 6806
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sat Jul 03, 2004 3:59 am

Scotty's right....the LR will increase range but not at max payload since you still have to get the sucker off the ground in the first place!

In CO's case, the EWR-HKG flight is the most problematic load planning and weight & balance flight in the system.

Past a certain temperature (I think 84 degrees F or something), every degree in temp variation can impact the overall payload by 2000 lbs. That results in major seat blocks to accommodate the necessary weight restriction.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5015
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sat Jul 03, 2004 4:01 am

.......and the A346-HGW is coming next year with Qatar as 1st customer!
IMHO the T7LR is no hit.

Mike//SE  Big grin
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sat Jul 03, 2004 4:30 am

IMHO the T7LR is no hit.

No hit? An aircraft that hasn't even been built yet?

The 777LR will most probably never attain large numbers, but will be a useful Boeing marketing tool. It will ensure that they can offer a family that will cover all commonality, range and capacity needs for a future 777 family buyer.

You can make conclusions like that the day an aircraft ceases production. There are a lot of 747 operators out there who will be looking for replacements in the next ten to fifteen years, who will not want to go A380. That's when the 777LR will count, as part of a package.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sat Jul 03, 2004 4:53 am

Unless something dramatic happens in the airline industry, CO is not in the market for new large airliners at this time. Although doing better than most other US carriers, the simple fact is that money is tight and CO is still not profitable.......CO had hoped to be profitable by the current quarter, but high fuel costs put an end to that. Until CO is making money (on a consistent basis), Gordon & company is unlikely to place orders for additional new aircraft.

I am sure that CO would like to add the 777LR....it would make EWR-HKG operations easier and allow them to think about opening up other routes to China (when authorities are granted), Bangkok, Singapore and other such destinations out of EWR and IAH, but its just not going to happen in the current financial enviornment.

CO has one current paid-for option outstanding on the 777 series, it is likely to accept another 777-200ER to match the rest of its 777 fleet, and thats about it for the time being with respect to CO widebodies. Most future international expasion at CO, per rumors, will be transatlantic and handled by 757 aircraft and additional tweaking of the 767 scheduling.
 
Thrust
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sat Jul 03, 2004 5:06 am

Still the GE-90 engines are probably going to make the 772LR a bit more attractive to CO....
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sat Jul 03, 2004 5:08 am

CO would absolutely love to have the 772LR, and even more so the 7E7.... just that they wouldnt be so wild about PAYING for either one of them.

As I've said here many times before: Boeing does have a trump-card with the 772LR that they can [but currently have little incentive] to play: if and when a competitor actually develops a 250-300seater which can equal or exceed the 772ER's performance capability at a similar cost; Boeing's already got a superMTOW ready-to-go 772ERX in the de-tanked 772LR.

The only thing preventing that from occurring at this point (and rightfully so, from Boeing's perspective) is acquisition costs: even a bare-bones 772LR still lists for considerably more than a 772ER with all-options-standard
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sat Jul 03, 2004 8:57 pm

Oooh.... CO 777LR....... up to 9280 nm range....

EWR-SYD
EWR-KUL
EWR-SIN
EWR-BOM

IAH-SYD
IAH-KUL
IAH-SIN
IAH-BOM
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
MerC
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 5:45 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sat Jul 03, 2004 10:30 pm

IMHO the T7LR is no hit.

 Insane

It's Scandinavian
 
HUPilot
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 10:27 pm

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sat Jul 03, 2004 10:41 pm

Scotty's right....the LR will increase range but not at max payload since you still have to get the sucker off the ground in the first place!

The LR is an LR because of it's ability to carry more fuel than the standard ER (not to mention the performance increase because of the winglets). This means that it will be able to carry the same generic payload as a standard T7 or an ER, but with additional fuel which will increases it's MTOW.

