dangould2000
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:25 am

Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:36 am

Is it me, or should Airbus either change their ''The world's longest range airliner'' slogan or should they update the A345 performance data?

i say this because, Airbus claim to manufacture the world's longest range airliner, yet the A345 has a much shorter range than the 772LR, (roughly 750km)

here, see for yourself:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.html

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...0a340/a340-500/specifications.html

because lately, it seems to me that airbus is full of itself,

[Edited 2006-10-18 17:38:23]
Next Flights:- wherever the airline sends me
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: Airbuss And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:37 am

They'll probably keep it until the 777 does the new range in service - the HK to London trip last year was a test flight and so doesn't count.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:39 am

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
They'll probably keep it until the 777 does the new range in service - the HK to London trip last year was a test flight and so doesn't count.

Good point. Right now, the 345 is used EWR-SIN and that's the longest route in the world non-stop.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
dangould2000
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:25 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:46 am

true, but i still think that airbus is stuck on an egyptian holiday (they're up to their armpits in de-nile  Smile )
Next Flights:- wherever the airline sends me
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23199
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:58 am

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
They'll probably keep it until the 777 does the new range in service - the HK to London trip last year was a test flight and so doesn't count.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
Good point. Right now, the 345 is used EWR-SIN and that's the longest route in the world non-stop.

Plus who knows how far an empty A345 loaded with fuel could go.  Smile
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:01 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Plus who knows how far an empty A345 loaded with fuel could go.

We do know that. Not as far as an empty 772LR loaded with fuel.

The physics is known. It's not just because Airbus didn't try it. The 772LR has over 1000nm greater range...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
katekebo
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 12:02 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:04 am

That's because Airbus kilometres are longer than Boeing kilometers. Bear in mind that Airbus has found a way to warp space AND time. A good example is how Airbus managed to extend 2005 calendar year well into what for us, regular mortals, was already calendar year 2006, but that is another story....

As for credibility, what do you expect from a company that on Friday vehemently denies a "rumor" that its CEO has presented his resignation, and on Monday announces a new CEO.
 
dangould2000
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:25 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:06 am

so true, IMHO, they'll be gone soon, (when i say they, i mean Airbus Embarrassment )

[Edited 2006-10-18 18:07:19]
Next Flights:- wherever the airline sends me
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:09 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
us who knows how far an empty A345 loaded with fuel could go

That's a fantastic question to ponder when half-drunk - like how fast would Formula One cars be if there were no rules?


If we assume that you replace all of the passengers and baggage on the plane with their weight in fuel (extra people shaped tanks!), the A345 in this case would arrive at it's maximum range point having used up it normal fuel just having the people replacement fuel left.

I think that, from the figures, that passengers + freight + bags on a 345 is 200tonnes so after 16 700 km you have 200t of fuel left - how far would that take you?
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:14 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
We do know that. Not as far as an empty 772LR loaded with fuel.

The physics is known. It's not just because Airbus didn't try it. The 772LR has over 1000nm greater range...

420nm.

And i think the A345's fuel is weight limited at normal payload.  scratchchin 
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:40 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 9):
And i think the A345's fuel is weight limited at normal payload.

Yes, it is, it will reach MTOW before it fills up the fuel tanks.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Plus who knows how far an empty A345 loaded with fuel could go

For a empty A345 that would be about 9850nm, compared to 10300nm for an empty 772LR (which has no more room for fuel.)
 
jfk777
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:12 am

The question is who will fly from Sydney to LHR nonstop first ? 772LR or the 787.
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:31 am

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 11):
The question is who will fly from Sydney to LHR nonstop first ? 772LR or the 787.

My guess it will be a 777LR(NG) with 787 technology or a 787LR. Who knows, maybe even a 777-300LR(NG)?
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:33 am

Is the 345HGW STILL flying with empty space in the fuel tanks? And since it was MTOW limited before and not fuel volume, why did they increase the available fuel volume on the HGW version? It makes no sense...

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 9):
420nm.

I see Airbus has a "345HGW" now, but it's still 700nm, as the 772LR has more range than is listed on that page.

