LY777
Topic Author
Posts: 2264
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:58 pm

Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:26 pm

I was wondering why some airlines bought the 777-200A instead of the 777-200ER since it is a less capable (and so less flexible a/c).
Regards
Flown:A3B2,A320,A321,A332,A343,A388,717,727,732,734,735,738,73W,742/744/748,752,762/2ER/763/3ER,772/77E/773/77W,D8,D10,L
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:31 pm

The 777-200A was the initial model launched so it was the only one available. Also, many 777 operators wanted to start trans-Atlantic operations, first, and the 777-200A is quite good for that. And the US customers also wanted it for Hawai'i ops, which was also fine for a 777-200A.
 
LY777
Topic Author
Posts: 2264
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:39 pm

Isn't the 772ER more efficient for long-haul routes?
Also, I guess that a 772ER can be sold more easily that a 772A IMO
Flown:A3B2,A320,A321,A332,A343,A388,717,727,732,734,735,738,73W,742/744/748,752,762/2ER/763/3ER,772/77E/773/77W,D8,D10,L
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:56 pm

Quoting LY777 (Thread starter):
I was wondering why some airlines bought the 777-200A instead of the 777-200ER since it is a less capable (and so less flexible a/c).
Regards

The 772A has a lighter structure than the ER, so on missions it can perform, it will be more economical. Its range is sufficient for regional routes and shorter transatlantic routes, where it is a very good aircraft. The real problem for the 772A is that the A333 is yet more efficient, and can perform almost all of the missions that the 772A can.

The fact that the A333 has largely eclipsed the 772A, while the 772ER generally outperforms the A343 on longer-range missions, is a great example of how subtle design decisions can have big effects on the competitiveness of an aircraft.
 
LY777
Topic Author
Posts: 2264
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:58 pm

Which airlines have the 772A in their fleet?
Flown:A3B2,A320,A321,A332,A343,A388,717,727,732,734,735,738,73W,742/744/748,752,762/2ER/763/3ER,772/77E/773/77W,D8,D10,L
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:59 pm

Quoting LY777 (Reply 2):
Isn't the 772ER more efficient for long-haul routes?

Yes it is, but it wasn't available for about 18 months after the 777-200A. For nine airlines, it was the right plane for the job so Boeing built it for them. So while a total of 88 sales to date is quite weak compared to the 430 of the 777-200ER, it still was desired by airlines who could have just chosen the 777-200ER and made it the "base" plane.
 
OceansWorld
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:00 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:08 pm

Quoting LY777 (Reply 4):
Which airlines have the 772A in their fleet?

CA, NH, BA, CX, CZ, EK, JL, TG, UA.

Quoting LY777 (Thread starter):
I was wondering why some airlines bought the 777-200A instead of the 777-200ER

UA went for the T7 to replace the DC-10 on intra US flights.

[Edited 2007-09-21 15:10:31]
 
LY777
Topic Author
Posts: 2264
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:38 pm

Does BA still operate the 772A?
Flown:A3B2,A320,A321,A332,A343,A388,717,727,732,734,735,738,73W,742/744/748,752,762/2ER/763/3ER,772/77E/773/77W,D8,D10,L
 
747fan
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:40 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:58 pm

Quoting LY777 (Reply 7):
Does BA still operate the 772A?

Yep, they sure do - their 777-200A have GE90-76B's. These birds are generally used on BA's shorter TATL flights such as LHR-BOS, JFK, EWR, IAD, and YUL (YYZ is 763 and 744). They're also used on flights to the Middle East such as LHR-DXB, DOH, TLV, etc. The 772A's basically supplement the 772ER's on these routes and like the rest of BA's LHR 777's, have a 4-class configuration. BA has 3 777-200A's: G-ZZZA, G-ZZZB, and G-ZZZC.
 
ktachiya
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:54 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:08 pm

Well seeing how JL and NH have domestic modified B747-400 in their fleet, it is easy to see why there are 777-200s in the fleet. It initially filled the gap between the B767-300 and B747-400. This all changed when the B777-300 came in and it started to replace its 747 classics.

But even for CX, TG or or CA it is rather easy to see as they serve intra-Asian routes which don't require the range of a B777-200ER.
Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:10 pm

UA was the launch customer for the 777...that's all. As always, the first models lack in many things, the later models contain improvements. The -ER model came later.

[Edited 2007-09-21 16:20:57]
 
jfk777
Posts: 5812
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:15 pm

UA operated the first 777 service from LHR to IAD on June 7, 1995. It wasn't until July, 1997 that UA operated California to Europe 777 flights with the 777-200ER, it was 763ER for LAX to LHR until then. Since then UA has flown 777 to all corners of the world from LAX and SFO as well as Miami to EZE and GRU(since discontinued) & ORD to China.
 
