User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:00 pm

According to Boeing, the 777-200LR, on a "typical long-range route (e.g., LAX-SIN)," is:

  • Able to carry 21 more passengers

  • Able to carry 22,300 more pounds of "revenue cargo"

  • Use 22,000 liters (5,800 gallons) less fuel

    Are these figures accurate? If so, it seems like a no-brainer that airlines would choose the 772LR over the A345.
  •  
    N1120A
    Posts: 26467
    Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:28 pm

    >Able to carry 21 more passengers<

    It is actually more than that

    >Able to carry 22,300 more pounds of "revenue cargo"<

    SQ can carry no cargo EWR-SIN, while the 772LR will do about 16,000 pounds

    >Use 22,000 liters (5,800 gallons) less fuel<

    Might be even less if the 773ER is any indication

    >Are these figures accurate? If so, it seems like a no-brainer that airlines would choose the 772LR over the A345.<

    Yes they are, even more so, and you probably just created a thread that will last 2 months and get 300 responses
    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
     
    777ER
    Crew
    Posts: 9855
    Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:22 pm

    Able to carry 21 more passengers
    Able to carry 22,300 more pounds of "revenue cargo"
    Use 22,000 liters (5,800 gallons) less fuel
    Are these figures accurate?


    As Boeing is a very respectable aircraft builder then I don't think Boeing would publish or state things if they believe it was not possible. Boeing stated things about the B773ER and Boeing got better results then what they believed was possible.

    it seems like a no-brainer that airlines would choose the 772LR over the A345. Once the B772LR flys and boeing are correct, or even better results are achieved then what Boeing believed was possible then once airlines relise that the B772LR performs better then the A345 then expect a mass migration on orders for the B772LR
    Head Forum Moderator
    moderators@airliners.net
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:30 pm

    migration on orders

    ...what orders? The A345 ain't exactly sellin' like pancakes.
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    777ER
    Crew
    Posts: 9855
    Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:41 pm

    ...what orders? The A345 ain't exactly sellin' like pancakes.
    maybe because the A345 has not really been proven yet. Another reason why the A345 has not been selling like hot cakes is because of the worlds aviation industry at the moment. 21 A345s have been sold compared to 4 B772LRs
    Head Forum Moderator
    moderators@airliners.net
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:20 pm

    maybe because the A345 has not really been proven yet

    It's been pushed to the maximum of its performance capability for months, as well as performed in the B-market for over a year now.

    Some [relatively] short time I know-- but so far as performance profile is concerned, not that much more "proving" left.




    21 A345s have been sold compared to 4 B772LRs

    ...ya might wanna doublecheck those numbers bub.  Big grin
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    boeingfever777
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:35 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:26 pm

    21 A345s have been sold compared to 4 B772LRs

    What are the correct figs?
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
     
    777ER
    Crew
    Posts: 9855
    Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:34 pm

    ConcordeBoy

    I got the figs from airbus.com
    Head Forum Moderator
    moderators@airliners.net
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:10 pm

    ...ah, there's your first mistake right there  Laugh out loud
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:14 pm

    Fred,

    so what are the right numbers? Why don't you provide them?


    Here it is:

    5 B772LR vs 25 A345. Simple as that.



    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:22 pm

    Why don't you provide them?

    ...what'd be the fun in that?  Nuts
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:26 pm

    Oh I see, it would hurt you personally...  Wink/being sarcastic


    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
     
    777ER
    Crew
    Posts: 9855
    Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:32 pm

    Udo

    Or maybe ConcordeBoy doesn't have access to the figures
    Head Forum Moderator
    moderators@airliners.net
     
    User avatar
    scbriml
    Posts: 13353
    Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:35 pm

    ConcordeBoy

    I got the figs from airbus.com


    Yes, he wasn't moaning about the Airbus numbers (although he hates them  Laugh out loud), but the fact that you'd understated Boeing's sales of 772LRs by a whole 1!

