American777
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:55 am

Boeing 777-300/ER

Tue May 23, 2006 1:49 pm

Few weeks ago I heard that BA was interested in placing an order for 10 Boeing 777-300/ER. What are the latest news on that? Are they going to buy any, or was it just an option they had?

Also is KL going to order any, any time soon, or have they already order them.

My recommendations to Boeing is to talk to Rolls Royce Company to offer an engine version for the Boeing 777-300/ER and probably more airlines might get interested in ordering tose long range jets.





[Edited 2006-05-23 06:52:30]
Big version: Width: 1351 Height: 732 File size: 60kb



Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 574 File size: 28kb
All what the airlines want is for Rolls Royce Company to launch an engine version of theirs on the Boeing 777-300/ER.



Big version: Width: 1472 Height: 852 File size: 58kb
Will this ever happen?




THANKS for any comments,

American777.

[Edited 2006-05-23 07:10:19]
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Tue May 23, 2006 1:54 pm

Quoting American777 (Thread starter):
My recommendations to Boeing is to talk to Rolls Royce Company to offer an engine version for the Boeing 777-300/ER and probably more airlines might get interested in ordering tose long range jets.

Boeing is bound by an exclusivity agreement to General Electric for all 777s with an MTOW above 700,000 pounds.

N
 
dalb777
Posts: 1698
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 9:35 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Tue May 23, 2006 1:54 pm

Quoting American777 (Thread starter):
Also is KL going to order any, any time soon, or have they already order them.

It was discussed a few days ago that they switched 4 of their 772ER's on order with 4 773ER's.
Official: KLM Orders 4 B777-300ER (by KLMCedric May 18 2006 in Civil Aviation)
Geaux Tigers! Geaux Hornets! Geaux Saints! WHO DAT!!!
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5806
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Tue May 23, 2006 2:03 pm

Quoting American777 (Thread starter):
All what the airlines want is for Rolls Royce Company to launch an engine version of theirs on the Boeing 777-300/ER.

Given current sales, I don't think anyone except armchair analysts and Rolls-Royce employees are questioning the wisdom of this exclusivity arrangement. I find it interesting that you have placed that caption next to a rendering of a KLM 777-300ER, when Air France KLM operates only GE90-equipped 777s.

British Airways has purchase rights on 777-300ERs, as well, so clearly, if they had concerns over engine selection, they have worked through them.

[Edited 2006-05-23 07:04:33]
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1549
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Tue May 23, 2006 2:14 pm

The 777-300ER is an enormous airplane!
 
scotron11
Posts: 1181
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Tue May 23, 2006 2:16 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1):

Boeing is bound by an exclusivity agreement to General Electric for all 777s with an MTOW above 700,000 pounds.

Has this enhanced or hindered sales of the 777ER? And will that also affect the 748?

cheers
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Tue May 23, 2006 3:01 pm

I have no doubt that it has affected/will affect sales of both aircraft.

N
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Tue May 23, 2006 4:23 pm

I agree. If Boeing would offer the -300ER with a higher-thrust Trent engine, they would get a lot of additional orders.
The same goes to the B748.

A lot of airlines have spend a huge amount of money in trent-engines and would really like to expand that family in their own fleet.

I see AA,LH,BA as prime candidates for the B777-300ER with Trents and i guess Cathay would like to have their ordered -300s with RR-engines as well.Like SQ would...

To offer only one engine offers only an advantage to the engine-producer, but not to A or B or the airlines.


Johnny  Smile
 
hz747300
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Tue May 23, 2006 4:32 pm

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 4):
The 777-300ER is an enormous airplane!

That it is, that it is.

What is up with BA and the 773ER? Hopefully, we'll see an SV order for the jet soon too!
Keep on truckin'...
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Tue May 23, 2006 11:01 pm

BA has reserved slots for the 777, but not specified the model, so it could be for more 772ERs?
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
American777
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:55 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Wed May 24, 2006 12:32 pm

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
I see AA,LH,BA as prime candidates for the B777-300ER with Trents and i guess Cathay would like to have their ordered -300s with RR-engines as well.Like SQ would...

I bet EK would of also liked their 777-300ER to be powered by Rolls Royce engines due to that their -200ER and standard -200 & -300 models are all powered by Rolls Royce engines.  yes 
 
American777
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:55 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Wed May 24, 2006 12:37 pm

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
I see AA,LH,BA as prime candidates for the B777-300ER with Trents and i guess Cathay would like to have their ordered -300s with RR-engines as well.Like SQ would...