EXAAUADL
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:48 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:25 pm

Dont forget the 777, when it came out in 1994-95, was suppose to replace the D10 and L10 for domestic operations and transatlantic...it was never forseen that it would fly ultra long haul routes....this is interestign as this seems to happen with every aircraft type...it ends up flying missions other than originally intended


757 was suppose to be a 727 replacement not fly trans atlantic much less transcons

767 was to be a 707 and DC8 replacement and there was no such thing as ETOPS for about 3-4 years until after the 767 began flying.

A320 wasnt envisioned as a transcon aircraft.

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

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:28 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The 777-200A was the initial model launched

Actually, the 772A and 772ER were launched at the same time

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 3):

The 772A has a lighter structure than the ER, so on missions it can perform, it will be more economical.

Not always.

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 3):
The real problem for the 772A is that the A333 is yet more efficient

Again, you speak far too generally. The A333 is an extremely efficient plane, but it's not always as capable as the 772A-- of which CX's operation provides a perfect example.

Among the 772A's biggest problem is not so much the A333, but the fact that the 772ER isn't that much more expensive, but farrrrrrrr more capable and versatile. The latter being the operative --> CO's operation comes to mind here, with nearly 16hr Asian flights that turn around and do 7hr hops to EuroLand, with the same ship. Can't do that with a 772A, which means that its opportunity costs can easily outweigh savings provided by its optimization to certain operations.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
JFKPurser
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:03 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:45 pm

Quoting 747fan (Reply 8):
Yep, they sure do - their 777-200A have GE90-76B's. These birds are generally used on BA's shorter TATL flights such as LHR-BOS, JFK, EWR, IAD, and YUL (YYZ is 763 and 744). They're also used on flights to the Middle East such as LHR-DXB, DOH, TLV, etc. The 772A's basically supplement the 772ER's on these routes and like the rest of BA's LHR 777's, have a 4-class configuration. BA has 3 777-200A's: G-ZZZA, G-ZZZB, and G-ZZZC.

I have seen these often at BGI. I don't understand why BA would initially order such a small number of 777s with the GE90 engine and then switch by ordering the bulk of the 777 fleet with RRs. Can the fuel savings possibly offset the added cost of keeping spares and maintaining the GE90? Is the performance of RR powered 777ERs that much better than the GE90 powered 777ER which seems to have made more sense for BA to accquire?

I have noticed generally that the engine diameter of all GE90 powered 777s is substantially larger than the Trent powered ones -- even on early 777 models.I suppose that this is a benefit of the three-shaft design of the Trent -- it can produce more thrust with a smaller fan. Anyone?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11728
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:50 pm

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 3):
The fact that the A333 has largely eclipsed the 772A, while the 772ER generally outperforms the A343 on longer-range missions, is a great example of how subtle design decisions can have big effects on the competitiveness of an aircraft.

Good examples. To take it further, the 77W having a few hundred more nm of range than original promise has dramatically expanded its market. Another design change is that the A332 offered the range many airlines required and that expanded the market.

Now if Pratt hadn't botched the 4172. sigh... Simply due to a compressor bleed... sigh...  cry 

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
So while a total of 88 sales to date is quite weak compared to the 430 of the 777-200ER, it still was desired by airlines who could have just chosen the 777-200ER and made it the "base" plane.

Nice figures. Puts into perspective on how the 772ER and 77W dominate the 777 sales.  spin  Don't get me wrong, the 772A is very nice for intra-US, intra-Europe, or "short hop" trans Atlantic flights, but with point to point dominating, its not hard to see why the longer range models dominate.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 13):
Again, you speak far too generally. The A333 is an extremely efficient plane, but it's not always as capable as the 772A-- of which CX's operation provides a perfect example.

 checkmark  CX had a demand for cargo. However, they ordered the wrong cargo doors initially on their 772A's.  Wink (Small doors for luggage instead of the larger doors.) Oops... And with 29 A333's and only 5 772A's... I'm not sure its a good example comparing at this airline.  Wink

I happen to agree with the original posters premise of "why not order the more flexible aircraft." There is a reason 772A resale prices are depressed. There is a reason the 788 has sold in huge numbers but the 783 will be a relatively rare airframe. Cest la vie.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:51 pm

The 772A was initially designed to to US Mainland-Hawaii Routes and Larger US domestic routes and routes for CX and other Asian carriers that were considered, "regional." It was basically a plane to plane replacement for the DC-10's and L-1011's. Airlines also wanted something to replace their mid-sized long range fleet such as the A340 and MD-11 most notably. The 772ER out performed both of these aircraft in design, climb, cruise, and range. With the advent of the 772ER we started seeing more segments and less capacity, something the US airlines in particular were looking for. Frequency became important in the 90's and that's what the 772ER allowed them to do, much like the MD-11ER was designed for, but failed at. However, the MD-11 found a new home as a great cargo aircraft, where most of them are today, and I think that is because they were built tough and have a higher thrust to weight ratio than the 772ER, thus they can fly longer distances with more cargo.