    The customers -

    Boeing 772LR
    PIA 2
    EVA 3

    Airbus A340-500
    Air Canada 2
    Emirates 10
    Qatar (Emiri) 1
    Singapore 5
    Thai 3
    plus announced but not signed yet
    Etihad 4
    Thai 1

    I don't believe I've missed any announced 772LR orders, but I'm sure Concordeboy will be along very soon to correct me if I'm wrong.

    So there won't be any mass migration at all, because the sales of pax VLR aircraft currently totals less than 30.
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
     
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:35 pm

    I'm quite sure he has access, but he only gives figures which he likes...but he doesn't have to do it, we do it for him!  Laugh out loud


    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
     
    N1120A
    Posts: 26467
    Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:44 pm

    >I'm quite sure he has access, but he only gives figures which he likes...but he doesn't have to do it, we do it for him!<

    It seems more often that he is the one who has to post the figures you don't like, you know the ones that tell how much the 777 outperforms the A340
    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
     
    777ER
    Crew
    Posts: 9855
    Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:45 pm

    So there won't be any mass migration at all What about after all the airlines crisies are over, fuel returns to descent prices etc?

    I'm quite sure he has access, but he only gives figures which he likes...but he doesn't have to do it, we do it for him! Fair Enough
    Head Forum Moderator
    moderators@airliners.net
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:59 pm

    I don't believe I've missed any announced 772LR orders, but I'm sure Concordeboy will be along very soon to correct me if I'm wrong.

    ...indeed:
    just to add, GECAS has an LOI for eight 772LRs which has yet to be firmed.




    What about after all the airlines crisies are over, fuel returns to descent prices etc?

    ...what about it?

    That still won't facilitate the need for C-market aircraft in the overwhelming majority of airlines, and very few of them haul payload on routes such that a C-market aircraft would be used nigh-exclusively B-markt.
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:17 pm

    >It seems more often that he is the one who has to post the figures you >don't like, you know the ones that tell how much the 777 outperforms the >A340

    Oh my dear! I know that the B777 outperforms the A340 in terms of seat mile costs, payload, range or other figures. The A340's advantage is elsewhere, e.g. lower price tag, no ETOPS restrictions, commonality with other Airbus types and so on.
    HOWEVER, the decision to operate a certain type depends on some hundred different aspects. Taking all these aspects into consideration, certain airlines find the B777 more economic to operate, certain airlines the A340. It's so simple.

    There's no reason to keep back figures or get emotional about the issues. And are there figure that I don't like? Not really, only in your imagination. I like all aircraft, no matter if A, B, C, D, E...

    And from a passenger point of view, I would always prefer a B777 over an A340 (-200/300)...because I don't like falling asleep on take off. And in German I like to call the A340 (-200/300) a "Staubsauger" which means "vacuum cleaner".  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
    Any questions left? Or anything else to "pawloff" about?  Wink/being sarcastic


    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
     
    User avatar
    solnabo
    Posts: 5015
    Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:28 pm

    What routes can -LR do with full pax n cargo that 345 can´t?

    Micke//SE  Insane
    Airbus SAS - Love them both
     
    N1120A
    Posts: 26467
    Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:28 pm

    I know that the B777 outperforms the A340 in terms of seat mile costs, payload, range or other figures.<

    You left off fuel burn and MX cost

    >The A340's advantage is elsewhere, e.g. lower price tag, no ETOPS restrictions, commonality with other Airbus types and so on.<

    What, the A320 and the engines? Also, ETOPS means that the 777 has a lower turnback rate and does not affect routes anymore, since they now have ETOPS 180 and 207 and will have ETOPS 330.
    Also, since it is not on the same type certificate as any other Airbus type, you have to go through full type training if you shift, so commonality does not really exist.


    >HOWEVER, the decision to operate a certain type depends on some hundred different aspects.<

    Can you name those exact hundred aspects?