I bet EK would of also liked their 777-300ER to be powered by Rolls Royce engines due to that their -200ER and standard -200 & -300 models are all powered by Rolls Royce engines.  yes 
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2563
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Wed May 24, 2006 1:06 pm

The engine criteria hasn't stopped neither NH, CX, EK nor SQ from ordering the 773ER despite having their previous 777s powered by different engine manufacturers. In fact, NH has the most disadvantage, as they will not likely have a fleet of 773ER anywhere close to the other carriers I have mentioned.

Even having the GE90-powered 777s didn't persuade NH to have the 787s powered by GE. Instead they went with RR Trents.
 
ken4556
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 1999 5:28 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Wed May 24, 2006 1:14 pm

How come no one mentions that the A340-500/600 use only the Rolls Royce engine?

Why is the 777-300ER/777-200LR held to a different standard with only GE's engines?
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Wed May 24, 2006 1:19 pm

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
I agree. If Boeing would offer the -300ER with a higher-thrust Trent engine, they would get a lot of additional orders.
The same goes to the B748.

A lot of airlines have spend a huge amount of money in trent-engines and would really like to expand that family in their own fleet.

From Boeing's point of view, it must make sense to retain the GE exclusivity agreement rather than opening it up to RR engines. In other words, the additional orders from RR customers won't make up for the legal fees/hassles if Boeing were to abandon their agreement with GE.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5806
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Wed May 24, 2006 1:26 pm

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
I agree. If Boeing would offer the -300ER with a higher-thrust Trent engine, they would get a lot of additional orders.

Dude...do you realize what sort of backlog the 777-300ER has? Again, I reiterate, if the Trent was that important to 777-300ER orders, there wouldn't be so many of them. Boeing has enough trouble keeping up with demand as it is.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
mrcomet
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Wed May 24, 2006 2:08 pm

I assume the exclusivity agreement was signed because Boeing needed GE to develop an engine for the plane and GE feared there would not be enough sales to justify it. Seems from the numbers sold to be a mistake on Boeings part -- a mistake they will now repeat on other planes. Exclusivity should be avoided at almost all costs.
The dude abides
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Wed May 24, 2006 2:36 pm

Quoting MrComet (Reply 16):
I assume the exclusivity agreement was signed because Boeing needed GE to develop an engine for the plane and GE feared there would not be enough sales to justify it. Seems from the numbers sold to be a mistake on Boeings part -- a mistake they will now repeat on other planes. Exclusivity should be avoided at almost all costs.

Care to elaborate why it is a mistake? with B773ER beating A346, It shows that GE exclusivity's adverse impact on the plane is minimal. Boeing is starting to provide logistical support in terms of parts inventory and maintenance, which reduce airlines' spare parts inventory. This means the engine commonality argument from logistical perspective can be thrown out of the window. Granted mechanics training can still be an issue, but once the fleet size grows, this problem can be economically addressed.

Also, GE90-115B is arguably one of the most efficient and reliable engine ever produced. Remember airlines most of the time do not buy engine because it sounds cool or looks good like people buying car. As long as those engines can be cost effective, economical to operate and generate revenue to the airlines, they will still buy it no matter who the manufacturer is.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Wed May 24, 2006 2:38 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 15):
Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
I agree. If Boeing would offer the -300ER with a higher-thrust Trent engine, they would get a lot of additional orders.

Dude...do you realize what sort of backlog the 777-300ER has? Again, I reiterate, if the Trent was that important to 777-300ER orders, there wouldn't be so many of them. Boeing has enough trouble keeping up with demand as it is.

Exactly. A lot of additional orders? From who? Specifically what airlines would order the B773ER if they had Trents? I think it's very probable we will see several additional airlines order the B773ER, and we've seen nothing to indicate the engine exclusivity is a limiting factor.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
777wt
Posts: 828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:45 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Wed May 24, 2006 3:27 pm

AA did threaten not to order the 777-300ER if Boeing did go with GE on them.
Well it happened and AA isn't ordering any 777-300ER even before their problems grew.

The agreement between GE and Boeing is that GE would make a GE90-115B for the 777-300ER and invest in a % of the 777-300ER development costs.

It was really down to GE and RR over the 777-300ER powerplant of choice and Boeing only wanted one varient, not two.
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Wed May 24, 2006 4:04 pm

I think for both A340-500/600 and B777-200LR/300ER a engine choice would be an advantage for the airlines.

