mitris
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:46 pm

How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:56 pm

That way they could have direct flights from London to Sydney. The distance from LHR to SYD is 9,157.9 nm. The B777-200LR could handle 9,380 nm. I believe the aircraft has the legs for that route.

What's keeping away BA and QF of having non stop flights to those cities?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13465
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:01 pm

Yes, the 77L could do the route non-stop but not with any meaningful payload and almost certainly not profitably.

If it were a realistic money-making proposition, they'd be doing it.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:28 pm

Let´s wait for an A380 with more range  
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
ben175
Posts: 526
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:44 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:29 pm

Just out of pure curiosity, could a 3-class 77L make PER-LHR direct?
 
CXfirst
Posts: 2889
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:13 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:53 pm

I've wondered if an all-C class service could work, almost like SQ SIN-EWR/LAX.

There would be less of a payload issue. Plus LHR-SYD has enough premium traffic to fill the plane. And I would bet a few would be willing to pay a premium for the non-stop flight. It could hurt yields on the one-stop flights, as some of those C/F class passengers would take the non-stop, but the service would also take some of the competition passengers.

But, for QF, a small fleet of 77L's for this service wouldn't be realistic. However, BA could possibly operate with the sub-fleet of 77L's, seeing their large fleet of 777's (with the 77W in particular).

-CXfirst
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10008
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:04 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 1):

Yes, the 77L could do the route non-stop but not with any meaningful payload and almost certainly not profitably.

  
Didn't a BA 777 fly BRU-SYD non stop on a charter for the UK PM a few years ago?

Quoting Ben175 (Reply 3):
Just out of pure curiosity, could a 3-class 77L make PER-LHR direct?

Easily.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:07 pm

A 777-200LR configured just with Business Class should have the legs to do SYD-LHR non-stop in both directions most of the year, however putting a significant share of your premium cabin customers on one plane makes it that much harder for the rest of your flights on that route to make money as they'd end up with a higher percentage of Economy seats which would likely depress the yield per seat (and the yield per flight).
 
ZRH
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:09 pm

Quoting Ben175 (Reply 3):
Just out of pure curiosity, could a 3-class 77L make PER-LHR direct?

But who wanted to fly 20 hours non-stop in a cramped economy class? I think such flight would work in an only business class aircraft.
 
RubberJungle
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:16 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:18 pm

Quoting mitris (Thread starter):
What's keeping away BA and QF of having non stop flights to those cities?

Just to add something which might be of interest, I talked to BA about non-stop LHR-SYD a few months ago, in light of the 777X development.

Essentially BA said it's not interested in such a service, because evolution of alliances means it's more beneficial to operate via southeast Asia, plus there's the penalty of tankering fuel. Both of these have reduced the attraction of a non-stop service and, even if an aircraft was capable of making the trip, BA told me it didn't see itself changing from being a "one-stop airline" to Australia.
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:35 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 5):
Didn't a BA 777 fly BRU-SYD non stop on a charter for the UK PM a few years ago?

Yes. But it was BRU - MEL on a standard B777-200ER.
Tony Blair and about 40 staff flew non-stop.
 
vv701
Posts: 5780
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:54 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 5):
Didn't a BA 777 fly BRU-SYD non stop on a charter for the UK PM a few years ago?

On 24 March 2006 BA 772ER G-YMMO flew PM Tony Blair, his wife and approximately 60 others the 8,953 miles from an EU Summit in Brussels (BRU) to the Closing Ceremony of the Commonwealth Games at Melbourne (MEL) operating as BA9118C in a sector time of 18 hrs 55 mins. At that time this set a new distance record for a commercial revenue-earning airliner flight.

Aftter this flight and the Closing Ceremony the aircraft took the Blairs on Official Visits to both New Zealand (AKL) and Indonesia (CGK) before returning to London (LHR) where it arrived on 31 March.