Widebodyphotog has access to the latest numbers on the 772LR, and the new "full pax still air range" is 9700nm. Still air empty is going to be more than 6% greater than still air full payload. If you follow the "680 line" down to the "320 line" (both extrapolated) you get nearly 10,750nmi, and shifting the graph over for the 9700nm range as defined, you approach 11000nmi

"with the wind" it flew 11,600nm, and that is using the required calculation method (it flew further on the flight as measured by actual route, greater than 12000nmi). It also wasn't empty (had pax, but not a lot). And there was plenty of fuel to spare, according to the pilots.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
legoguy
Posts: 2971
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:30 am

Quoting Brendows (Reply 10):
Yes, it is, it will reach MTOW before it fills up the fuel tanks.

Really? Could they have revised the landing gear to accomodate some extra weight... or is MTOW more to do with the fuselage strength rather than the undercarriage strength?
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:45 am

I almost circled the globe on Flight simulator 2004(the X version comes out this month) on a 747-400 fully loaded with fuel and pilot was the only cargo. I used something like 1900 lb of fuel per engine
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:10 am

Quoting Brendows (Reply 10):
For a empty A345 that would be about 9850nm, compared to 10300nm for an empty 772LR (which has no more room for fuel.)

Boys, you can play this game forever. Unless you calculate both airplanes' performances applying a defined set of rules, it's futile to compare figures from manufactruer's websites and banter about ~10% plus or minus. One is for sure, the 777's will always burn less fuel per seatmile.
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:31 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16):
Boys, you can play this game forever. Unless you calculate both airplanes' performances applying a defined set of rules, it's futile to compare figures from manufactruer's websites and banter about ~10% plus or minus.

I cannot provide any precise numbers like some other members on this forum can, the numbers I presented are based on the payload range charts from both Airbus and Boeing. The range numbers were supposed to represent a flight with no payload.
I noticed now that I had misread the payload range charts for the 77L. It shows a range of about 10300nm at 350klbs, while the OEW is 320klbs. In other words, the maximum range should be even a couple of hundred nm longer for the 77L.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16):
One is for sure, the 777's will always burn less fuel per seatmile.

 checkmark  No doubt about it.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:53 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
It also wasn't empty (had pax, but not a lot). And there was plenty of fuel to spare, according to the pilots.

Landed with nearly 60,000lbs of fuel left. Enough to fly for two more hours hold for 30mins divert to a field 30mins and still have contingency fuel to fly for at least 5% of the 11,600nm it flew!


-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3246
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:58 am

Quoting Dangould2000 (Reply 3):
true, but i still think that airbus is stuck on an egyptian holiday (they're up to their armpits in de-nile Smile )

LOL - very silly, like it.

MH
come visit the south pacific
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:24 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
the 345HGW STILL flying with empty space in the fuel tanks? And since it was MTOW limited before and not fuel volume, why did they increase the available fuel volume on the HGW version? It makes no sense...

it does - a plane is a complex peice of machinery that needs to essentially be a compromise - there's no point making the whole plane optimised for one aim and then wreck all the others.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:58 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
I see Airbus has a "345HGW" now, but it's still 700nm, as the 772LR has more range than is listed on that page.

That's convenient. They updated the 773ERs range by 60nms when it improved, why not update the 772LRs when it supposedly has a more significant increase for an aircraft which is more focused on range performance?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
Is the 345HGW STILL flying with empty space in the fuel tanks? And since it was MTOW limited before and not fuel volume, why did they increase the available fuel volume on the HGW version? It makes no sense...

Depends upon the payload. At 9000nm with 315 it may be restricted, but with less passengers in a sparser arrangement (which is more probable in service) it may be able to fill the tanks.

That said, flying with no payload is hardly relevent. Though when i brought that up on the thread HKG-LHR thread i was flamed to death.   

[Edited 2006-10-19 00:23:09]
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8588
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:17 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 21):
That's convenient. They updated the 773ERs range by 60nms when it improved, why not update the 772LRs when it supposedly has a more significant increase for an aircraft which has more focused on range performance?

Because it's a simple matter of the BCA website existing for general reference purpose only, and therefore isn't always up-to-date or accurate.

About 6 months ago, they miscaptioned a few 787 pictures confusing the -3 and -8 variants. It just happens. Airlines get the real data, so what's it matter if the public reference guide is off by a few nm?

Now I do think it's a bit disingenuous for Airbus to leave their accolade of the A340-500 on their website given the fact that it is no longer the world's longest range commercial airliner. In 2004, Pratt still had "largest 777 engine supplier" on their webpage despite the fact that Rolls Royce (and maybe GE over RR by that point) had already taken first.

