WN787
Topic Author
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 3:23 am

LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 3:20 am

I might be a little behind here, but does LH have any 777's?

With the success of this twin engine wide body, why wouldn't an airline want one in its fleet?

I think QF doesn't have any 777's either right?

Who else? (Thinking of mostly the long haul major airlines when asking this one)
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23211
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 3:29 am

Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
I might be a little behind here, but does LH have any 777's?

They recently placed an order for the 777 Freighter, which is their first order from the 777 family.


Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
I think QF doesn't have any 777's either right?

That is correct.



Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
Who else? (Thinking of mostly the long haul major airlines when asking this one)

Well it depends on how you define "major", but they would include, IMO, airlines like IB, SA, US, SK and VS.

[Edited 2012-05-14 20:32:57]
 
SASMD82
Posts: 616
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:44 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 3:42 am

When having well maintainted B747-400s, a 777-300ER is not really required. For most of the missions, the A330-300 is cheaper to operate than the B777-200ER, only for the real long range missions, a 777-200ER is needed. As a replacement of the current 747-400, the 777-300ER is the most logical option (the A380 is too big and the 748 is a quad -> which is less efficient than the twin engines 77W).
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19828
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 4:13 am

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 2):
(the A380 is too big and the 748 is a quad -> which is less efficient than the twin engines 77W).

Actually, 748 is superior to 77W in terms of per-seat efficiency. That is, assuming you can fill the aircraft. The 748 is about eight years newer than the 77W
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 6:42 am

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 2):
As a replacement of the current 747-400, the 777-300ER is the most logical option (the A380 is too big and the 748 is a quad -> which is less efficient than the twin engines 77W).

LH has evaluated the 777-300ER twice, once as they decided on additional A340-600s and the second time when they evaluated a 747-400 replacement. The first time they decided in favor of more A346s the second time they opted for the 747-8I.
Usually LH does a very good job picking the right aircraft for their needs and if the 777-300 would have been a better fit we would have seen the 777W instead of the 747-8I.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
boeingorbust
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:44 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 6:49 am

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 2):
As a replacement of the current 747-400, the 777-300ER is the most logical option (the A380 is too big and the 748 is a quad -> which is less efficient than the twin engines 77W).

Even though LH just replaced a 744 with a 748 a couple of weeks ago... Not saying you're wrong but LH is doing it.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 6:55 am

I think it would be a better fit for Swiss, either a 77L or 300ER. The 77L can do all routes of any airline? But it wont carry more then 300 seats?
 
User avatar
qfvhoqa
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:50 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 7:02 am

Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
I might be a little behind here, but does LH have any 777's?

LH put its eggs into the A340 basket rather than the 777. Had they not purchased A340's I can see the 77W suitable for their route structure.

Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
I think QF doesn't have any 777's either right?

QF made a poor choice not choosing the 777 in the 90's and early 2000's, opting for more 744 and were the only airline to choose the 74E. It is too late for them to change their mind now as they have committed to the 788, 789 & A388 for long haul.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
Who else? (Thinking of mostly the long haul major airlines when asking this one)

Well it depends on how you define "major", but they would include, IMO, airlines like IB, SA, US, SK and VS.

You can add to that AY, CI, MU, LX & LA (though LA has the 77F)
 
jfk777
Posts: 5867
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 11:27 am

Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 5):
Even though LH just replaced a 744 with a 748 a couple of weeks ago... Not saying you're wrong but LH is doing it.

Lufthansa got a very "Good" deal from Boeing on the 748, Boeing needed a quality launch customer. Boeing would have been happy to sell LH 20 77W but Boeing needed the 748 order much more.
 
chris7217
Crew
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 7:51 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 11:29 am

I believe MU recently ordered some 777's for their fleet (non-cargo).
 
Ferroviarius
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 12:17 pm

Quoting columba (Reply 4):
LH has evaluated the 777-300ER twice, once as they decided on additional A340-600s and the second time when they evaluated a 747-400 replacement. The first time they decided in favor of more A346s the second time they opted for the 747-8I.
Usually LH does a very good job picking the right aircraft for their needs and if the 777-300 would have been a better fit we would have seen the 777W instead of the 747-8I.