With the 777LR's increased MTOW it does not have to be used to its full endurance, especially on proven ER routes, but rather as a ultra-MTOW 777ER enabling it to carry MORE passengers and MORE cargo in lieu of the extra fuel.
 
cx123
Posts: 683
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 8:51 pm

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:00 pm

When you have payload restictions, how many passengers have to be offloaded?
Also what will happen to those seats??? Taped off?
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:08 am

I always read the constant BS on here about all the passengers getting offloaded from the EWR-HKG-EWR flight, and it is utter BS. Most of the time the aircraft goes out with 44 and 232 which is capacity for that aircraft. Ocassionally there is a weight restriction on the way back, but we are talking 4 seats, not 50.

The 4 businessfirst seats are held for crew rest, as are the 3 seats in the last row of coach for crew rest, unless it is a class A oversell, then the agents are allowed to release the coach seats.

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

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sun Jul 04, 2004 2:07 am

EWR-SYD

At this point, even the 772LR will not be capable of nonstop NYC-SYD with any decent payload.

However, why bother, when they could theoretically (particularly with furture expectant ETOPS allotments) offer the flight via IAH, and offer much more connections therefrom.

Would be funny to see wee lil' CO (perhaps with the assistance of DL/NW) beat AA/QF into the Australian market from Texas.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sun Jul 04, 2004 2:08 am

Hey Fartsyman...

...know if CO's ever taken any keen interest in overhead crew rests a la DL/AZ/etc?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
NWA742
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 11:35 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sun Jul 04, 2004 2:15 am

IMHO the T7LR is no hit

Solnabo, could you shutup already? This is not surprise coming from you, you don't think any Boeing aircraft is a "hit", let alone a good aircraft, but every single aircraft Airbus makes is some kind of God's send.




-NWA742
Some people are like slinkies - not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sun Jul 04, 2004 2:44 am

EWR-SYD = 8629 nm with a 207 ETOPS restriction. Still 600+ nm to spare. Even with head winds, wouldn't the 777LR have the legs?

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=ewr-syd&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=&PATH-UNITS=nm&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=&ETOPS=207

Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sun Jul 04, 2004 3:03 am

On a journey that long, the 600 miles would soon be eaten into.

Factor in considerations such as winds, storms and the basic fact that point-to-point flying is still some time off, and it makes the total mileage rise considerably. That's one reason why many routes which are at the aircraft limit (or close to it) end up taking a fuel stop. SAA and the A346 comes to mind.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:06 am

Even with head winds, wouldn't the 777LR have the legs?

According to Boeing, nope, it wouldn't. Even typical winds (85th percentile) are enough to keep the westbound out of the twinjet's reach.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
ND
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 4:48 pm

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:47 am

Perhaps IAH-SYD would be more suitable for the capabilites of the 772LR. Although I doubt that a market exists for such a segment.
ND - Hated By Many, Confronted By None
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sun Jul 04, 2004 11:28 am

Scotty's right....the LR will increase range but not at max payload since you still have to get the sucker off the ground in the first place!

A 777-200LR with max payload will still feature large amounts more range than a 777-200ER with max payload.

N
 
TexAussie
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 5:26 pm

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Sun Jul 04, 2004 10:08 pm

I think Texas will be the next US state to get an Australian nonstop. QF wants it. With the hubs at DFW (AA/QF) and IAH (Co... but now include NW and DL with SkyTeam), the state is an ideal entry point.

As someone who makes the Kangaroo-Cattle run a lot, I can assure you there are a lot of people on the LAX routes who would prefer to enter the US in the Central time zone... flights East out of LA take the whole day... and dry up after 2PM so options are limited.

Arriving into DFW or IAH at 6AM would give Australian passengers access to the Southwest, Midwest, and Southeast (and even the Northeast) in the same business day. They could get to Miami, New York, Atlanta, Raleigh, DC, etc all before lunch... instead of 6PM+ under the current LAX connections.

Anyone who thinks there is no more market to be claimed between SYD/MEL and the US has not flown the route in a long time. All the flights go out full in business class, mostly full in 1st and quite-to-completely full in Y.