It's funny how slow companies are to update their marketing when they must remove a claim to fame...
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:39 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 21):
Depends upon the payload. At 9000nm with 315 it may be restricted,

At 9000nm, there is some more room for fuel in the fuel tanks (how much depends on how many RCTs the aircraft has,) but it seems like the available payload will be reduced by about five tonnes at 9000nm.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 21):

but with less passengers in a sparser arrangement (which is more probable in service) it may be able to fill the tanks.

Even if the aircraft carries less passengers in a real passenger configuration, the airline interior config will (if I have understood things correctly) typically be heavier than the standard config, resulting in a higher OEW, thus reducing range. I'm sure others can add some more information about that.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:10 pm

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 14):
Really? Could they have revised the landing gear to accomodate some extra weight... or is MTOW more to do with the fuselage strength rather than the undercarriage strength?

While the landing gear and the fuselage may require additional stiffing to increase the MTOW, it is the wing that makes the airplane fly and it would definitely require additional internal stiffing to accommodate the additional weigh.
 
Molykote
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:12 pm

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
They'll probably keep it until the 777 does the new range in service - the HK to London trip last year was a test flight and so doesn't count.

So if I bought a McLaren F1 in the late 1990s and (capable of ~230mph) it's not the fastest production sports car in the world unless I personally achieved 230+ mph????
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
RIHNOSAUR
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:42 pm

Quoting Dangould2000 (Thread starter):
Airbus claim to manufacture the world's longest range airliner, yet the A345 has a much shorter range than the 772LR, (roughly 750km)

so using the figures in the sites, this "much longer distance" amounts to a 4.4% increase..honestly IMO that doesn't seem like much longer.

there is no doubt that the 777 lr's economics are better and overall I would call it a more fuel efficient plane. Which is why the following statement I believe to be more accurate:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16):
One is for sure, the 777's will always burn less fuel per seatmile.

However I still wonder...and I am sure it is not that hard to figure out: what percentage increase is the fuel per seat mile..there is little significance in comparing absolute Numbers..it is the % difference that truly makes it more impressive or not..
hence if the 777 is 20%-40% better...then yeah .....sure I would say it blows the A340 500 out of the sky..but a anything less than 10% I would say..isn,t that big of a deal...

cheers...
particles and waves are the same thing, but who knows what that thing is...
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:52 pm

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 26):
hence if the 777 is 20%-40% better...then yeah .....sure I would say it blows the A340 500 out of the sky..but a anything less than 10% I would say..isn,t that big of a deal...

"Isn't that big of a deal?" In FY2004, AMR Corporation (thus including American Airlines and American Eagle) spent $3.9 billion dollars on fuel. Ten percent savings would have halved their $761 million loss for that year.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
legoguy
Posts: 2971
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:57 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 24):
While the landing gear and the fuselage may require additional stiffing to increase the MTOW, it is the wing that makes the airplane fly and it would definitely require additional internal stiffing to accommodate the additional weigh.

I never even thought about the wings! Thanks
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
 
RIHNOSAUR
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:59 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 27):
Ten percent savings would have halved their $761 million loss for that year.

ok sure. 10% is a big deal. it amounts to large sum

but is 5% a big deal......or is 2% a big deal....my point is that while I agree that the 777 has better economics....its probably not HUGE deal...thats all...
I know these % could amount to millions of dollars saved, but the right question is at what point the savings are so impressive that it makes the competition completely obsolete. I doubt fuel per seat mile cost are the ONlY consideration for an airline when trying to choose a plane of this category.
particles and waves are the same thing, but who knows what that thing is...
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:08 am

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 29):
but is 5% a big deal......or is 2% a big deal....my point is that while I agree that the 777 has better economics....its probably not HUGE deal...thats all...
I know these % could amount to millions of dollars saved, but the right question is at what point the savings are so impressive that it makes the competition completely obsolete. I doubt fuel per seat mile cost are the ONlY consideration for an airline when trying to choose a plane of this category.