The 777LR Freighter will be designed to out perform the MD-11 on freight routes, not sure how many of these have been ordered, but look for them to be the diamond in the rough for frieghter airlines when they want to start replacing the MD-11.

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
Geo772
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:40 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:10 am

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 14):
I have seen these often at BGI. I don't understand why BA would initially order such a small number of 777s with the GE90 engine and then switch by ordering the bulk of the 777 fleet with RRs.

The three 772As ddon't operate to that part of the world so it must have been the GE powered ER models that you have seen. These are G-VIIA to Z and G-RAES.

The bulk of BAs 777 fleet are actually GE powered rather than RR powered.

Quoting 747fan (Reply 8):
Yep, they sure do - their 777-200A have GE90-76B's

The engines are actually the same as the -90Bs on the other GE powered aircraft only they are derated. The engines are actually interchangeable. This was altered sometime ago to reduce spares holding.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
 
LH423
Posts: 5868
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 6:27 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:20 am

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 14):
I have seen these often at BGI. I don't understand why BA would initially order such a small number of 777s with the GE90 engine and then switch by ordering the bulk of the 777 fleet with RRs

Actually, the split between GE and RR in the BA fleet favours the GE engine.

GE Regs G-ZZZA/B/C, G-RAES, G-VIIA/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/J/K/L/M/N/O/P/R/S/T/U/V/W/X/Y - 27

RR Regs G-YMMA/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I/J/K/L/M/N/O/P - 16

It can be assumed that the 4 777s ordered earlier in the year will have RR engines, bringing the number up to 20.

GE engines are the only type based at LGW. Also, the only GE-powered, 3-class 777s are based at LGW. I believe those are regs G-VIIO/P/R. The rest are 4-class and rotate between LHR and LGW. The 'triple Z' aircraft (the 772A sub-fleet) are almost exclusively based at LHR due to their shorter range and larger First cabin (17 seats, compared to 14 or 13 for the rest), which make them ideal for the Middle East runs.

The RR fleet is almost evenly split between 3 and 4 classes. The first deliveries (G-YMMA-F or G, I forget exactly) are all 3-class while the rest were delivered in a 4-class configuration. Due to the fact that these planes were all ordered as 772ERs, a First seat was removed and replaced with a crew rest (13 F seats, compared to 14 or 17 on the GE fleet). No RR 777s are based at LGW.

LH423
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:20 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 13):
Actually, the 772A and 772ER were launched at the same time

You are, of course, correct. It was poor wording on my part - I should have said "entered service".  Smile
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:22 am

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 14):
I don't understand why BA would initially order such a small number of 777s with the GE90 engine and then switch by ordering the bulk of the 777 fleet with RRs.

I understand you're new... but there's only about ten thousand and one threads about this very topic in the data base. Do a search and you'll find all you wanna know  Smile

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 15):
Now if Pratt hadn't botched the 4172.

...and the PW2037. And the PW4092. And the PW4098. And the PW6000. And the....

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 16):
and I think that is because they were built tough

it's because they have a favorable payload-density profile

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 16):
and have a higher thrust to weight ratio than the 772ER

....though common sense (i.e. ratio of a trijet versus a twinjet) should've told you this--- the most powerful M11s (ratio 0.197) aren't anywhere near the level of the most powerful 772ERs (ratio 0.286).
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11728
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:06 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 20):
...and the PW2037. And the PW4092. And the PW4098. And the PW6000. And the....

 cry 

All true. Except did you mean PW4062 with the compressor surge? The PW4092 is but a derate of the PW4098 and as far as I know it never progressed beyond paper. (Then again, only Korean Airlines received PW4098's.)

But as far as this thread is concerned, the PW4077/PW4084 met promise!  bigthumbsup  Ok, low cycle life (due to the guide swirlers), but it met promises.  Smile

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
747fan
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:40 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:11 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 20):
and the PW2037. And the PW4092. And the PW4098. And the PW6000. And the....