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

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Mon Jul 05, 2004 12:10 am

CO would still have something of a disadvantage in that it could only feed one side of the flight.... perhaps multilaterally sharing DJ?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
9V-SPF
Posts: 1340
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 6:42 pm

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:09 am

Solnabo, could you shutup already? This is not surprise coming from you, you don't think any Boeing aircraft is a "hit", let alone a good aircraft, but every single aircraft Airbus makes is some kind of God's send.

You´re just giving him the attention he wants. Leave him alone and maybe some day he´ll stop posting bullshit.

One question: Has CO ever served Australia?
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:14 am


One question: Has CO ever served Australia?


Yes. It was never profitable for them, and Gordon Bethune dropped it after becoming CEO.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
A330323X
Posts: 2666
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:06 pm

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am

One question: Has CO ever served Australia?

Yes. It was never profitable for them, and Gordon Bethune dropped it after becoming CEO.

CO still serves Australia. 3x weekly GUM-CNS.
I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:12 am

CO served Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland, Nadi and Pago Pago in the late 1970s until the mid 1980s with DC10 aircraft. Flights were routed LAX to HNL and then went on to South Pacific destinations - some flights were routed via the islands on certain days of the week while others went nonstop to Auckland or Sydney and continued on to Melbourne. Also, American Airlines at one time flew a south pacific network with 707s which did not last very long. CO ordered two additional DC10-30s (the last DC10s ordered by CO direct from Douglas) to operate the south pacific services. Intitially, CO did OK with the south pacific, but with the introduction of longer-range aircraft, CO had difficulty competing with new nonstop and onestop flights accross the pacific and pax grew tiresome of CO's two-stop non-daily services to pacific destinations.

Regarding a potential IAH-SYD nonstop, if CO chose to operate it, I think it would be a major success, as it would provide many, many connection opportunities out of IAH that are not available out of LAX of SFO, an Australian connection via IAH would offer easy one-stop opporunities between Australia and the entire Gulf Coast/Midwest/Southeast regions of the US (where AA is not that strong) and easy connections to Latin America......an EWR-IAH-SYD routing would be ideal. We can dream, cant we?
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:32 am

and the entire Gulf Coast/Midwest/Southeast regions of the US (where AA is not that strong)

Unfortunately... neither is CO, that's DL territory.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
COfaninBOS
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 12:32 pm

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:10 pm

CO isn't nearly as strong as DL in the Southeast/Gulf Coast areas, but CO has made major strides in service from IAH. In the past 3-5 years, non-stop service has been introduced to places like Fayetteville/NW Arkansas, Texarkana TX, Huntsville/Decatur AL, Augusta GA, Tallahassee FL, Richmond VA, Fort Walton Beach FL, Charleston WV, Lexington KY, Asheville NC, and Sarasota/Bradenton FL.

Look for further expansion from IAH to places like Montgomery AL, Chattanooga TN, and Myrtle Beach SC in the near future.



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

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:13 am

Also worth adding to this thread:

...since 2000, CO has twice reviewed and decided against the option to PIP its GE90s. Casts a shadow on any hope that they would utilize detanked 772LRs any time soon. :'(
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5015
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:47 am

If I got an opinion about 772LR I write about it, ok??
Couldn´t care less if you tell me to "STFU", (getting used to it) made a point about LR and if U dont like it......tuf! Go stright to the next opinion then, and dont read mine!

I´m not a Boeing-basher exept 737´s and most of you know that. Most people in here say that "A345 and 777LR is a niche a/c" I agree with that.
How many 72LR has been sold so far compared to 345? 5 and 21?
As long as I live in the free world I speak my mind.........period! Hell, I´m extatic that Europe has come this far in 32 years with Airbus, who wouldnt.
So go on and call me an a$$hole, I dont care!

Mike//SE  Big thumbs up
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:53 am

You´re just giving him the attention he wants. Leave him alone and maybe some day he´ll stop posting bullshit.