When you're talking about millions and billions of dollars, of course it's a big deal. In the case of AA, even 2% would pay for the cost (at list) of an additional 737-800. 5% would pay for the cost (list) of a 787 and a 737. 10% would pay for a pair of 777-200LRs.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
RIHNOSAUR
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:11 am

I wanted to add something...

for example, if I have a toyota corolla and a honda civic, lets assume the civic is 4% more efficient saving you thousands of dollars per year in fuel....
sure it saves you money..does this mean that the toyota is obsolete...probably not...
customers will choose the toyota for other reasons....eg looks..i don't know....safety ..etc....
hence, the increase in fuel efficiency, if not large enough, won't change sales that much...
now if all of the sudden the honda was 50% more efficient, then yeah. I think it would put toyota in a bind...

cheers...its just my opinion that's all.
particles and waves are the same thing, but who knows what that thing is...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23199
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:13 am

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 26):
hence if the 777 is 20%-40% better...then yeah .....sure I would say it blows the A340 500 out of the sky..but a anything less than 10% I would say..isn,t that big of a deal...

The 772LRs biggest selling point probably won't be it's own range, but it's ability to carry a full payload farther then a 772ER can. It also happens to be more efficient then a 772ER out beyond 2000nm (per Zvezda).
 
RIHNOSAUR
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:16 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 30):
even 2% would

yes agreed ...but this is assuming al else is equal...and my point is ....
is it??? is absolutely everything else about the the a340 500 the same except the fuel per seat mile???

that's all
particles and waves are the same thing, but who knows what that thing is...
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:18 am

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 31):
or example, if I have a toyota corolla and a honda civic, lets assume the civic is 4% more efficient saving you thousands of dollars per year in fuel....
sure it saves you money..does this mean that the toyota is obsolete...probably not...
customers will choose the toyota for other reasons....eg looks..i don't know....safety ..etc....
hence, the increase in fuel efficiency, if not large enough, won't change sales that much...
now if all of the sudden the honda was 50% more efficient, then yeah. I think it would put toyota in a bind...

You're using a micro example in a macro comparison. It doesn't work that way. As an example: A $27 billion merger was conducted two days ago, with a $17 billion exchange buying an $8 billion exchange, for the promise of saving $200 million per anum. At those scales, a few million here and there is a big difference.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
RIHNOSAUR
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:44 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 34):
A $27 billion merger was conducted two days ago, with a $17 billion exchange buying an $8 billion exchange, for the promise of saving $200 million per anum. At those scales, a few million here and there is a big difference.

I am not familiar with the economic terms you are using..first explain to me more clearly what you mean by a merger...how does it translates into savings or purchase or something.
when you say exchange do you mean exchange between the companies that merged...if so what do you mean by buying???...I am trying to understand the example that's all,

regardless, if in the end the 200 million you are talking in saving is a large % of the companies profit then sure....but 200 million/anum out of 2000 million /annum (hypothetically ) will not amount to a considerably large profit gain.
yes it will probably pay for many things..and amount to large assets....but still

I guess in some respect and giving you all the credit, it's a matter of what percentage gains you intend to gain with a product (i.e the 777) and if all you want is a small % gain then sure...

really all I m trying to say is that while there is a difference in efficiencies between the two planes.....its really not that much IMO....that's all and you are totally welcome to disagree, and I respect that

cheers
particles and waves are the same thing, but who knows what that thing is...
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:15 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
It also happens to be more efficient then a 772ER out beyond 2000nm

Hmm, very skeptical about that. A 772ER with which engines? what payloads? efficient on what basis? lb payload per fuel burnt? fuel per seat? a new 772ER or a '95 one?
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:31 am

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 35):
I am not familiar with the economic terms you are using..first explain to me more clearly what you mean by a merger...how does it translates into savings or purchase or something.
when you say exchange do you mean exchange between the companies that merged...if so what do you mean by buying???...I am trying to understand the example that's all,

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange just agreed to acquire the Chicago Board of Trade. They intend to reduce costs by removing duplicate functions; Also, CME has a software platform which will allow CBOT to reduce its outsourcing costs. Also, the increased liquidity by having a larger company will allow it to be a better competitor to Euronext and Eurex.

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 35):
I guess in some respect and giving you all the credit, it's a matter of what percentage gains you intend to gain with a product (i.e the 777) and if all you want is a small % gain then sure...

really all I m trying to say is that while there is a difference in efficiencies between the two planes.....its really not that much IMO....that's all and you are totally welcome to disagree, and I respect that

It may seem like a small percentage, but a million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Furthermore, another advantage of newer aircraft (777 vs. quads, 787 vs. anything else) are decreased maintenance costs.