...poor exhaust emissions of the PW4090, as well as mediocre fuel economy. UA's planes with the PW4090 are not as capable range-wise as CO's GE90 planes (GE90 772ER's are probably the most capable) and DL/AA's Trent 892 planes. Sometimes you may think UA 777's have gigantic JT8D's mounted on them due to the excessive exhaust smoke.  Wow!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages


The PW2037 initially wasn't a very reliable engine with a much shorter service life than the competing RB211-535, but is now competitive. The PW4098 was basically the same as the PW4090 - poor emissions and even worse fuel economy. the PW4092 never even materialized, and the PW6000 has been somewhat of a flop. But on a positive note, the 94" PW4000 family (PW4056, PW4060, etc.) and the 100" PW4000 family (PW4064, PW4068, used solely on the A330) have been fine. Then you have their success stories such as the JT3D, JT8D, and JT9D (although it was troublesome initially, it turned out to be a great engine). And those 3 engines each make magnificent sounds, especially the powerful groan of the JT9D!  bigthumbsup 
The main reason the sales of the 772A have bottomed out is simply because most airlines want a more flexible airplane. Exceptions to this are JAL and ANA for high-density domestic shorthaul flights in Japan. Its not a much different concept than the 744D.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:23 am

Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 6):
UA went for the T7 to replace the DC-10 on intra US flights.

No that isn't entirely true. The 777s first operated transatlantic routes. These flights replaced 767s on many transatlantic routes. UA then reconfigured 767-300s for domestic use which replaced the DC10s. So no the 777s did not replace DC10s for the most part with the exception of the 6 planes configured for use to Hawaii.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 5:06 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 21):
All true. Except did you mean PW4062 with the compressor surge? The PW4092 is but a derate of the PW4098 and as far as I know it never progressed beyond paper. (Then again, only Korean Airlines received PW4098's.)

No, meant PW4092. They couldn't make it work even as a concept, despite (IINM) it actually being offered for a short time.

Quoting 747fan (Reply 22):
UA's planes with the PW4090 are not as capable range-wise as CO's GE90 planes

 checkmark 

Quoting 747fan (Reply 22):
(GE90 772ER's are probably the most capable)

In longer ranged applications, yes. The Trent800 definitely holds the advantage on shorthaul, and they're pretty evenly matched in mediumhaul.

Quoting 747fan (Reply 22):
and DL/AA's Trent 892 planes.

DL now employs the Trent895
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11728
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 24):

No, meant PW4092. They couldn't make it work even as a concept, despite (IINM) it actually being offered for a short time.

I didn't think it had ever been offered. There was a PW4090 derived 4092... but that never went beyond paper in engineering, so I'm surprised it was offered. But hey, I'm on the R&D side.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:06 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 20):
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 15):
Now if Pratt hadn't botched the 4172.

...and the PW2037. And the PW4092. And the PW4098. And the PW6000. And the....

PW hasn't gotten anything right on the civilian side since what.... IAE V2500?

Quoting 747fan (Reply 22):

...poor exhaust emissions of the PW4090, as well as mediocre fuel economy. UA's planes with the PW4090 are not as capable range-wise as CO's GE90 planes (GE90 772ER's are probably the most capable) and DL/AA's Trent 892 planes. Sometimes you may think UA 777's have gigantic JT8D's mounted on them due to the excessive exhaust smoke. Wow!

UA's 777-200ER's have their MTOW paper derated by 8,000 lbs over the maximum possible MTOW for the 777-200ER. With a fully rated MTOW the UA 777-200ERs could fly pretty darn close to as far as CO's GE90 powered 772ER's. The PW4090 is actually very efficient. In terms of the cruise SFC of engines available on 777-200ER, the GE90's are supposedly the most efficient, followed by the PW4000s, and then the Trent 800s. The Trents are lighter than GE90 and PW4000, which helps compensate for their fuel burn though.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
AirEMS
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 6:34 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:29 am

Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 6):
CA, NH, BA, CX, CZ, EK, JL, TG, UA.

aren't these most of the launch customers?


-Carl
If Your Dying Were Flying
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:49 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 26):
PW hasn't gotten anything right on the civilian side since what.... IAE V2500?

And even then "they" f^cked that up, else the A340 might've actually gone on to become a much more successful aircraft.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 26):
With a fully rated MTOW

...which is something they can never get with the PW4090

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 26):
In terms of the cruise SFC of engines available on 777-200ER, the GE90's are supposedly the most efficient, followed by the PW4000s, and then the Trent 800s

Not necessarily more/most efficient-- because that's relative to the situation.
As you've already mentioned, Trents have a significant weight advantage, which actually makes them the more efficient engine on short/mediumhaul routes... which is one reason why they got to such a head start over GE, and why they're still the leading engine in service (notice I didn't say sales) on the 772ER. Ratchet up to power-2001 longerhaul routes, with their longer cruise lengths, and the GE90's more favorable SFC swings the advantage to their favor.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18821
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:28 am

Quoting 747fan (Reply 8):
The 772A's basically supplement the 772ER's on these routes and like the rest of BA's LHR 777's, have a 4-class configuration.