As a traveller, I personally feel that the 34?s are much superior to the 77?s.
Reasons:
a)
2-4-2 in Y much more comfortable than 3-3-3 or 2-5-2
b)
Noise level in the 34s is much less than in the 77?s.

Again, my personal impression.

Ferroviarius
 
dlphoenix
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:30 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 2:54 pm

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 10):

As a traveller, I personally feel that the 34?s are much superior to the 77?s.
Reasons:
a)
2-4-2 in Y much more comfortable than 3-3-3 or 2-5-2
b)
Noise level in the 34s is much less than in the 77?s.

Again, my personal impression.

Ferroviarius

As an armcahir CEO, the applicable question is how much more will you pay to fly a 34? rather than a 77?
The same question applies to:
- Fly a 772 Vs A333 TATL (where the 333 has a CASM advantage).
- Fly a better seat leayout?

As long as the answer is 0 the airline decision will be driven by CASM.

DLP
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23211
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 3:07 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
Lufthansa got a very "Good" deal from Boeing on the 748, Boeing needed a quality launch customer. Boeing would have been happy to sell LH 20 77W but Boeing needed the 748 order much more.

Any launch customer for a new type gets a "good" deal.  

Also, LH has wanted a larger 747 since at least 2000. I don't know where they stood on the 747-500X and 747-600X, but I did read articles in the local Seattle papers in the early 2000's with LH's chairman pushing Boeing to launch the 747-X (they were not as interested in the 747-X Stretch as they had the A380-800 on order).

So once Boeing finally decided to build a larger 747, if any airline other than LH was first in line to buy it I'd have been surprised.

Boeing also can't discount the 747-8 too much, lest they impact 777-300ER Average Sales Prices. Boeing could have more 747-8 orders if they wanted as they have publicly admitted they have refused to meet the prices some customers have stated they were willing to pay to add the type.
 
SASMD82
Posts: 616
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:44 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 6:10 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Actually, 748 is superior to 77W in terms of per-seat efficiency. That is, assuming you can fill the aircraft. The 748 is about eight years newer than the 77W

The explains the number of new customers for the B748.....But actually you might be right, those GE90-115b's are a hell of engines, the power is intense but they burn quite a lot of fuel. But less maintenance and fleet communality weight higher for airlines i.s.o. a new plane.

Of the topic: what you just mentioned is the case for the A343 vs the 772ER too, isn't it? The A343 (X) relatively burns less fuel but is proclaimed as 'very unefficient'....

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 10):
As a traveller, I personally feel that the 34?s are Amuch superior to the 77?s.
Reasons:
a)
2-4-2 in Y much more comfortable than 3-3-3 or 2-5-2
b)
Noise level in the 34s is much less than in the 77?s.

Again, my personal impression.

This is off topic bt I agree with you. However, the reason for LH to stick to the A343 and A346 is that it has a huge fleet of A32S, A330, A340 and also the A380. This has a lot of benefits concerning maintenance, training etc.

[Edited 2012-05-15 11:11:52]
 
jfk777
Posts: 5867
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 6:38 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):

Also, LH has wanted a larger 747 since at least 2000. I don't know where they stood on the 747-500X and 747-600X, but I did read articles in the local Seattle papers in the early 2000's with LH's chairman pushing Boeing to launch the 747-X (they were not as interested in the 747-X Stretch as they had the A380-800 on order).

So once Boeing finally decided to build a larger 747, if any airline other than LH was first in line to buy it I'd have been surprised.

Boeing was much more willing to deal for a 748 launch order then a 77W order. Another 20 77W does what for Boeing vs. 20 748 are ordered is much more significant.
 
User avatar
kmz
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:55 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 7:24 pm

...maybe LH just sticks to the A346es since getting rid of them would be much too expensive....i dare think that LH is nothing special and that there is no magical reason why they stick to the A346es and others don't....
 
od-bwh
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:25 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 7:24 pm

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 10):
As a traveller, I personally feel that the 34?s are much superior to the 77?s.
Reasons:
a)
2-4-2 in Y much more comfortable than 3-3-3 or 2-5-2
b)
Noise level in the 34s is much less than in the 77?s.