Anyhow, you can think what you want but airlines are voting against your opinion with their dollars.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23199
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:40 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 36):
mm, very skeptical about that. A 772ER with which engines? what payloads? efficient on what basis? lb payload per fuel burnt? fuel per seat? a new 772ER or a '95 one?

You'd have to ask Zvezda.
 
jdevora
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:41 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:19 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 27):
Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 26):
hence if the 777 is 20%-40% better...then yeah .....sure I would say it blows the A340 500 out of the sky..but a anything less than 10% I would say..isn,t that big of a deal...

"Isn't that big of a deal?" In FY2004, AMR Corporation (thus including American Airlines and American Eagle) spent $3.9 billion dollars on fuel. Ten percent savings would have halved their $761 million loss for that year.

The problem is that the fuel is not the only thing that maters, its percentage is growing but you still have to could things like the purchase cost, the crew training, maintenance facilities, tools and staff ...

If you are already flying one type I don't think that even a 30% (e.g.) is going to be enough for change to the other plane.
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:28 am

@Whitebodyphotog

"Landed with nearly 60,000lbs of fuel left. Enough to fly for two more hours hold for 30mins divert to a field 30mins and still have contingency fuel to fly for at least 5% of the 11,600nm it flew!

That is a wrong order...
It must say: flying two more hours,one or two approaches, divert to the Alternate and hold there for 30min.

If you stay 30min in holding at your destination without having extra holding fuel on board, you have to "commit to stay" because your fuel would never be enough to divert and hold at your alternate.(which is required)

Without "commiting to stay" you would get in big trouble with the authorities if you land at your destination with less than diversion plus holding-fuel on board.And sometimes there are inspections...
 
RIHNOSAUR
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:09 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 37):
Anyhow, you can think what you want but airlines are voting against your opinion with their dollars.

I mot sure what you say is true here....so as far as I understand the only airline operating the 777 200 lr is Pakistan airways and they have 2 only!!!.the lr is not selling like hot cakes..IMO...and maybe there are a few more customers are lurking here and there...but I would not call the 777 lr more popular than the A340 500....yet

I know Singapore,
Etihad airways,
Qatar airways,
Thai airways,
Air Canada and
Emirates

operate A340 500's.....I would say so far up to date..the A340 500 is a much more popular plane than the 777lr....granted I know the 777 lr has been out for less time...
I think you are right, airlines Are voting with their dollars and that is exactly why fuel efficiency isn't the only consideration, hence the obvious reason,

the actual cost of the plane. the 777lr's small increase in fuel per seatmile might not outweigh its huge price tag. For example, due to commonality reasons:

Quoting Jdevora (Reply 39):
If you are already flying one type I don't think that even a 30% (e.g.) is going to be enough for change to the other plane.

I stand by my opinion....and i think if the contrary were true.....then airlines would be dumping their current A340 500's for some new 777lr..and I do not see that happening ...do you (N328KF)???
particles and waves are the same thing, but who knows what that thing is...
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:16 pm

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 41):
I mot sure what you say is true here....so as far as I understand the only airline operating the 777 200 lr is Pakistan airways and they have 2 only!!!.the lr is not selling like hot cakes..IMO...and maybe there are a few more customers are lurking here and there...but I would not call the 777 lr more popular than the A340 500....yet

I know Singapore,
Etihad airways,
Qatar airways,
Thai airways,
Air Canada and
Emirates

operate A340 500's.....I would say so far up to date..the A340 500 is a much more popular plane than the 777lr....granted I know the 777 lr has been out for less time...
I think you are right, airlines Are voting with their dollars and that is exactly why fuel efficiency isn't the only consideration, hence the obvious reason,

Listen...it's clear that you haven't been following events for the past, oh, say, two years, but as of today, the 777-200LR is outselling the A340-500. In fact, Air Canada is getting rid of their A340-500s, and Qatar and Emirates are receiving 777-200LRs in addition to their A340-500s (perhaps eventually replacing them; that remains to be seen.)

There have been 39 777-200LRs sold, and 23 777 Freighters (same airframe.) Sure, Pakistan is the only airline operating them, but that will change very soon.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:31 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 42):
Listen...it's clear that you haven't been following events for the past, oh, say, two years, but as of today, the 777-200LR is outselling the A340-500. In fact, Air Canada is getting rid of their A340-500s, and Qatar and Emirates are receiving 777-200LRs in addition to their A340-500s (perhaps eventually replacing them; that remains to be seen.)