On 10 March the same aircraft had carried Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip to Australia (LHR-SIN-CBR) and then CBR-MEL for the Opening Ceremony of the Commonwealth Games before returning them to LON (MEL-SIN-LHR) arriving there on 18 March. When it carried the Blairs and their party it was therefore still fitted with the Royal Suite in what is normally the First Class Cabin. Thus the Blairs became the only passengers apart from the Queen and Prince Philiup to ever use the suite. It includes two proper beds and can be fitted into either of the two BA 772ERs that have the specially adapted First Class Cabin floor to fit the beds and other furniture that make up the suite.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10008
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:41 pm

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 9):
Yes. But it was BRU - MEL on a standard B777-200ER.
Tony Blair and about 40 staff flew non-stop.
Quoting VV701 (Reply 10):
On 24 March 2006 BA 772ER G-YMMO flew PM Tony Blair, his wife and approximately 60 others the 8,953 miles from an EU Summit in Brussels (BRU) to the Closing Ceremony of the Commonwealth Games at Melbourne (MEL) operating as BA9118C in a sector time of 18 hrs 55 mins. At that time this set a new distance record for a commercial revenue-earning airliner flight.

Aftter this flight and the Closing Ceremony the aircraft took the Blairs on Official Visits to both New Zealand (AKL) and Indonesia (CGK) before returning to London (LHR) where it arrived on 31 March.

On 10 March the same aircraft had carried Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip to Australia (LHR-SIN-CBR) and then CBR-MEL for the Opening Ceremony of the Commonwealth Games before returning them to LON (MEL-SIN-LHR) arriving there on 18 March. When it carried the Blairs and their party it was therefore still fitted with the Royal Suite in what is normally the First Class Cabin. Thus the Blairs became the only passengers apart from the Queen and Prince Philiup to ever use the suite. It includes two proper beds and can be fitted into either of the two BA 772ERs that have the specially adapted First Class Cabin floor to fit the beds and other furniture that make up the suite.

Thank you for that, excellent information.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
ordwaw
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:55 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:49 pm

I am not trying to be difficult ... rather a curious individual trying to match math with economics and a real world practicality. Please shoot holes ...

Quoting RubberJungle (Reply 8):
Essentially BA said it's not interested in such a service, because evolution of alliances means it's more beneficial to operate via southeast Asia

Can someone expand on the premise that evolution of alliances makes it more beneficial to operate with a stop-over?

Quoting RubberJungle (Reply 8):
plus there's the penalty of tankering fuel.

What is the penalty of tankering the fuel here? Wouldn't following that logic suggest that any 16 hour flight should be split into 2 x 8 hour flights.

Quoting RubberJungle (Reply 8):
even if an aircraft was capable of making the trip

I thought we all agreed that an all J class 77L can do the job both ways, with a reasonable payload and passengers.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
however putting a significant share of your premium cabin customers on one plane makes it that much harder for the rest of your flights on that route to make money as they'd end up with a higher percentage of Economy seats

If we had a 77L with say 120 J seats flying non-stop, and a 77W with a SIN stop-over with 400 Y-only seats. And then if we had 2 x 77W with 60 J seats each, and 200Y seats each. We would still be selling 120 J seats and 400 Y seats. in addition, the 77L with J only could be at a premium ... I assume that spreading the J capacity across multiple flights might be a challenge ...


My thought process is ... if it makes sense to have 16 hour non-stop flights without splitting them into 2 x 8 hour flights, then why it does not make sense to have a 20 hour non-stop flight and having to split it into 14hr + 6 hr flights + 2 hr stopover when there is a capable airplane/configuration of doing non-stop?