I agree with point (a); especially with the odd design of the 777 cabin layout; though I find the 777 cabin much roomier and smartly designed, especially if you're 6' tall and opt for a window seat all the time. Try to stand up while in your seat in an Airbus aircraft!

I disagree though on point (b)! 4 engines are by far louder than 2 engines! I've flown the A343; A346; B772; B773 several times and I can tell you that the 777s are much quieter than their Airbus counterparts. the 777 is even quieter than then twin engine 330!!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Actually, 748 is superior to 77W in terms of per-seat efficiency. That is, assuming you can fill the aircraft. The 748 is about eight years newer than the 77W

Plant efficiency wise, I believe so, but overall? I find this hard to believe. I don't think it's fair to compare them. As you said, the B748 is 8 yrs younger. However, operating a 4 engine aircraft is definitely more expensive than operating a twin engine one!

The question here, other than for LH; what value does Boeing see in the 748 when they have the 77W!
A300, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, A346, A388, B734, B738, B744, B772, B773, B788, F70, MD11, CRJ7, CRJ2, Q400
 
Airboe
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:50 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 7:37 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Also, LH has wanted a larger 747 since at least 2000. I don't know where they stood on the 747-500X and 747-600X, but I did read articles in the local Seattle papers in the early 2000's with LH's chairman pushing Boeing to launch the 747-X (they were not as interested in the 747-X Stretch as they had the A380-800 on order).


It is also widely believed, that LH had a BIG check in the "Boeing Bank" for letting LH down when Boeing closed "Connexxion".
As narrowbody not was an option and 77W didn't fit the LH strategy the only option was 748.
And LH has proved to be an airline that profitably can run a lot of quads.

KR
keep it free of the propellers
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3251
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 8:20 pm

As others have said, instead of the:
  • 77W LH has the A346.
  • 77L and 77E LH has the A343.
  • 77E and 772 LH has the A333

And to replace the 744 LH chose to grow capacity with the 748. The long range fleet now comprises the A389, 748, A346, A343 and A333.

Regards
MH
come visit the south pacific
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 8:36 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):

Actually, 748 is superior to 77W in terms of per-seat efficiency. That is, assuming you can fill the aircraft. The 748 is about eight years newer than the 77W

If you totally take out of consideration MX, landing fees, staffing, acquisition cost penalties and a host of other problems quads come with (such as their inability to operate intermediate range flights with any efficiency), sure.

Quoting dlphoenix (Reply 11):

As long as the answer is 0 the airline decision will be driven by CASM

Lol, not really. CASM is a small factor, but as mentioned above, there's always much more to that story. The 330 has a host of other advantages (including a superior ability to "right-size" for a given market) that the 777 struggles with. But if it were just a matter of CASM, any 77E could be configured to come out ahead of any 333. There's a great deal more space to work with and the fuel burn is not that much higher.

Quoting kmz (Reply 15):
..maybe LH just sticks to the A346es since getting rid of them would be much too expensive....i dare think that LH is nothing special and that there is no magical reason why they stick to the A346es and others don't....

I have a sneaking suspicion that the 346 will become for LH what the MD90 is becoming over at DL. No one wants them elsewhere, but they work well in these respective systems and can be had for cheap, so why not stock up?
Be A Perfectionst, You're Nothing If You're Just Another; Something Material, This Isn't Personal...
 
User avatar
kmz
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:55 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 8:47 pm

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 19):
I have a sneaking suspicion

i tend to agree
 
jfk777
Posts: 5867
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: LH And The 777

Tue May 15, 2012 10:55 pm

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 19):
I have a sneaking suspicion that the 346 will become for LH what the MD90 is becoming over at DL. No one wants them elsewhere, but they work well in these respective systems and can be had for cheap, so why not stock up?

There are a few airline wanting A346 airplanes, AR is always rumored to be looking for a few. SAA may want a few to expand their flights.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23211
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: LH And The 777

Wed May 16, 2012 12:26 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 21):
There are a few airline wanting A346 airplanes, AR is always rumored to be looking for a few. SAA may want a few to expand their flights.

SK is also on the list of interested parties.
 
boeingorbust
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:44 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 5):
Even though LH just replaced a 744 with a 748 a couple of weeks ago... Not saying you're wrong but LH is doing it.