There have been 39 777-200LRs sold, and 23 777 Freighters (same airframe.) Sure, Pakistan is the only airline operating them, but that will change very soon.

And Delta appears to have converted two 772ER's on order to two 772LR's.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
RIHNOSAUR
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:56 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 42):
Listen...it's clear that you haven't been following events for the past, oh, say, two years, but as of today

does the word yet...mean anything ..???

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 41):
but I would not call the 777 lr more popular than the A340 500....yet

relax ...I know that...that is why I said yet.
particles and waves are the same thing, but who knows what that thing is...
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:56 pm

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 44):
does the word yet...mean anything ..???

That's a hedging word...the reality is that the A340-500 has had its butt handed to it since the 777-200LR flight testing began (the point at which carriers could truly compare their performance.) Since that point, only a few A340-500s have been sold. The one big one was Kingfisher, for a whole five airframes.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:24 pm

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 44):
Quoting N328KF (Reply 42):
Listen...it's clear that you haven't been following events for the past, oh, say, two years, but as of today

does the word yet...mean anything ..???

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 41):
but I would not call the 777 lr more popular than the A340 500....yet

relax ...I know that...that is why I said yet.

Wait, I thought 772LR has outsold A345. I still can't understand how 772LR is less popular than A345 as of now. A345 only has 26 orders and 24 deliveries, while 772LR has 39 on order with 2 deliveries. 39-26 for the advantage of LR. Higher deliveries is a mere reflexion of earlier EIS. It has nothing to do with popularity.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2468
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:23 am

I know a lot of people on here are new to the industry, but if I may, I'd like to suggest doing a little research before posting some things. It would avoid any potential harsh criticisms, which this board is unfortunately much too filled with to begin with.

Quoting Jdevora (Reply 39):
If you are already flying one type I don't think that even a 30% (e.g.) is going to be enough for change to the other plane.

As already noted, even >5% can be huge in this industry. When one is comparing the A340 vs. the 777, one must not only consider the latter's better economics, but also its increased revenue potential. Hence the reason you've seen Singapore, Air France, Austrian, Air Canada, Emirates and Cathay Pacific all order the 777 after operating the equivalent A340 models.

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 41):
but I would not call the 777 lr more popular than the A340 500



Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 41):
I would say so far up to date..the A340 500 is a much more popular plane than the 777lr....granted I know the 777 lr has been out for less time...
I think you are right, airlines Are voting with their dollars and that is exactly why fuel efficiency isn't the only consideration, hence the obvious reason,

A340-500
2 - Air Canada (selling)
10 - Emirates
4 - Etihad
5 - Kingfisher Airlines (LOI)
1 - Qatar Amiri (v.i.p.)
5 - Singapore
4 - Thai Airways Int'l
26 + 5 - Total


777-200LR
11 - Air Canada
8 - Air India
2 - Delta Air Lines
10 - Emirates
2 - EVA Air
2 - Pakistan Int'l
6 - Qatar Airways
41 - Total

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 41):
granted I know the 777 lr has been out for less time

 checkmark 

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 41):
I stand by my opinion....

 covereyes   covereyes   covereyes 


Regards,

Hamlet69  profile 
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23199
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:31 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 46):
Wait, I thought 772LR has outsold A345. I still can't understand how 772LR is less popular than A345 as of now.

RIHNOSAUR's assertion is based on deliveries, not orders, so it's "most popular in service".

So once the 772LR has one more active delivery then the A345, it will be the "most popular in service".
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:32 am

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 47):
A340-500
2 - Air Canada (selling)
10 - Emirates
4 - Etihad
5 - Kingfisher Airlines (LOI)
1 - Qatar Amiri (v.i.p.)
5 - Singapore
4 - Thai Airways Int'l
26 + 5 - Total


777-200LR
11 - Air Canada
8 - Air India
2 - Delta Air Lines
10 - Emirates
2 - EVA Air
2 - Pakistan Int'l
6 - Qatar Airways
41 - Total

For what it's worth, Air Canada no longer appears to be selling the two A-345s and it appears to have cut its order for 777-200LRs to six while increasing its order of 777-300ERs to 11.