BA has some 3-class 777s from LHR. Several of their Canada and USA routes (YUL for example) do not offer first class service.
 
747fan
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:40 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:12 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 26):
UA's 777-200ER's have their MTOW paper derated by 8,000 lbs over the maximum possible MTOW for the 777-200ER. With a fully rated MTOW the UA 777-200ERs could fly pretty darn close to as far as CO's GE90 powered 772ER's. The PW4090 is actually very efficient. In terms of the cruise SFC of engines available on 777-200ER, the GE90's are supposedly the most efficient, followed by the PW4000s, and then the Trent 800s. The Trents are lighter than GE90 and PW4000, which helps compensate for their fuel burn though.

Interesting, I never knew they were more efficient in terms of SFC than the Trents, although I knew the GE90's were the best. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe UA's 772's have a lower MTOW due to the PW4090's poor emissions. I do know that the PW4098's SFC wasn't so good, hence its failure. Despite the lower MTOW, UA still flies their 772ER's on some fairly long 777 routes, such as ORD-HKG, which is about 6700 nm. (now 744) and SFO-TPE, soon SFO-CAN.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 29):
BA has some 3-class 777s from LHR. Several of their Canada and USA routes (YUL for example) do not offer first class service.

Yeah, you're right, I forgot about that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think DEN is also 3-class from LHR. I do know that all of their 772A's are 4-class and are well-suited to their premium routes due to their slightly larger F-class cabin (either 3 or 4 seats larger). UA's 772A's are used on ORD-HNL, LAX-HNL, SFO-several Hawaii cities, and several hub-hub flights. 772ER's are also used by UA on some of these hub-hub flights.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:34 pm

Quoting 747fan (Reply 30):
but I believe UA's 772's have a lower MTOW due to the PW4090's poor emissions

indirectly: lower MTOW --> due to lower legal spoolup thrust allotment --> due to emissions failures

Quoting 747fan (Reply 30):
the PW4098's SFC wasn't so good,

...that being the understatement of 2007  Wink

Quoting 747fan (Reply 30):
I think DEN is also 3-class from LHR

 checkmark 
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:10 pm

Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 6):
UA went for the T7 to replace the DC-10 on intra US flights.

The half dozen domestic 772A's in UA's fleet only replaced the Hawaii and hub to hub routes that were DC-10 staples. The majority of the routes the 55 strong DC-10 fleet once operated have been replaced by a mix of 757's, A319/320's, and 767's.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 12):
Dont forget the 777, when it came out in 1994-95, was suppose to replace the D10 and L10 for domestic operations and transatlantic...it was never forseen that it would fly ultra long haul routes....

The original 772A may have been intended to replace the DC-10 and L-1011, but for the most part fell by the wayside. Those two were replaced more by combinations of smaller aircraft and higher frequencies. Also, the T7 was envisioned as a LAX-LHR type of aircraft and beyond from the beginning. Boeing was smart to develop the weakest performing variant of the 777 family first, buying time for future versions to meet expectations. The MD-11 could have benefited from this concept.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
BA777ER236
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:18 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:26 pm

Quoting LH423 (Reply 18):
It can be assumed that the 4 777s ordered earlier in the year will have RR engines, bringing the number up to 20.

You can do more than assume, it's a signed deal. BA will probably take the 4 options as well bringing the total to 24.

Quoting LH423 (Reply 18):
Also, the only GE-powered, 3-class 777s are based at LGW. I believe those are regs G-VIIO/P/R.

There are 4 now, G-VIIT was converted approx. 18 months ago.

Quoting LH423 (Reply 18):
The RR fleet is almost evenly split between 3 and 4 classes. The first deliveries (G-YMMA-F or G, I forget exactly) are all 3-class while the rest were delivered in a 4-class configuration.

The 3 class are G-YMMA-F.

Quoting LH423 (Reply 18):
Due to the fact that these planes were all ordered as 772ERs, a First seat was removed and replaced with a crew rest

It is actually a crew rest bunk unit, containing 2 bunks. These will be removed shortly, and most a/c will be retrofitted with an overhead crew rest area above F class.

Cheers
 Smile
Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
 
PM
Posts: 4818
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:28 pm

Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 6):
CA, NH, BA, CX, CZ, EK, JL, TG, UA.

Add Air India and, imminently, Royal Brunei.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 28):
why they're still the leading engine in service (notice I didn't say sales) on the 772ER

Why didn't you say sales? Boeing lists 165 GE 777-200ERs ordered against 175 RR-powered planes. (PW make up the balance with 85 and there are 5 on order from 'unidentified' without an engine choice yet indicated.)

True, the last few 772ERs for AA and DL seem unlikely ever to be built but then who expects Garuda to take their half dozen planes (with GE)?