Lufthansa got a very "Good" deal from Boeing on the 748, Boeing needed a quality launch customer. Boeing would have been happy to sell LH 20 77W but Boeing needed the 748 order much more.

Kinda interesting that Boeing would develop the 748 at all for non cargo ops.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23211
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: LH And The 777

Wed May 16, 2012 1:11 am

Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 23):
Kinda interesting that Boeing would develop the 748 at all for non cargo ops.

Statements by the company implies that they believed the passenger model would be the more popular one.

Honestly, I don't think Boeing could have made the economic case for the 747-8 if they expected the majority to be freighters as I believe the sales they could expect were too low.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: LH And The 777

Wed May 16, 2012 1:19 am

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 7):
opting for more 744 and were the only airline to choose the 74E.

KE also operates the 747-400ER.

NS
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: LH And The 777

Wed May 16, 2012 1:40 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 14):
Another 20 77W does what for Boeing vs. 20 748 are ordered is much more significant.

They still ain't sellin' the 748.
This Website Censors Me
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23211
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: LH And The 777

Wed May 16, 2012 1:43 am

Quoting gigneil (Reply 25):
KE also operates the 747-400ER.

They operate the 747-400ERF, but not the 747-400ER (passenger model).
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4348
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Wed May 16, 2012 4:06 am

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 7):
QF made a poor choice not choosing the 777 in the 90's and early 2000's

In your opinion! In my opinion and other (industry) people, they made exactly the right decision, at the time. The only reason it is questionable now is the 4 year delay for the B787 and it's still very questionable that they would have made more money if they had ordered the B777.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
WN787
Topic Author
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 3:23 am

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 6:12 am

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 13):
This is off topic but I agree with you. However, the reason for LH to stick to the A343 and A346 is that it has a huge fleet of A32S, A330, A340 and also the A380. This has a lot of benefits concerning maintenance, training etc.

Isn't Boeing slowly working on a common type rating for "all" or most A/C?

Has the 34? series even come close to 1000 frames built compared to the 77?

When it comes to 4 engines vs. 2, isn't 2 always more efficient?
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 6:55 am

Quoting WN787 (Reply 29):
Isn't Boeing slowly working on a common type rating for "all" or most A/C?

Even if Boeing is slowly working on common type rating this was not the case when LH ordered the A342, A343, A333 and A346.
As far as I know only the 787/777 will share a common type rating, 747-8I and 737Max will still have different ratings.

The ship for the 777 and LH passage has sailed. LH management has decided in favor for the A346 and 747-8I. The more interesting questions are, will the 777-30F be operated by LH Cargo or Aero Logic and will LH order the 787-10 ?
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 9:14 am

Yeah with the 748 and 380 I see no place for 777X at LH. The 748i and the 77X will be almost of the the same capacity.

And with the 350-1000 coming I see a very bleak future for the 777 at european airlines. The 777 was ordered since it had no real competitor. That will change for sure.
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 9:29 am

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 7):
QF made a poor choice not choosing the 777 in the 90's and early 2000's, opting for more 744 and were the only airline to choose the 74E. It is too late for them to change their mind now as they have committed to the 788, 789 & A388 for long haul.

It's not like 787/A380 precludes the 777, is it? Off the top of my head, SIA are planning to do it, as are AF and Qatar.
Qantas actually evaluated the 777 - different versions of it, too - a few times and decided against it every time.
So I don't think it's as simple as them having made a "poor choice" in the 90s. They revisited that type a few times and always came to the same conclusion.
Without being privy to the details I'm thus inclined to think that QF did make the right decision here, based on their own route structure and needs.
42
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 9:33 am

Quoting sweair (Reply 31):
And with the 350-1000 coming I see a very bleak future for the 777 at european airlines. The 777 was ordered since it had no real competitor. That will change for sure.

I don´t. There are not many European airlines that fly the 777W at the moment. AF-KLM and BA. Both are airlines that want a balanced fleet of Airbus and Boeing aircraft. I see an equal share of 777X and A350 with the big European carriers.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
Joost
Posts: 1844
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:27 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 10:05 am

Quoting WN787 (Reply 29):
Isn't Boeing slowly working on a common type rating for "all" or most A/C?