Air France for example did not order the A340NG because of its RR-engines(one reason only) as AA did not go for 200LR or 300ER due to engine choice.

LH or BA for example are not happy with the GE90-engine, BA switched from the GE to the RR-engine on their B772ER-fleet.Lufthansa has built up a huge Rolls Royce-fleet on their A321,B753,A333,A346 and soon A388-fleets respectively and have a Joint-Venture with Rolls Royce about engines maintenance and are building a new facility for it in Germany.So why should they go for the GE90?

That could indeed be a problem for the B748I now, with lots of RR-operators all around the world on existing B744-fleets.

It would makes sales for the B777NG and A340NG much more easier for the airlines if they would have a choice.I know that the B777-300ER has u huge backlog, but i think it could be bigger than that, because this airplane is the real B744-replacement for most of the airlines, not the B748I.

Johnny  Smile
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Wed May 24, 2006 8:41 pm

Quoting 777WT (Reply 19):
The agreement between GE and Boeing is that GE would make a GE90-115B for the 777-300ER and invest in a % of the 777-300ER development costs.

Seeing that Boeing has sold shedloads of the 773ER did they really need an outside investment to get the plane off the ground? Were they really that unsure about it's success?
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 12:34 am

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 21):
Seeing that Boeing has sold shed loads of the 773ER did they really need an outside investment to get the plane off the ground? Were they really that unsure about it's success?

5 years ago when they developed the plane, they did not know the oil price would be $75/barrel. They could not forecast that it would have been selling like hotcakes.

Even though they could predict how much they would sell, there is always an inherent risk of a project. By sharing the risk such as with engine manufacturer, lender, etc, the expected return of the project will be high enough thus making it lucrative to the investors. So, it is all about risk sharing to make the project possible and shield your own company from a catastrophic failure.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 20):
AA did not go for 200LR or 300ER due to engine choice.

I have never heard any suggestion that AA did not order 200LR and 300ER due to engine choice. Care to give us a source? Is it possible that AA has not ordered 200LR out of its needs? Also, I have not heard AA placing a new 777 order after the launch of 200LR, so, my hypothesis is that AA did not place order on 200LR because it was not available. 300ER is out of question for AA as they already stated that 772 is the largest plane in their fleet.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22927
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 12:49 am

One way or the other, the 777-200LR and the 777-300ER were going to be powered by one engine manufacturer, only.

RR was willing to share the market with GE and/or Pratt & Whitney, but neither of them were willing to share because they didn't think the market would be as big as it has turned out to be.

So it came down to who made Boeing the best offer, and that was GE. Also, while AA and BA were annoyed at not having a Rolls-Royce option, they were not so annoyed that they were willing to tell Boeing to pound sand if a Trent engine was not an option. In fact, only CX was believed to be a "Trent or nothing" customer at the time, and they have since ordered 16 GE-powered 773ERs.

As others have noted, between the "Power by the Hour" and other maintenance deals, engine family commonality across a fleet really isn't all that critical a cost-center/savings anymore. So yes, Boeing might have sold a few more 772LRs and 773ERs earlier in the program if Trent and/or P&W power had been available, but it does not seem to have dampened the prospects for the plane, overall.
 
mrcomet
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 1:32 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 17):
Care to elaborate why it is a mistake? with B773ER beating A346, It shows that GE exclusivity's adverse impact on the plane is minimal.

I must admit I have an unclear understanding of why the exclusive engine contract was signed. Was it the engine manufacturers who insisted on exclusivity? Was it Boeing? Did GE say we will not build the engine unless you give us an exclusive deal?

The plane has sold enough so that maybe multiple engine manufacturers would have broke even or profited. That ultimately hurts Boeing becuase it may be the one issue that weighs a aircraft deal against them. One deal may be small or huge. Why take the chance if you can avoid it?
The dude abides
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 2:28 am

Quoting MrComet (Reply 24):
The plane has sold enough so that maybe multiple engine manufacturers would have broke even or profited. That ultimately hurts Boeing becuase it may be the one issue that weighs a aircraft deal against them. One deal may be small or huge. Why take the chance if you can avoid it?

Well in my opinion Boeing could care less whether the engine manufacturer breaks even. I think Boeing is just trying to spread the risk of 777LR so it does not put its eggs in one basket.