    > I like all aircraft, no matter if A, B, C, D, E...<

    Riiiight, that is why you sound like a broken record

    >And from a passenger point of view, I would always prefer a B777 over an A340 (-200/300)...because I don't like falling asleep on take off.<

    I really don't know where this quiet thing comes from, there is really not a noticable difference.

    >And in German I like to call the A340 (-200/300) a "Staubsauger" which means "vacuum cleaner".<

    As opposed to "schlechtesflieger" oder "langsamkletterer"?
    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
     
    777ER
    Crew
    Posts: 9855
    Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:36 pm

    What routes can -LR do with full pax n cargo that 345 can't? Well for starters fly further. Smile
    Head Forum Moderator
    moderators@airliners.net
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:38 pm

    ...might wanna re-read what he wrote cher  Big grin
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    N1120A
    Posts: 26467
    Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:40 pm

    >What routes can -LR do with full pax n cargo that 345 can't? Well for starters fly further<

    Try LAX-SIN and EWR-SIN. Why do you think the A345 for SQ only holds 181 people and cannot carry cargo on the eastbounds? Oh, it also burns less fuel
    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:44 pm

    ...the A345 does carry cargo on the eastbound SoCal, typically around 6-7 tons in fact (so I hear)  Big grin
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    N1120A
    Posts: 26467
    Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:48 pm

    >the A345 does carry cargo on the eastbound SoCal, typically around 6-7 tons in fact (so I hear)<

    sorry, meant the EWR eastbounds
    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
     
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:21 pm

    >You left off fuel burn and MX cost

    That’s why I said “or other figures”. I was giving some examples, not all. And in terms of maintenance some all-Airbus operators or combined A330/A340 operators might tell you something else.


    >What, the A320 and the engines?

    Several airlines operate all-Airbus fleets or are aiming at going all-Airbus. Other airlines operate most other Airbus types along with the A340. I don’t need to explain what commonality means. Maintenance, pilot training, cabin crew training, and so on. Some people may doubt the importance of commonality but strange that airlines often praise commonality. They should know it best.
    And yes, CFM engines also play a role.


    >Also, ETOPS means that the 777 has a lower turnback rate and does not >affect routes anymore, since they now have ETOPS 180 and 207 and will >have ETOPS 330.

    Yeah, but the increased ETOPS rules weren’t active from the early beginning. And ETOPS 330 still has to go through.


    >Also, since it is not on the same type certificate as any other Airbus type, you have to go through full >type training if you shift, so commonality does not really exist.

    Do you want to suggest it takes the same training time to change from an A320 to a B777 as from an A320 to an A340? Commonality does exist and it plays a role.


    >Can you name those exact hundred aspects?

    Hey, you caught me! That was rather rhetoric. But you should’ve known! Let’s see what other aspects we have. What about availability, engine commonality, customer support, spare parts supply, follow orders (of other types), politics (in order to obtain landing rights), politics (in order to obtain military support for the home country and benefits in return), support of homegrown aviation industries (and benefits from governments in return), resale options, operation grounds (high/hot), spare engine options and so on.
    And if I were an airline manager I would be able to name more.


    >Riiiight, that is why you sound like a broken record

    I sound like what? Can you please explain?  Confused


    >I really don't know where this quiet thing comes from, there is really not a >noticable difference.

    Quiet thing? What do you mean? So you have never noticed a difference in take offs of A340s (-200/300) and B777s? One cannot even SEE that but definitely FEEL it. Everytime I fly an A340 (-200/300) I ask myself: will we make it or hit the fence?  Wink/being sarcastic One can also hear it in the cabin. Those GEs make “some” more noise than CFMs for sure…But more power is more fun.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


    >As opposed to "schlechtesflieger" oder "langsamkletterer"?