No, that would be virtually impossible. For completely new aircraft types, they do, but not for newer versions of existing designs:

- The 777 was the first Boeing fly-by-wire aircraft, and therefore, it is now the reference for future commonality.
- As such, the 787 will have cockpit commonality with the 777. As it's also a FBW-aircraft, it's "just" a matter of software to make the flight decks comparable
- Likely, a future 797 and beyond will have a common type rating with the 777 and 787

- The 737MAX will have a common type rating with the 737NG, but not with the 777/787. A common type rating with the 737NG is way more appealing to customers as mixed operations 737NG/737MAX are way more common than a shared pilot pool 737MAX/787

- The 748 has (AFAIK) common type rating with the very similar 744. Again, for customers who operate the 748 alongside the 744 (so far: all), this gives more advantages than a common type rating with the 777. (Which would require a complete flight deck redesign for the 748, if it would be possible at all).

Quoting OD-BWH (Reply 16):
Plant efficiency wise, I believe so, but overall? I find this hard to believe.

It's quite a bit larger than the 77W in terms of floor space. The overall costs can therefore be divided by more people. Trip costs for a 77W are certainly lower than for the 748, though.
 
jfk777
Posts: 5867
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 11:29 am

Quoting N766UA (Reply 26):
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 14):Another 20 77W does what for Boeing vs. 20 748 are ordered is much more significant.
They still ain't sellin' the 748.

With a LH "launch" order Boeing thought it could sell more 748's. remember thet was 2006, who knew 6 years later sales would be so bad. The fact there is a 77W doesn't help either. Would Cathay Pacific have ordered 748 if the 77W had not existed ? CX ordered 60 77W's.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 11:43 am

They couldn't make the 748i too good, that would have killed the 777-9X for sure. The 748i is less of a NG than the planned 777-X.

Maybe they should have made the 748 much better and just done the freighter model. That way they would have left more market for the 777 into the future.

A 748 with Al-Li a new cfrp wing, new systems, internal cfrp where possible. They maybe could have made a freighter that couldn't be eclipsed for eons of time.
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 1:16 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 36):
They couldn't make the 748i too good, that would have killed the 777-9X for sure. The 748i is less of a NG than the planned 777-X.

I think you got the chronology wrong there.
When the 747-8 was launched - in 2005 - the 777-9X wasn't even a pipe dream.
Boeing was never faced with potentialy killing the 777-9X with the 747-8i. On the contrary, the dilemma they're facing now is that a 777-9X would quite likely kill off the 747-8i.
I still think that this would be the right decision. They would effectively focus on a market segment that is bringing them huge revenue and profits and will also come under pressure by the new A350 before too long. Not to upgrade their plane in that segment (or doing a sub-par upgrade) just to protect the 747-8i would be utterly crazy in my opinion; especially given that even before the 777-9X was a definite possibility on the table, the 747-8i wasn't exactly selling like hot cakes.
42
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 4:48 pm

Quoting anfromme (Reply 37):
When the 747-8 was launched - in 2005 - the 777-9X wasn't even a pipe dream.
Boeing was never faced with potentialy killing the 777-9X with the 747-8i. On the contrary, the dilemma they're facing now is that a 777-9X would quite likely kill off the 747-8i.

Well IF the 748 had the same treatment as the 777 will get it would be a hard competitor. A new cfrp wing, lighter skin, weight trimming in the frame etc etc

Imagine the current 748 6-7 tons lighter and with an even better wing, it would have been a great aircraft I am sure.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 5:18 pm

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 2):
When having well maintainted B747-400s, a 777-300ER is not really required. For most of the missions, the A330-300 is cheaper to operate than the B777-200ER, only for the real long range missions, a 777-200ER is needed. As a replacement of the current 747-400, the 777-300ER is the most logical option (the A380 is too big and the 748 is a quad -> which is less efficient than the twin engines 77W).

You missed the 346, which the 77W is superior over.

Quoting columba (Reply 4):
LH has evaluated the 777-300ER twice, once as they decided on additional A340-600s and the second time when they evaluated a 747-400 replacement. The first time they decided in favor of more A346s the second time they opted for the 747-8I.