Unless my logic is flawed, which is possible, the only reason I would see is too big a strain on a passenger to be confined to an airplane cabin for 20 hours non-stop, even in J - there is only so much sleep you can have, so much booze you can drink, and so many movies you can watch at FL360+ ...
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:58 pm

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 12):
I am not trying to be difficult

While all your arguments may be good ones, the problem is that it is LON-SYD.
There is huge demand for seats on the route, at bargain basement prices.
There is very little demand for full price luxury seats.
If you started operating special B777 all J non stop, how much more can you charge than all the aircraft that do one stop? There are so many one-stop seats on Emirates and Malaysian and Singapore and Cathay etc etc that are there enough people willing to pay huge premium to leave SYD at 1830 instead of 1630.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:18 pm

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 12):
Can someone expand on the premise that evolution of alliances makes it more beneficial to operate with a stop-over?

Connecting flights can have higher load factors than Origin & Destination flights. So by having a stop-over in a major hub for another alliance carrier (like DXB for QF/EK), you can appeal to more passengers than those who just want to fly direct to London from Sydney.



Quoting ordwaw (Reply 12):
What is the penalty of tankering the fuel here? Wouldn't following that logic suggest that any 16 hour flight should be split into 2 x 8 hour flights.

You need to burn fuel to haul fuel, so the longer the flight time, the more fuel you will burn and therefore the more fuel you will need to load, which eats into payload.

We'll use a cargo flight as an example. If you wanted to fly non-stop from Tokyo to Chicago with a 747-8 freighter, you'd need to tank around 123t of fuel, which would limit the amount of payload you could load to 114t. If, however, you flew Tokyo-Anchorage and then Anchorage-Tokyo, you need only tank 66t for the first leg and 54t for the second leg - a total of 120t. So you would burn 3t less fuel then the non-stop. But more importantly, you could carry 134t of payload on each of those segments. So not only do you burn less fuel, you make a great deal more money so the extra revenue more than covers whatever extra fuel cost there is.

So by having the stop-over on the passenger flight, you likely burn less fuel and you can carry more people and cargo with the stopover since you are not trading payload weight for fuel weight like you are with the non-stop.



Quoting ordwaw (Reply 12):
If we had a 77L with say 120 J seats flying non-stop, and a 77W with a SIN stop-over with 400 Y-only seats. And then if we had 2 x 77W with 60 J seats each, and 200Y seats each. We would still be selling 120 J seats and 400 Y seats. in addition, the 77L with J only could be at a premium ... I assume that spreading the J capacity across multiple flights might be a challenge ...

Depending on the route, you may find that your premium cabin travelers prefer having two options for Departure/Arrival than just one, so offering two flights might increase the number of seats sold. There is also the benefit of being able to sell some of the seats twice with a stopover if passengers disembark at the stopover point to connect to a different flight and new passengers board at the stopover point to finish the journey to the destination. And you may also burn less fuel making the stop then not.

[Edited 2012-12-15 10:21:07]
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5006
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:32 pm

Quoting Ben175 (Reply 3):
Just out of pure curiosity, could a 3-class 77L make PER-LHR direct?

Yes I could but whether it would be economically justified I don't know. The airways distance is around 8100nm . SX1899 did up a flight plan for a 77L and on the day it was something greater than 18hrs westbound or about 8500nm ESAD. The load/range table shows ~190t ZFW for a 8500nm sector . The 77L DOW is about 155t so that would allow ~ a 35t payload.
Eastbound is about 2hrs less so the payload would be quite a bit better.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 4):
However, BA could possibly operate with the sub-fleet of 77L's,

BA have no where to use this aircraft. My guess is their longest sector is SIN-LHR at about 6650nm airways distance . If they chose they could use a 77W on the route hauling about 50t westbound.
 
ordwaw
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:55 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:46 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 15):
My guess is their longest sector is SIN-LHR at about 6650nm airways distance

LHR - EZE at 6904 nm on a 772-ER
 
Someone83
Posts: 2974
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:42 pm

The big issue is the cost, it's awful expensive to transport fuel at 40.000ft for 17hrs......
 
qf002
Posts: 3092
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:11 am

1. You would have to charge a massive premium for the nonstop flights in order to cover the massive fuel bills that it would incur over the stopping flights. I'm not sure that there are enough passengers willing to pay such a big premium for the sake of saving 2-3 hours, even in F/J.