    I wouldn’t call it a „schlechten Flieger“, but „Langsamkletterer“ hits the nail on the head!  Wink/being sarcastic



    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
     
    User avatar
    solnabo
    Posts: 5015
    Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:52 pm

    Is ETOPS included in this -LR range (490nm longer than A345 IIRC)

    Daddy Longleg?  Big grin

    Micke//SE
    Airbus SAS - Love them both
     
    mandala499
    Posts: 6458
    Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:41 pm

    N1120a,

    Fuel burn and MX cost should be included in the seat mile costs already Big grin

    Udo,
    HOWEVER, the decision to operate a certain type depends on some hundred different aspects. Taking all these aspects into consideration, certain airlines find the B777 more economic to operate, certain airlines the A340. It's so simple.

    Well, unfortunately it's this simplicity that the fanatics on both sides do not understand.

    Anyways, N1120a and Udo, it's funny reading you two, you two seem to talk about the same things and similar arguments but are like water and fire when it comes to head-to-head Big grin Bwahahaha

    Mandala499
    When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
     
    User avatar
    scbriml
    Posts: 13353
    Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:55 pm

    What about after all the airlines crisies are over, fuel returns to descent prices etc?

    Look up the word niche in the dictionary  Big grin

    Why do you think the A345 for SQ only holds 181 people

    Because that's how many SQ can get in given their roomy configuration? Or do you expect an airline to try and cram people in at 31" pitch for a 16-18 hour non-stop flight and still charge a premium over a stopping service?
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
     
    User avatar
    RayChuang
    Posts: 8004
    Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:33 am

    I think the reason why SQ only sports 181 seats on their A340-500's is the fact that the planes are fly routes that take over 16 hours flight time. As such, roomier seating in all seating classes are a MUST.
     
    gigneil
    Posts: 14133
    Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:04 am

    Yay for another pointless A vs. B thread, and started by a crew member no less.

    N
     
    sebring
    Posts: 1320
    Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:04 am

    Air Canada flies the 345 on routings like YYZ-HKG and YYZ-DEL with full pax and considerable cargo - over 15 tonnes westbound against winter winds. In all of these incessant and stupid debates over A and B aircraft, the fact is geography and price can contribute to buying decisions. The 345 can access more of Asia from Toronto than from New York because Toronto is more northerly. The same is true of Vancouver vs LAX or SFO. So AC doesn't face some of the same load restrictions that a carrier would out of ORD, LAX or JFK. It's a fact that the 343 is a bit slower than the 777, but so what? It doesn't mean diddley to AC flying YVR-HKG. The route has its own revenue profile, and most passenger don't even know it takes 15 minutes more to make the trip on a 343 vs a 744. AC does know that it can get a brand new 345 for 50-60% of the price of a transpac capable 777, and that the 345 has crew commonality with all of the other Airbus products in the fleet. I don't believe AC is married to an all-Airbus scenario. It flies a lot of 762 and 763 and has a healthy respect for Boeing products. But the purchase decisions it makes - and the same goes for other carriers - are very network-specific and may defy the attempts here to define everything as A market, B market, etc.
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:17 am

    Because that's how many SQ can get in given their roomy configuration? Or do you expect an airline to try and cram people in at 31" pitch for a 16-18 hour non-stop flight and still charge a premium over a stopping service?

    I think the reason why SQ only sports 181 seats on their A340-500's is the fact that the planes are fly routes that take over 16 hours flight time. As such, roomier seating in all seating classes are a MUST.


    Dunno what's more amusing... the fact that you two have completely glossed over the primary reason it's limited to 181, or the fact that you truly believe that any airline actually cares that much about passenger "comfort"?  Laugh out loud
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    Rj111
    Posts: 3007
    Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:32 am

    Maybe not US airlines...
     
    User avatar
    clickhappy
    Posts: 9042
    Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:36 am

    Yay for another pointless A vs. B thread, and started by a crew member no less.

    Neil, the 772LR competes with the A345, no more, no less. This is a discussion of two aircraft.