The analysis they missed out on was the initial 346 to 77W one. Clearly, the 346 was an inefficient choice despite commonality with the 343 and 333.

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 7):
LH put its eggs into the A340 basket rather than the 777. Had they not purchased A340's I can see the 77W suitable for their route structure.

Agreed.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 1447
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 5:39 pm

Back when Boeing drafted the 777, LH was very much a 4-engines 4 long-haul airline, to the extent the then DFO (allegedly) refused to cross oceans on anything less then 3 engines. End of discussion. That pretty much excluded the 777 from having any meaningful life with LH, and they went the way of A340 instead.

It was only many years later LH got comfortable with crossing oceans in a twin, but by then had a very large installed fleet of A340, thus making the choice of selecting the A330 very easy indeed. With the size of the A330/340 fleet being what it is, it makes absolutely no economical sense to trade them all off for a fleet of 777s, regardless of how good the 77W is against the A346.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23211
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 5:50 pm

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 39):
The analysis they missed out on was the initial 346 to 77W one. Clearly, the 346 was an inefficient choice despite commonality with the 343 and 333.

I believe LH ordered the A340-600 when what would become the 777-300ER was still the 777-300X and only a design concept.

[Edited 2012-05-17 10:51:34]
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 10:07 pm

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 39):
The analysis they missed out on was the initial 346 to 77W one. Clearly, the 346 was an inefficient choice despite commonality with the 343 and 333.

As Stitch says I believe LH ordered the A346 long before the 77W showed itself to be as good as it turned out to be. I believe that the design goal for the 77W was to beat the economics of the A346, but the margin by which it did surprised everyone, including Boeing. When LH made their decision it was the sensible course; with a large existing fleet of A340's the cost of maintaining a separate fleet would likely be much higher than the projected fuel savings. Even with the 77W beating expectations by as much as it did the result might well have been the same, given fuel prices at the time. I do expect that now, with fuel prices as they are, that LH is going to look at retiring the A340 fleet sooner than they might have otherwise; but they still have a large number of 744's that are not much better, and are due to be retired.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 10:09 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 38):
Well IF the 748 had the same treatment as the 777 will get it would be a hard competitor. A new cfrp wing, lighter skin, weight trimming in the frame etc etc

Leading up to what Boeing at the time was calling the "747 Advanced", they had been studying different 747 derivatives with different levels of changes. They went through the The 747-500/-600/-700, and finally the Adv(anced).
They went with the minimum change derivate that is now known as the 747-8 due to cost considerations and lack of interest by airlines in the more elaborate revamp and its price tag.
If you look at how much the 747-8 already cost, and how much difficulty they are having to get it on target performance-wise, I actually think that they made the right decision.
A more expensive overhaul of the 747 would surely have been a magnificent airplane, but they would have had a really hard time to justify the investment. I think they are better off using the money they didn't spend on the 747 you have in mind for the 777X. (Actually, I think they might have been better off only doing the 747-8F to begin with, but that's neither here nor there.)
I also think that LH may have another look at the 777 should the 777X materialise, as they'll eventually need to replace their A340-600s, and it looks like the available replacements are going to be the A350 and the 777X.
42
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: LH And The 777

Thu May 17, 2012 11:07 pm

LH did not order 777s because the A330 is similar enough and just as USA carriers lean toward Boeing, Euro Zone carriers lean toward Airbus.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Actually, 748 is superior to 77W in terms of per-seat efficiency. That is, assuming you can fill the aircraft. The 748 is about eight years newer than the 77W

That has not been established in real world configurations. If the efficiency was that good, there probably would have been more orders. The airlines likely figured the real numbers and it was not enough to move airlines away from twin engine aircraft.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3251
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: LH And The 777

Sun May 20, 2012 3:27 am

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 44):
That has not been established in real world configurations. If the efficiency was that good, there probably would have been more orders. The airlines likely figured the real numbers and it was not enough to move airlines away from twin engine aircraft.

Buddy, you're forgetting the A380 factor. Airlines that may look for growth beyond the 744 have two options and one (the market has determined) is superior. For a safer 744 replacement, airlines clearly prefer the 77W.
come visit the south pacific