2. It's a very high risk operation. Had they started this sort of flight 5-6 years ago, they'd have been hit with the rising price of fuel and the drop in international traffic and would almost definitely have dropped out by now.

3. The option to drop flights and proportionally drop capacity across premium/economy (as QF/BA did during the GFC/aftermath) no longer exists if you're separating your classes across different planes. They would likely have been forced to drop below daily on the nonstop which would just totally destroy the business model.

4. Dropping the stop means less opportunity to pick up cargo and local traffic. QF's services to SIN from outside SYD/MEL would have experienced massive oversupply, and virtually every international aircraft flying to Asia/Europe would have been forced into expensive reconfigurations to balance out the seat count.

At the end of the day, it's all about profitability. Do I think SYD-LHR would be cool? Yes. Do I think it would be as profitable as flying via Asia/ME? No.
 
tayser
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:49 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:19 am

The day we get aircraft (and engines) that can fly 2-3x faster than current aircraft will be the day you have Western Europe & Eastern North America to East Coast of Australia non-stop flights.
 
ordwaw
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:55 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:39 am

Quoting tayser (Reply 19):

IMO Supersonic flights would only multiply all the reasons listed in this thread against non-stop flights ... Especially the inability to be profitable ....

[Edited 2012-12-15 18:58:05]
 
Sethor
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:09 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:10 pm

Quoting ZRH (Reply 7):
But who wanted to fly 20 hours non-stop in a cramped economy class? I think such flight would work in an only business class aircraft.

PER-DXB-LHR is 18:30hrs westbound & 17:30hrs eastbound take out runway taxi time, one take off & landing & it will be 30-60mins shorter.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:39 pm

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 16):
LHR - EZE at 6904 nm on a 772-ER

It's 6904 STATUTE miles (mi), but 5999 nautical miles (nm). Big difference on that sector length!
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5006
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:18 pm

Quoting A342 (Reply 22):
It's 6904 STATUTE miles (mi), but 5999 nautical miles (nm). Big difference on that sector length!

I double check the timetable times, they will reflect conservatively typical winds between a city pair. I note that LHR-EZE is about 30-min longer than SIN-LHR which is ~ 240nm on an ESAD basis.
 
KaiTak747
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:08 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:58 pm

Quoting mitris (Thread starter):
What's keeping away BA and QF of having non stop flights to those cities?

As the flight length increases, the fuel consumption exponentially increases. An executive for Air France I think described ultra long haul planes as "flying fuel tanks".

This is because as the flight length increases, you need more fuel, which makes the plane heavier. Because the plane is heavier for take off and the earlier stage of the flight, you need to burn more fuel to cruise. So in the earlier stages of ULH flights the plane is extremely heavy and burns an enormous amount of fuel. Because the costs are so high, ULH flights are very difficult to work. This is the reason why the A340-500 and 777-200LR have sold in such low numbers.

LHR-SIN-SYD would therefore burn far less fuel than LHR-SYD because the plane would be lighter and burning less fuel during most of the journey. Also, if I was flying Y, J or F, I would prefer to stop as 17/18 hours is an awfully long time to be on a plane.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 4):
I've wondered if an all-C class service could work

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"  Long haul business class airlines have historically not worked. Apart from LCY-JFK BA service, and Privatair I can't think of any left. SQ can't make ULH all J routes work in this climate, so I doubt anyone else can. There is so much traffic between LON and SYD but also so much capacity.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:28 pm

Quoting KaiTak747 (Reply 24):
Apart from LCY-JFK BA service, and Privatair I can't think of any left.

And I'm not aware of any remaining all-business class Privatair services. The last two were for KLM (AMS-IAH) and for LX (ZRH-EWR) and those were both dropped within the past year or so. The services they operate for LH on several routes from FRA to India etc. are now 2-class J and Y (32J/60Y), not all-J.
http://www.lufthansa.com/mediapool/pdf/79/media_1497708779.pdf

Open Skies, previously all premium class, has also added Y class seats.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:51 pm

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 12):
Can someone expand on the premise that evolution of alliances makes it more beneficial to operate with a stop-over?