Anyway, they're all still there on the spreadsheet: GE 165, RR 175.
 
747fan
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:40 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:08 am

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 33):
It is actually a crew rest bunk unit, containing 2 bunks. These will be removed shortly, and most a/c will be retrofitted with an overhead crew rest area above F class.

I though some of BA's 777's already had an overhead crew rest area. Not to go off topic, but BA has a "subfleet" of lower MTOW 744's that don't have crew rest facilities, which I assume are used on short TATL routes such as LHR-JFK and YYZ, as well as Middle East routes like LHR-DXB. I'm almost positive BA's aforementioned subfleet of 772A's lacks crew rest facilities.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 32):
Also, the T7 was envisioned as a LAX-LHR type of aircraft and beyond from the beginning.

 checkmark  On a side note, despite the fact that UA ordered 772A's as a DC-10 replacement on their higher-density domestic routes, United's first revenue 777 flight was I believe LHR-IAD. Interesting that it wasn't IAD-LHR.
 
BA777ER236
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:18 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:16 am

Quoting 747fan (Reply 35):
I though some of BA's 777's already had an overhead crew rest area.

All of the RR 777s have an overhead crew rest area for the cabin crew, but the rest area for the flight crew is currently as described. I didn't make it clear in my post, but none of the GE90 777s have crew bunk facilities.

Cheers
 Smile
Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
 
NASBWI
Posts: 914
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 28):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 26):
PW hasn't gotten anything right on the civilian side since what.... IAE V2500?

And even then "they" f^cked that up, else the A340 might've actually gone on to become a much more successful aircraft.

Ehhh, doesn't the A340-200/300 use CFMs? I know Snecma is one of the partners for CFM, who's the other? And also, who makes the IAEs?
Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
 
PM
Posts: 4818
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:48 am

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 37):
I know Snecma is one of the partners for CFM

GE

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 37):
who makes the IAEs?

RR and PW have 32.5% each. A consortium of Japanese companies has 23% and MTU has 12%.
 
747fan
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:40 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:38 pm

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 36):
none of the GE90 777s have crew bunk facilities.

That's interesting; I did know that some BA 772ER's didn't have crew rests, but I didn't think it was all of their GE90 birds, which make up the majority of their 777 fleet. Although GE90 777's are generally slightly more capable than Trent, this is not the case with British Airways. BA's have earlier-model GE90-85B's, rated at about 85K lb. of thrust, a 10K deficiency compared to their Trents. I don't know how much of a range deficiency these planes have compared to GE90-94B planes or BA's own Trent-895 planes. This was supposedly one of the reasons BA switched to the Trent, as they weren't satisfied with the performance (IIRC they didn't like the TO performance) of these 777's. Although I've never been on a 777 that didn't seem to have a powerful takeoff (ex. -100% full ATL-CDG that still used <7K ft. of runway and had an authoratative climbout, reaching FL350 in around 20-21 minutes).
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Sun Sep 23, 2007 9:53 pm

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 37):
Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 28):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 26):
PW hasn't gotten anything right on the civilian side since what.... IAE V2500?

And even then "they" f^cked that up, else the A340 might've actually gone on to become a much more successful aircraft.

Ehhh, doesn't the A340-200/300 use CFMs?

It uses CFM's precisely because IAE failed to deliver the original engine. Search the forums for "IAE Superfan" if you want to know more. The Superfan was the aborted predecessor to the GTF.

Tom.
 
BA777ER236
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:18 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:34 am

Quoting 747fan (Reply 39):
This was supposedly one of the reasons BA switched to the Trent, as they weren't satisfied with the performance (IIRC they didn't like the TO performance) of these 777's.

We have 2 certified MTOWs for the IGW GE90-85B a/c: 267 & 275 tonnes(rounded). Currently, we have no GE90-90B powered a/c, although G-VIIO,P,R had these at one time, and at that time were also certified at an MTOW of (IIRC) 287 tonnes. The RR powered a/c are all certified at 297 tonnes MTOW (again rounded). Some of our GE IGWs have the facility to 'Bump' the max N1 up, giving more thrust for t/o in hot and high conditions.

The t/o performance of the IGW GE90 a/c has never been a problem during my 3 yrs so far on the a/c, in fact, the t/o performance with any engine fit is part of the joys of flying the 777. I have flown GE90 a/c out of LGW at 270 tonnes and still derated to +36 deg celsius assumed temperature (prob about 5% derate). The only problem with t/o performance for the IGW GE90s would be at DEN and BLR(and maybe HRE) because they are high altitude airports (and hot in BLR,HRE), ISB because of driftdown considerations west bound over Afghanistan, and SIN and PVG because of the high TOW reqd particularly west bound in winter (agains't the prevailing winds). As a result, the RR powered ERs are used on all of these routes. BA could certify any of the GE90-85B a/c at 287 tonnes(I believe that they are all structurally capable), and operate the a/c on longer routes(e.g. PVG), but they would then have a crew rest problem with, as stated previously, no proper bunk rest facilities on any of the GE powered a/c (although this may change in the future).