Sure one or two deal might slip from Boeing because of engine choice, but, we are discussing this after the fact, just like monday morning quarterback. In its inception we did not know how the risk outlook back then. We do not know how Boeing financed the project, and the capital cost of this financing. So, this one or two deal loss might be superceed by the savings of capital cost of the project.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5806
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 2:36 am

Quoting Johnny (Reply 20):
I think for both A340-500/600 and B777-200LR/300ER a engine choice would be an advantage for the airlines.

You've said expounded this line three times already in various forms. If it was disadventageous to them, they wouldn't have ordered it.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 20):
Air France for example did not order the A340NG because of its RR-engines(one reason only) as AA did not go for 200LR or 300ER due to engine choice.

Or...because AF likes the 777 more than the A340. They said as much before either the A340-600 or 777-300ER were available, and were configuring their fleets with that notion in mind. If it was the 777-300ER that cost more to operate, do you think AF would still avoid RR? That puts forward the fallacy of corporate loyalty over economic reality.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 3:37 am

@ N328KF

Why don´t you ask your question about AA to 777WT as well ?!?

The source was an article in Flight International OR Flug Revue, i am not really sure.But it is well known in the industrie that AA stated they will NOT order the B777NG with GE-engines.

But nevertheless, you have your own meaning - i have mine - the airlines probably have the correct ones...  Wink
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 3:50 am

Quoting Johnny (Reply 20):
Air France for example did not order the A340NG because of its RR-engines(one reason only) as AA did not go for 200LR or 300ER due to engine choice.

There were only two airlines that pressured Boeing not to sign an exclusive agreement with GE. The first was CX, the other was AA. All others gave no preference of engine OEM over performance.

In the end, CX signed as a 777LR customer and AA had to restructure their 777 deliveries so they could afford the less expensive -200ER they already had on order.

The exclusive contract is almost a moot point now.

And as a matter of fact, AF ordered the 777 and 777LR because of their higher performance. AF ordered the 777 in the 90s over intense political pressure despite the fact that they were already opperating CFM powered A340. The CFM has signifcantly more French content (50%) versus the Ge90 (about 20-30%) The 777 became AF's flagship and the rest is history.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 27):
Why don�t you ask your question about AA to 777WT as well ?!?

Why don't you ask why AA had to defer their 777 deliveries? Isn't it lovely that the one airline who kicked and screamed about GE exclusive contract isn't any longer in a position to order new aircraft?

Fact of the matter is, the GE contract enabled Boeing to keep the 777LR development cost down. GE delivered a damn good engine that exceeded expectations, and the 777LR is selling like crazy. In the last 12 months, Boeing has sold 147 units.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 22):
I have never heard any suggestion that AA did not order 200LR and 300ER due to engine choice.

It's well publicized that AA threw a major fit over the GE exclusive contract. They even went as far as signing an LOI for the Rolls Royce powered A345.

Quoting MrComet (Reply 24):
The plane has sold enough so that maybe multiple engine manufacturers would have broke even or profited. That ultimately hurts Boeing becuase it may be the one issue that weighs a aircraft deal against them.

It isn't likely. The 777LR has such a significant performance advantage over the A340NG that most carriers have disregarded any engine preference they may have had in the past.

Just take a look at the number of new customers being signed for the 777LR and even A340NG carriers going to the 777LR.

[Edited 2006-05-24 20:55:52]
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 3:51 am

Quoting Johnny (Reply 20):
Air France for example did not order the A340NG because of its RR-engines(one reason only) as AA did not go for 200LR or 300ER due to engine choice.

AA didn't go for the 200LR or 300ER because of the new transpolar routes making some of their desired Asian services possible.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 20):
Lufthansa has built up a huge Rolls Royce-fleet on their A321,B753,A333,A346 and soon A388-fleets respectively and have a Joint-Venture with Rolls Royce about engines maintenance and are building a new facility for it in Germany.So why should they go for the GE90?

Lufthansa is one of the largest GE customers in the world and they have a huge GE MRO operation. They added some Rollers so that they would have an efficiency in maintaining them for themselves and other customers.

N
 
Glareskin
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 4:06 am

Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 13):
How come no one mentions that the A340-500/600 use only the Rolls Royce engine?

At least it didn't help Airbus selling the mentioned aircraft to the American carriers...

Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 13):
Why is the 777-300ER/777-200LR held to a different standard with only GE's engines?

It's not. The airlines define the criteria!