Going off of Stitch, the specific alliance benefit is that you presumably do heavy codesharing through that hub anyway, plus the related alliance services for your pax (lounges, priority airport services, etc. already in place).

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25):
And I'm not aware of any remaining all-business class Privatair services. The last two were for KLM (AMS-IAH) and for LX (ZRH-EWR) and those were both dropped within the past year or so. The services they operate for LH on several routes from FRA to India etc. are now 2-class J and Y (32J/60Y), not all-J.

I wasn't aware of that service before...I'd be interested to know the potential for expansion to other markets.
 
mitris
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:46 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:06 pm

Quoting KaiTak747 (Reply 24):
This is the reason why the A340-500 and 777-200LR have sold in such low numbers.

Your statements make sense, KaiTak747. However, why would Airbus and Boeing design such ultra long range aircrafts when they're not selling that well?

Also, UA seems to be doing well with their Mumbai - Newark route, which is a 16 hr flight according to their website. Delta's Johannesburg - Atlanta flight is 17 hrs long. In addition, EK flight from Dubai to Los Angeles is a 16 hr and 30 mins flight. Aren't those considered ultra long range routes? In other words, consuming more fuel? They must be profitable since they haven't canceled them.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19820
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:12 pm

Quoting ZRH (Reply 7):
But who wanted to fly 20 hours non-stop in a cramped economy class? I think such flight would work in an only business class aircraft.

Not only that, but it would only really work for LHR-PER O&D customers. If you are going anywhere other than PER from LHR, then you'd rather make your stop at BKK or SIN or DXB about halfway through your journey so that you can stretch your legs, given that you have to make a stop.

Remember, just getting to Australia is a lot less important than getting to your destination within Australia.

Quoting mitris (Reply 27):
Your statements make sense, KaiTak747. However, why would Airbus and Boeing design such ultra long range aircrafts when they're not selling that well?

It had never been done before. They were both baiscally shrinks of larger, more successful models. The 77L in particular shares all of its parts with other 777 models. It has the same fuselage as the 77A/2/F. It has the same wing, gear, wingbox, and engines as the 77W/F. It has the same systems architecture as the 77W/F. It has the same interior as the 77A/2. It has the same cockpit as every other 777. The program was almost "free." Their break-even was probably at about ten frames. The A345 was a similar proposition. It is simply an A343/A333 fuselage bolted onto an A346 wingbox/gear/engines. Same interior, same cockpit, same systems.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:13 pm

Quoting mitris (Reply 27):
However, why would Airbus and Boeing design such ultra long range aircrafts when they're not selling that well?

They were already doing the design work on their larger sisters (A340-600 and 777-300ER).
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:34 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 29):
Quoting mitris (Reply 27):
However, why would Airbus and Boeing design such ultra long range aircrafts when they're not selling that well?

They were already doing the design work on their larger sisters (A340-600 and 777-300ER).

Boeing was not going to bother with the 77L; that is why the 77W entered service substantially before the 77L. But some customers pestered them for it, and since the additional work over the 77W was fairly small they did it. Do they regret it? I don't know, but I suspect they are less than happy with the numbers sold.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:54 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 30):
Boeing was not going to bother with the 77L; that is why the 77W entered service substantially before the 77L.

Boeing launched the 777-200LR and 777-300ER together, but the 77L only secured a single customer so Boeing put it on hold and continued forward with the 777-300ER. When additional customers came forward for the type a couple of years later, Boeing put the 77L back into play.

Also, let us not forget that the 777 Freighter leverages most of the 777-200LR and that is worth another 127 orders (to date) on top of the 58 the 77L has secured (to date).