The GE90-94B a/c would have a performance very close to our Trent powered a/c, I'm sure (maybe an AF pilot can comment on this). I think that (from what has been said in the past) BA went to the RR Trent for it's ER fleet more for reliability and maintainability reasons at the time. Both the GE and RR engines currently have a very good reliability record on the fleet. I have heard it said by our engineers though (and I can't verify or attribute this, so it is an opinion!) that there are many more engine changes per a/c on the GE fleet than the RR and that the Trent is much easier to work on. Certainly, the Trent burns much less oil on a sector than the GE90.

From a pilot's perspective, both engines are great to work with, and I have a lot of confidence in them. The GE90 is a little easier to handle on the ground and they make different sounds throughout the operating envelope, but they are both awesome pieces of engineering.

Cheers
 Smile
Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
 
747fan
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:40 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:02 am

BA777ER236: thanks for your very informative post above, that was exactly what I was wanting to know.
Judging by the lower MTOW of the GE90-85B planes compared to the Trent 895 planes, BA's GE-powered 777's are probably similar to UA's PW-powered 777's in terms of performance - correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm only a Flight Simulator X "armchair pilot.  Smile There have been too many times that "armchair pilots" such as me that have disputed the real pilots like BA777ER236, Zeke, PhilSquares, CXflyboy, a Pinnacle RJ pilot (can't remember his name - somebody bashed him a few months ago for flying RJ's) and the 742 pilot (I can't remember his username, I think he was from the Netherlands) that used to be a forum member and left over this very reason. T

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 41):
the t/o performance with any engine fit is part of the joys of flying the 777.

It is also one of the joys of flying on a 777 (and a 767 for that matter). I do wonder how the 772A's perform as they have a 9K lb. thrust deficiency compared to the GE90-85B's but at the same time, have a lower MTOW. My most enjoyable 777 takeoff was actually on one of UA's supposedly "inferior" PW4090 birds - although it was a short 777 flight - ORD-SFO.


Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 41):
The GE90 is a little easier to handle on the ground and they make different sounds throughout the operating envelope

 checkmark  All 777 engines have a certain similar "howl" sound from the compressors (compared to the "shriek" of 94" and 100" PW4000, CF6, JT9D, etc.). The A340NG and A380 also make this somewhat quieter sound. But the 3 777 engines also have differences: the GE90 is the lowest-pitched when sitting up front, w/ the Trent being the highest and the PW4077/4090 being somewhere in between. The GE90's seem to be the noisiest up front - they sound like a massive air compressor or pump.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzYgyJLcYQg
GE90-powered BA 777 takeoff in F class.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjGEGOhkbba&mode=related&search=
PW-powered UA 777 takeoff in F class.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7KOcghi5I8
RR-powered BA 777 takeoff in F class
Nothing like the sound of a 777!  bigthumbsup 
 
BA777ER236
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:18 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:07 am

Quoting 747fan (Reply 42):
I do wonder how the 772A's perform as they have a 9K lb. thrust deficiency compared to the GE90-85B's but at the same time, have a lower MTOW

You wouldn't notice the difference out of LHR (for e.g.) because, as you say, it has a lower MTOW, and for most t/os the thrust level would be similar for the same TOW on an -85B a/c. From our perspective, that means less derate on max thrust.

Performance on the 772As would only be a problem on a hot day out of a high airfield at the MTOW of 242 tonnes(rounded). As we don't tend to operate them like that, we don't usually have a problem!

Looks like you are going to have to change your a'net name to 777fan (if not already taken)!

Cheers
 Smile
Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:11 am

Quoting 747fan (Reply 39):
GE90-85B's, rated at about 85K lb. of thrust, a 10K deficiency compared to their Trents.

...actually, an 8K lb deficiency.

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 37):

Ehhh, doesn't the A340-200/300 use CFMs?

(See below)
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 40):
It uses CFM's precisely because IAE failed to deliver the original engine.



Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 41):
We have 2 certified MTOWs for the IGW GE90-85B a/c: 267 & 275 tonnes(rounded). Currently, we have no GE90-90B powered a/c, although G-VIIO,P,R had these at one time, and at that time were also certified at an MTOW of (IIRC) 287 tonnes. The RR powered a/c are all certified at 297 tonnes MTOW

In case anyone's wondering, figures are in metric tonnes.

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 41):
although G-VIIO,P,R had these at one time

Interesting, why'd they decide to scale them back down? Cost/Benefit not worth it?