Quoting Johnny (Reply 20):
I think for both A340-500/600 and B777-200LR/300ER a engine choice would be an advantage for the airlines.

 checkmark 

Quoting 777WT (Reply 19):
AA did threaten not to order the 777-300ER if Boeing did go with GE on them.
Well it happened and AA isn't ordering any 777-300ER even before their problems grew.

AA has manoeuvred itself in a difficult situation here: no Airbusses because of the old A300 issue, no 773ER because of the GE engines... Did they adjust their business plan for that?

Quoting N328KF (Reply 15):
Dude...do you realize what sort of backlog the 777-300ER has?

I guess your not Boeing but only one of the cheerleaders. Boeing probably learned from the last decade to never be that arrogant again. As Airbus probably is learning at this very moment.....  Wink
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 4:08 am

Quoting Johnny (Reply 30):
THAT FORUM IS SOMETIMES GETTING A KINDERGARTEN WHEN THE 777 IS CONCERNED.ANYBODY NOTICED THAT I DID NOT SAY SOMETHING NEG ABOUT THE B777 ?!?

*sigh*

I responded to what you wrote and did so in a matter of fact way. Did I say anything negative about you? I responded to two other members as well. Every time you lose your head all it looks like is you are running from "fact."

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 31):
AA has manoeuvred itself in a difficult situation here: no Airbusses because of the old A300 issue, no 773ER because of the GE engines...

AA has made it very clear that the -300/ER is incompatible with their route structure, as they have no markets that they can fill the aircraft (year round) without depreciating yields. They wouldn't have ordered with any engine.

The -200LR is what AA really wanted, but thats immaterial in the end.

[Edited 2006-05-24 21:15:33]
 
Glareskin
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 4:18 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 32):
AA has made it very clear that the -300/ER is incompatible with their route structure, as they have no markets that they can fill the aircraft (year round) without depreciating yields. They wouldn't have ordered with any engine.

The -200LR is what AA really wanted, but thats immaterial in the end.

So, the piece that 777WT wrote isn't true?
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22927
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 4:28 am

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 33):
So, the piece that 777WT wrote isn't true?

They are incorrect in noting Boeing only wanted one engine supplier for the 777X (772LR/773ER) program. GE and P&W both demanded exclusivity, as they did not feel the market for the 777X was going to be as big as the 772 and 772ER markets. Only RR was willing to share.

They are correct in noting that Boeing chose GE because GE was willing to help with the development costs of both the new engine and the 777X. If RR had, as well, then Boeing might have chosen RR and hoped GE or P&W joined down the road.

They are also correct in noting that AA wanted RR power on the 777X, but they were interested in the 772LR far more then the 773ER (as they had already retired their 742 fleet and sending the DC-10s to pasture by then). When trans-Polar routings to China opened up, AA's need for the 772LR ended (since their current RR-powered 772ERs had the grunt and the legs to make the trip using that routing).

So 2 for 3.  Smile
 
Glareskin
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 4:34 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
So 2 for 3.

Thanks! Now I understand.
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 4:35 am

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 33):
So, the piece that 777WT wrote isn't true?

In regards to excerpt of Reply 19 below, he is incorrect that the 773ER is what AA was interested in ordering. AA's interest was almost entirely exclusive to the -200LR and later -200ERX models.

AA made it very clear that neither the 773A nor 773ER had much of a place in AA's fleet :

Quoting 777WT (Reply 19):
AA did threaten not to order the 777-300ER if Boeing did go with GE on them.
Well it happened and AA isn't ordering any 777-300ER even before their problems grew.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2460
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 9:07 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 28):
They even went as far as signing an LOI for the Rolls Royce powered A345.

They never signed an LOI for anything. They threatened to talk to Airbus about the A340-500, and even invited Airbus to give them a proposal on the bird, but that's as far as it went.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 29):
AA didn't go for the 200LR or 300ER because of the new transpolar routes making some of their desired Asian services possible.

 thumbsup  BINGO! In the end, AA would probably not have ordered the -200LR anyway, even if it did have Trents on it. They've found they can do the vast majority of what they wanted the -200LR (and -100X before it) for with their current -200ER fleet.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 27):
But it is well known in the industrie that AA stated they will NOT order the B777NG with GE-engines.

No, they stated that they were unhappy with the choice and that they would have rather Boeing offer Trents on the bird as well. SQ and CX made the same type of statements.  Wink

Unfortunately for them, it wasn't Boeing's choice, it was the engine OEM's. Both PW and GE were demanding exclusitivity due to expected R&D and the anticipated ROI. Only RR was willing to share, but since that would have been impossible given the stance of the other 2, there was going to be exclusitivity no matter what. Faced with this position, Boeing chose the best financial and technical bid.