[Edited 2012-12-17 12:56:00]
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19820
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:03 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 30):
Boeing was not going to bother with the 77L; that is why the 77W entered service substantially before the 77L. But some customers pestered them for it, and since the additional work over the 77W was fairly small they did it. Do they regret it? I don't know, but I suspect they are less than happy with the numbers sold.

Well, the design costs would have been minimal since the parts lists are 100% overlapping with other 777 models (AFAIK

They already had the tooling. They aready had a line up and running.

Really, the only substantial cost to the entire program would be flight testing and certification.

It's a very low-risk program, so they might not be thrilled with it, but they are probably not unhappy, either.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
KaiTak747
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:08 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:47 am

Quoting mitris (Reply 27):
Also, UA seems to be doing well with their Mumbai - Newark route, which is a 16 hr flight according to their website. Delta's Johannesburg - Atlanta flight is 17 hrs long. In addition, EK flight from Dubai to Los Angeles is a 16 hr and 30 mins flight. Aren't those considered ultra long range routes? In other words, consuming more fuel? They must be profitable since they haven't canceled them.

Good point mitris, I would imagine that these flights are not long enough to have serious payload restrictions.

Quoting mitris (Reply 27):
Your statements make sense, KaiTak747. However, why would Airbus and Boeing design such ultra long range aircrafts when they're not selling that well?

They could not have cost a huge amount to produce as they both derive from their respective families. Also, fuel prices and interest from airlines were both very different back in the early 2000s when these aircraft were being designed. I think the A340-500, although a fantastic plane in many respects, is without a doubt a commercial failure (Apparently only 34 built, with a lot of them currently stored)
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19820
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:15 am

Quoting KaiTak747 (Reply 33):
I think the A340-500, although a fantastic plane in many respects, is without a doubt a commercial failure (Apparently only 34 built, with a lot of them currently stored)

Yup. It's useful for maybe five routes worldwide and as a VIP aircraft. Not exactly the best market planning.

The 77L is about as fuel-efficient as the 772. It burns only slightly more fuel, but generally not so much as to make much of an operational difference. When it was introduced, it was the 772 replacement. Boeing priced it close to the 772 to discourage anyone from ordering new 772's in lieu of the 77L because it simplified their supply chain to make solely 77L and 77W.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
KaiTak747
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:08 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:44 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
The 77L is about as fuel-efficient as the 772. It burns only slightly more fuel, but generally not so much as to make much of an operational difference. When it was introduced, it was the 772 replacement. Boeing priced it close to the 772 to discourage anyone from ordering new 772's in lieu of the 77L because it simplified their supply chain to make solely 77L and 77W.

Thank you for your great explanation. It is very interesting to know! I guess that most airlines would rather take the 787 or 773ER at the moment as there are so few routes which require the range of the 77L.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:16 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
The 77L is about as fuel-efficient as the 772. It burns only slightly more fuel, but generally not so much as to make much of an operational difference.

But it's much heavier and costs like landing fees (and sometimes ATC and overflight fees) in most of the world are based on MTOW (max. landing weight in the US) so you're paying more on every flight if you don't need the 77L's range. The A330 is the best option for the huge majority of routes that don't require the range.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:33 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 36):
But it's much heavier and costs like landing fees (and sometimes ATC and overflight fees) in most of the world are based on MTOW (max. landing weight in the US) so you're paying more on every flight if you don't need the 77L's range.

The 777-200LR seems to be employed more for it's ability to operate without payload restrictions on long-haul missions more than for it's range.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3713
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:10 am

LHR-SYD is a tricky one
as to why BA and QF don't have 77L....

BA don't need them (except for a direct flight to Oz)
QF has been foolish for a long time to not have any 777 in the fleet and the 77L is not something you would generally by standalone without the 77W.
QF could certainly use the 777 (SYD-DFW non-stop both directions), SYD-YVR, SYD-SFO, BNE-DXB, SYD-SFO, and pretty much any of their other 744 routes with the 2 exceptions of JNB and SCL due to ETOPS/CASA restrictions.