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 41):
The GE90-94B a/c would have a performance very close to our Trent powered a/c, I'm sure (maybe an AF pilot can comment on this).

GE90-94B is higher thrust, significantly higher weight, lower SFC... slight advantage over the Trent on the longest cruise lengths, but its earlier siblings lost out bigtime to the Trent for regional hops.

[Edited 2007-09-23 20:11:43]
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
BA777ER236
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:18 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:20 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 44):
Interesting, why'd they decide to scale them back down? Cost/Benefit not worth it?

I don't know the details of cost/benefit analysis on this, but I would think that, although the engines are identical, it costs more from GE for the higher installed thrust. Also, we would need to maintain separate engine and FMC performance data for the a/c involved. There are probably other cost factors as well.

At one time, BA operated IIO,P,R for AML routes with over 300 seats and on some longer routes (e.g. Cancun). The higher MTOW was required then, but not now, so the MTOW has been scaled back to 275 (metric)tonnes and engines effectively derated to -85B.

Cheers
 Smile
Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:25 am

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 45):
At one time, BA operated IIO,P,R for AML routes with over 300 seats and on some longer routes (e.g. Cancun).

Yes, I recall; though tell me, were they scheduled anywhere in the USA other than TPA? ...MCO maybe?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
747fan
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:40 am

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:25 am

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 43):
Looks like you are going to have to change your a'net name to 777fan (if not already taken)!

The username 777fan is already taken, but I like the 747 a bit better anyway. But as you can tell, I'm also a big 777fan.
I'm assuming that most 777 takeoffs, especially out of LHR since its near sea level and is generally not hot, use a derated takeoff setting (such as 98% N1 out of like 108%) - so the 777 likely has even better performance on TO than I thought! I would love to experience a max power takeoff in a 777, I just don't know what circumstances would have to come into play in order for a max thrust TO to take place. Anyway, I should probably start a whole new thread in tech/ops on this since I'm starting to go way off topic...
And by the way, BA777ER236 - welcome to my respected user list. You have some very informative posts - I love reading what the (real, non-"armchair") pilots have to say. Overall, a very valuable contributor to a.net...

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 44):
GE90-94B is higher thrust, significantly higher weight, lower SFC... slight advantage over the Trent on the longest cruise lengths, but its earlier siblings lost out bigtime to the Trent for regional hops.

I believe the Trent has the advantage on shorter hops due to its smaller size (110" fan diameter vs. 123" for the GE90-76/85/94B) and lower weight. Also, 3 spools vs. 2 spools maybe.
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:30 pm

Actually CX never wanted the 777-200, but they were one of the airlines on the team of airlines who provided feedback to Boeing during the design process. Also Cathay was pushing heavily for the 777-300. At that stage, Boeing was not sure about this aircraft as they did not see a huge potential for it outside Asia (They were right) and Boeing told Cathay that if they ordered a few 777-200s to prove their genuine interest to them, then it would go a long way to helping them decide to launch the 777-300.

When the 772s arrived, despite them not being exactly what Cathay wanted, they found a niche in the fleet flying to the Middle East (Although CX had tried to sell the planes with no success). Later on, Boeing offered them line number 1 at a price which CX could not refuse and so in the end they even added to the 772 fleet, although I do not think they will add anymore and after all the A340s have left and the 77W fleet has built up substantially, it would not surprise me if the 772s left the fleet also to make way for the larger 773.
 
lutfi
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

RE: Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A?

Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:19 pm

What CXflyboy said... The A330 was the L1011 replacement for CX, but CX also wanted a B747-200/300 replacement aircraft for dense regional routes, the B777-300. The deal was as he said, 4 B772 with options for 7 more, that could be converted to B773. CX looked at the B772ER many times, but the A340 was available earlier, which was the deciding factor.

The new A330 (230tonne) also have range for ME and Sydney. The B772A are fitted in "high density" regional seating and sent on the labour routes to Saudi/ Bahrain (Dubai will now get the 3 class A330) to keep them out of the way. They were also the last aircraft to have PTV fitted in CX fleet, as CX was looking to get rid of them - a swap/ sale with BA for some of their B744 was discussed, but never happened obviously. There's nothing wrong with the B772A, it is just that the A330 does the same job more efficiently (and quietly!). Why? Because the B777 was designed as a ULH aircraft from the start, and so has a significantly higher OEW which hurts on the shorter flights (though it helps make the aircraft more rugged than the "plastic" lighter A330)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adipasquale, avi, Baidu [Spider], belfordrocks, Bing [Bot], changyou, Google [Bot], groundbird, Moosfliege, NG263, Prost, sassiciai, skyymarc, smokeybandit, Waldo and 245 guests