Regards,

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 9:25 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
and they have since ordered 16 GE-powered 773ERs.

with options for 20 more which they said they will probably order... Smile

of course, we'll have to see what the "all new" A350 v.5.0 brings along.....

AA doesn't need the -300ER..never did....

they will probably order 787's now and I would say the only reason they would even need the -200LR would be for a routes such as JNB or BOM..that's probably it..and I dont' see them flying to JNB anytime soone.....so basically I wouldn't expect to see AA purchase the -200LR....

I could see CO purchasing it however
"Up the Irons!"
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 9:46 am

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 4):
The 777-300ER is an enormous airplane!

Quite observant.

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 5):

Has this enhanced or hindered sales of the 777ER? And will that also affect the 748?

Probably neither. A number of airlines with heavily RR powered fleets like CX have bought the 773ER. I think that's not a huge issue - especially given the aircraft's stellar reliability and capabilities. No one questions something that works that well. Plus, the costs of developing a low volume highly exotic engine like the GE90-115B more or less dictate single supplier, else no one engine maker would likely sell enough to recoup development costs.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
I agree. If Boeing would offer the -300ER with a higher-thrust Trent engine, they would get a lot of additional orders.
The same goes to the B748.

I really doubt that. Rolls Royce would have to build such an engine first anyhow. Moreover, RR was not willing to sign on as a risk sharing partner, GE was. That more or less settled things. It didn't hurt that the GE90-115B beat nearly all of its performance and efficiency estimates.

Quoting American777 (Reply 10):

I bet EK would of also liked their 777-300ER to be powered by Rolls Royce engines due to that their -200ER and standard -200 & -300 models are all powered by Rolls Royce engines. yes

Might they have liked it, sure. But when an aircraft is as superior to the compeitition as 773W, having the engine you would have liked takes a backseat to having the airplane that can deliver.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 7:00 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 36):
Both PW and GE were demanding exclusitivity due to expected R&D and the anticipated ROI. Only RR was willing to share, but since that would have been impossible given the stance of the other 2, there was going to be exclusitivity no matter what

As RR had already run a Trent at well over 100k already, they probably didn't feel the extra thrust requirement was a big deal. Was this pre or post the GP7200 agreement for the A380?

I don't see why anyone at the time would have felt the plane would be anything other than a top seller. You're taking the fast selling 777 and making a version perfectly sized to replace many of the 700 odd 744s out there, or upsize existing 772 routes.
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 8:34 pm

I know that the B777NG has a superior fuel-consumption with the GE90 already.

But it is hardly comparable, because there is only the GE90-engine available for it.

Fazit: We all know that the B777NG with GE is great, but we all do not know if it could be even better with a different engine as a second choice.That would drive the competiton and would most probably further improve the GE90.

Same goes to the A346NG for sure!

Johnny  Smile
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 10:06 pm

Quoting Johnny (Reply 40):
I know that the B777NG has a superior fuel-consumption with the GE90 already.

But it is hardly comparable, because there is only the GE90-engine available for it.

Even if GE didn't have a competitor on the 777NG, they were competing against the A340NG. Because of that, I doubt that they didn't make to GE90 as good as possible, and they've even improved the GE90-115B after EIS.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22927
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 777-300/ER

Thu May 25, 2006 10:21 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 39):
As RR had already run a Trent at well over 100k already, they probably didn't feel the extra thrust requirement was a big deal. Was this pre or post the GP7200 agreement for the A380?

Alas, Airtransport.biz seems to be dead, so I can't answer that, but I imagine it was before the GP7200 agreement.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 40):
We all know that the B777NG with GE is great, but we all do not know if it could be even better with a different engine as a second choice.That would drive the competiton and would most probably further improve the GE90.

Well Rolls-Royce did shop the higher-spec Trent to their customers to try and get them to pressure Boeing to offer it on the 777NG, but as noted, AA ended up not needing it and SQ, CX (and probably BA) all decided the GE90 was "good enough" and therefore did not (try and) force Boeing's hand.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 76er, AApilot2b, aaway, Baidu [Spider], BeachBoy, Bing [Bot], BlueSky1976, BobMUC, d8s, deltal1011man, flyingclrs727, iahcsr, Jetstar315, LXM83, PanAm_DC10, SCQ83, SGAviation and 220 guests