Now that the 787 is flying, provided QF get theirs and they do what they are promised then that makes the need for them to get the 777 redundant (even though the 777 is larger and can fly further 77L).
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:18 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):

The 777-200LR seems to be employed more for it's ability to operate without payload restrictions on long-haul missions more than for it's range.

I've always found that to be the most intriguing aspect of the 77L. Despite how Boeing advertised it as a ULH plane to open new markets, it's mostly used to make existing routes more viable or more efficient. Not that that is a bad thing for the plane, obviously.
 
nrt1011
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:08 pm

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:44 am

Air Canada flies a 777-200LR on YVR-SYD. It seems the 300ER is just a tad too small for that trip so perhaps the 200LR is perfect for that route although it seems the perfect route for the 200LR is limited, much as it was for the 340-500. The AC flight is often packed so I am kind of glad AC has exclusive for now
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:24 am

EU-PER would be a nice route, that is not non stop SYD though, but you would arrive on Oz soil, sleep a night and then go domestic.

The giant leap I would call that route. I flew the route to SYD about 8 times in the 90´s, what really was crap was the stop in SIN or BKK, get off the plane when you are dead tired and exhausted..

I would rather suffer 18 hours in the cabin and then sleep a good nights sleep in PER before I would go on to SYD. One step to Aussie soil..
 
rutankrd
Posts: 2607
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:08 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:47 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 38):
Now that the 787 is flying, provided QF get theirs and they do what they are promised then that makes the need for them to get the 777 redundant (even though the 777 is larger and can fly further 77L).

But they aren't getting them !

The 788 models will be doing Regional and South Asia under Jetstar brand and the 789 model deliveries are cancelled.

There is nothing now or planned that could operate SYD- LHR- SYD non stop all year with anything like a commercial load factor - Just give up on this stupid recurring thread already.

There is little commercial grounds for the engineering leap in technology necessary.
 
qf002
Posts: 3092
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:19 am

Quoting mitris (Reply 27):
Also, UA seems to be doing well with their Mumbai - Newark route, which is a 16 hr flight according to their website. Delta's Johannesburg - Atlanta flight is 17 hrs long. In addition, EK flight from Dubai to Los Angeles is a 16 hr and 30 mins flight. Aren't those considered ultra long range routes? In other words, consuming more fuel? They must be profitable since they haven't canceled them.

Where there is a market, ULH can be very successful. QF's SYD-DFW service (the longest in the world once SQ drops their ULH flights) was upped to daily within a year and now flies at a 90-95% load factor year round.

The fact that the all-J flights are being cancelled while mixed cabin flights of similar lengths are continuing says a lot about the viability of all-premium flights in this suggestion.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 42):
But they aren't getting them !

The 788 models will be doing Regional and South Asia under Jetstar brand and the 789 model deliveries are cancelled

It's extremely unlikely that they won't. They might not end up with 60 as was planned a few years ago, but profitable 744 and A333 services will need new aircraft at the end of the decade.

There are still 35 options for delivery from 2016. I imagine the system is similar to AA's agreement, where they can firm individual or blocks of aircraft a certain number of months out from delivery date.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 42):
There is nothing now or planned that could operate SYD- LHR- SYD non stop all year with anything like a commercial load factor - Just give up on this stupid recurring thread already.

A higher gross weight A388 could well have the capability to fly this sort of route.

But I share the sentiment. Plenty of threads have already discussed this topic to death.
 
vv701
Posts: 5780
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR?

Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:37 am

Quoting sweair (Reply 41):
EU-PER would be a nice route, that is not non stop SYD though, but you would arrive on Oz soil, sleep a night and then go domestic.

The giant leap I would call that route. I flew the route to SYD about 8 times in the 90´s, what really was crap was the stop in SIN or BKK, get off the plane when you are dead tired and exhausted..

Giant leap? Certainly its a long, long flight. But if taking time out to overnight at PER, why not take time out and overnight at SIN and avoid an 18 hour flight entirely? Or is Oz soil that much more appealing?

Who is online