    The good news is you don't have to participate if you don't want to.
     
    airbazar
    Posts: 6865
    Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:50 am

    ConcordBoy, have you ever flown on SQ. they might not care about passengers, although you wouldn't really know it, but they sure as hell know how to make money, and if they're only putting 181 seats when they could easily have more, they must know that will give them the most yield. As for cargo, who cares, that's why they have the Cargo subdivision. These planes are for a niche market as as such, I suspect cargo and passengers per flight are less important. Who knows, maybe they wouldn't even be able to fill every flight at 200+ seats or would have to have lower yields.
     
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:08 am

    Of course, SIA would never operate 18+ hours flights with regular seat configuration. SIA is not LH or IB...thank god.  Wink/being sarcastic

    However, why didn't they install their famous First Class? Not enough demand on the route (which I don't believe), or indeed weight issues?


    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
     
    User avatar
    clickhappy
    Posts: 9042
    Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:18 am

    does anyone know the actual cabin space, in footage, between the 772 and the A345? If SQ flys the 772 at the same density as the A345 then I guess we know they put comfort first, if they put more people in the 772 (given the same amount of space) then we will know it was a weight issue.
     
    N79969
    Posts: 6605
    Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:33 am

    "Neil, the 772LR competes with the A345, no more, no less. This is a discussion of two aircraft.

    The good news is you don't have to participate if you don't want to."

    Amen to that.
     
    widebodyphotog
    Posts: 885
    Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:14 am

    This topic really has been done to death but I will add a few bits of info to those who have not participated in past discussions.

    As regarding cabin space:

    The way to do seating is to scale seating space based on available floor area not cabin length. In point of fact the 777-200LR cabin length is 164'-6" and A340-500 cabin length is 175'-9", but the 777's wider cabin allows for more effective floor space utilization.

    I have the 777-200LR cabin on a CAD program I use to model cabin configurations and I came up with a more realistic cabin for SQ:

    66 J Class 28" wide SpaceBed seats (A345 seats are 26") at 64" pitch 2-2-2

    136 Executive Economy Y Class 20" wide seats at 37" pitch 2-4-2

    Total 202 seats preserving the passenger snack and lounge areas.

    Being more creative with seating yields a 216 seat if you make a 3-class arrangement with 102 18.5" wide 37" pitch seats in Economy (3-3-3), 48 20" wide 37" pitch seats in Executive Economy (2-3-2), and 66 28" SpaceBed Seats at 64" pitch (2-2-2).

    The bottom line is that the 777-200LR has more potential revenue space in the cabin and payload is sufficiently increased to allow full utilization of below deck space as well.


    As regarding payload:

    Right now SQ is carrying 55-60,000lb payloads SIN-LAX. 777-200LR would allow an 85-90,000lb payload on that route.

    A quote from a past thread:

    The article being discussed here gives the 777-200LR's payload as 80-82,000lbs on SIN-EWR-SIN. Right now SQ is only getting a bit more than half of that payload with the A340-500. The payload/range figures for the 777-200LR are done using structural fuel tanks only at an MTOW of less than 720,000lbs (46,800lbs under structural MTOW). If this deal does not come to be, SQ would have been very foolish to pass on the 777-200LR with it's vast differences in revenue potential.

    and for anyone who wants to revisit a similar discussion:

    http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1825088/

    widebodyphotog

    If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:38 am

    but they sure as hell know how to make money, and if they're only putting 181 seats when they could easily have more, they must know that will give them the most yield.

    Ya think?  Nuts



    As for cargo, who cares

    um, them



    Who knows, maybe they wouldn't even be able to fill every flight at 200+ seats or would have to have lower yields.

    It's not that difficult of a concept really... well, for you it might be... but anyways; they took the seats out as a payload hit for the New York operation, and compensate with cargo on the California runs. Plain and simple.



    why didn't they install their famous First Class? Not enough demand on the route (which I don't believe), or indeed weight issues?