...just a reminder to anyone who might be tempted to respond to Reply#30  Big grin
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5015
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:03 am

C-boy:
You seems to be the QueenBitch in here, so why dont you start...*lol*
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
ND
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 4:48 pm

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Tue Jul 06, 2004 4:38 am

Solnabo,

With all the crap you write, I sometimes wonder why you pay to post here.

ConcordeBoy might seem like "QueenBitch" here, but at least he's correct. He's the kind of person who can provide accurate data to those who are in need of it. It's people like you Solnabo, in your blatant endorsement of Airbus products, that confuse newcomers on this board into thinking we can actually consider you a credible source.
ND - Hated By Many, Confronted By None
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5015
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:09 am

I´m sorry but I am no Einstein In Aviation! "Solnabo" is a happy amatour and gonna stay that way.......
In what way will I "confuse newcomers"? I never stated that I´m a credible source, that´s for sure, they surely find that out  Nuts
Take it or leave it , my friend!

Mike  Big thumbs up
*a happy shit*
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2460
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:18 am

"...since 2000, CO has twice reviewed and decided against the option to PIP its GE90s."

ConcordeBoy,

I'm afraid you're information is 6 days too old:  Laugh out loud

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/ge90/ge90_20040630.html

Regards,

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Tue Jul 06, 2004 9:12 am

That is actually quite interesting...

Has CO also decided to uprate their engines, or will they remain rated for 90,000 lbs?

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

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Wed Jul 07, 2004 4:50 am

I'm afraid you're information is 6 days too old

Email Incoming Hamlet... got more to add to the release (straight from CO)




or will they remain rated for 90,000 lbs

Forwarded the same thing to you as well... they'll remain at 90K
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
raggi
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 4:34 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Wed Jul 07, 2004 7:53 am

Interesting.

But I have a question: Why would CO choose not to uprate the thrust to 94K (or 93.700), like other PIP customers?

raggi
Stick & Rudder
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Wed Jul 07, 2004 7:58 am

Increasing thrust lowers engine life. It's the same as running your car engine at high revs or just keeping it to under 3000RPM.

If they don't need the thrust hike then a PIP will give them the added economy.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
raggi
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 4:34 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Wed Jul 07, 2004 9:55 am

OK, I see.
But wouldn't the added thrust be of good use on the long hauls EWRHKG, IAHNRT and so on?

Is CO the only one of the airlines that have ordered the PIP (Kuwait, AF, CZ, NG are the ones I can think of right now) for the GE90 but not upped the thrust?

raggi
Stick & Rudder
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:22 am

But wouldn't the added thrust be of good use on the long hauls EWRHKG, IAHNRT and so on?

...course it would, just as it'd be a "waste" on all the EWR-LGWs/CDGs/MANs/etc that don't.

Perhaps if/when CO begins more transpacs will they reconsider it.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2460
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Wed Jul 07, 2004 3:26 pm

"Increasing thrust lowers engine life. It's the same as running your car engine at high revs or just keeping it to under 3000RPM.
If they don't need the thrust hike then a PIP will give them the added economy.
"

Good summation. However, there is one more point to consider: per my understanding, it is possible to have an engine physically rated to a certain thrust rating (say 93,700 lbs.  Big grin ), but operate them at a lower thrust rating set through the aircraft's on board computers. IIRC, this is what SQ does with their de-rated Trents.


ConcordeBoy,

Got your e-mail, thanks. Also - just a technicality - it was Gigneil who asked about the thrust rating, not myself.

Regards,

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:57 am

CX as well
(IINM, CXFlyBoy was stating that they sometimes use the full 184,000lbs out of India)



Got your e-mail, thanks.

Your thoughts?

...you dont find the disparity in dates to be slightly odd, particularly considering I've got two sources to verify [the email memo's claim] that the 3D-Aero has actually already been installed??
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Continental And The 777-200LR

Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:19 am

Forgot to add Hamlet,
my email is acting screwy today... so if you replied and answered any of the above, please excuse the redundancy  Big grin
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!

Who is online