    Weighs too much when combined with the SpaceBeds... which is one of the major selling points Boeing has for the 772LR vis-a-vis SQ



    The bottom line is that the 777-200LR has more potential revenue space in the cabin

    To add to that what also hasn't been said: The 772LR will offer SQ the ability to place crew rest above its main cabins, this ensuring that all cabin space and most cargo space is available for revenue-earning potential.

    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    widebodyphotog
    Posts: 885
    Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:47 am

    Being able to carry an additional 8-10t of cargo on those flights provides 20-$40,000 of additional revenue per segment. SQ, bringing in a third or more of total revenues from selling cargo space, cares very much about cargo revenue.

    widebodyphotog
    If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
     
    antares
    Posts: 1367
    Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:22 am

    Gentlemen (and any ladies present)

    I can't find any reason to doubt the 777-200LR will outperform the A345, considering that it has taken Boeing two years longer to get it into service if early 2006 is the correct time.

    But in the meantime analyst briefings and 'guidance' say that the A345 has exceeding every performance criteria in the sale agreement, and is carrying freight on both routes, in both directions, delivering unexpected additional earnings to SQ.

    Furthermore, it has torn the heart out of competitor airlines by luring many of their most valuable customers to SQ, which has seen its performance on the LAX and New York area markets greatly enhanced by the Airbus services.

    If they are replaced by 777-200LRs as we all anticipate, indeed look forward too, they will either be used to great effect elswhere on the SQ network, again perhaps in a market development role, or sold, like anything, if the price is right.
     
    Planesmart
    Posts: 1734
    Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:29 am

    The 777-200LR will raise the bar on a niche mkt.

    Even so, the A340 will continue to ring up a few more sales.

    Aside from commonality for operators of other A models, it's strongly sought after in the used mkt (including for VIP use), making it the slowest depreciating airliner currently on the mkt. U need to factor this in to lifetime ownership costs (acquiring + operating - disposal).
     
    AirbusCanada
    Posts: 525
    Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:14 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:09 am

    I know from the numbers 772LR looks pretty impressive.
    but can anyone car to explain why no airline have order the 777LR,
    except PIA and EVA air. And it's no secret that both of those airlines were forced to buy US products for political reasons.

    [Edited 2004-12-11 00:10:13]
     
    RT514
    Posts: 399
    Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 2:11 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:22 am

    ...it seems like a no-brainer that airlines would choose the 772LR over the A345.

    Once the 772LR is in service, that is.

    Being able to put out a product capable of performing within certain parameters before your competitor is a large part of success and Airbus won this one.
    It's going to be a leap-frog situation anyway:
    Airbus puts out the longest range airliner THEN
    Boeing put out a competitor that surpasses that THEN
    Airbus will develop a A345 "Advanced" (or something like that) THEN
    Boeing will respond with a 772LR "Advanced" (or something like that) THEN so on and so on, and so on...

    Viable competition from Airbus is what made Boeing get off their duffs after years of being king and it's that competition between the two that is allowing us to see advancements come out at such a great rate today. Yay, us enthusiasts (and the airlines) therefore win.
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:31 am

    Airbus will develop a A345 "Advanced" (or something like that) THEN
    Boeing will respond with a 772LR "Advanced" (or something like that)


    No need.

    Airbus's hiked MTOW for the A345 is still handily beaten by the current 772LR's expectant operational specs.
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    RT514
    Posts: 399
    Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 2:11 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:53 am

    Airbus's hiked MTOW for the A345 is still handily beaten by the current 772LR's expectant operational specs.

    Irrelevant to my original point anyway.
    Once the 772LR is flying, its specs will be exceeded by another, which will then be exceeded by another, etc. As I said, it's a leap-frog effect.
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX

    Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:05 am

    Irrelevant to my original point anyway.

    That's because your point is too anecdotal as to the dynamics of the C-market to be of any relvance here.



    Once the 772LR is flying, its specs will be exceeded by another, which will then be exceeded by another, etc.

    There aren't even plans for it-- sort of a Concorde situation if you will. Hence my statement.
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!

    Who is online