goblin211
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 4:30 pm

777LR Vs 777ER

Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:58 pm

I haven't flown on either but would like to some day. I'd like to know the following please...

What are the major differences between the two?
Why would an airline chose one over the other?
Which is better selling at the moment? Why?
Why would Boeing add more fleets in production w/ an already overdue 787, 747i?
Lastly, any links to more info would be great.
From the airport with love
 
delimit
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:08 pm

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:05 am

I assume you mean 200LR vs. 200ER, and not 200LR vs. 300ER. I'm answering accordingly, of the top of my head.  

1. Range. The LR flies far.
2. Range for the LR. Is anyone buying ERs anymore?
3. Hmmm...LR would be my guess, but that's not saying much. I thought ER sales had pretty much dried up. The planes coming off the line were sold long ago. Overall though, the ER has outsold the LR.
4. The LR flies further than any other production airliner. It enables routes the 787 and 748 could never fly.

The Boeing commercial page and the wikipedia page on the 777 would be great places to start.
 
lucky777
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:40 am

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:00 am

Here's a quick question....what is the range of the LR without the auxiliary fuel tanks?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:12 am

The 777-200LR is just a freight train. It can lift five more tons (at maximum payoad) than the 777-200ER and fly it almost 2000nm farther.

Also, Boeing and GE are offering pricing very close to what a 777-200ER would run, so pretty much any carrier in the market for a 777-200 is buying the LR model, even if they don't need the raw lift or range.

I believe Widebodyphotog has also noted that beyond 2000nm, the 77L is the more efficient platform than the 77E, and most 77E missions exceed that.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7411
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:13 am

Quoting Goblin211 (Thread starter):
What are the major differences between the two?
Why would an airline chose one over the other?
Which is better selling at the moment? Why?
Why would Boeing add more fleets in production w/ an already overdue 787, 747i?
Lastly, any links to more info would be great.

1) Range and Payload MTOW related reasons.
2) 77L is having somewhat of a resurgence now airlines are having to work around the 787 failure to deliver anywhere near on time.
3) There is not much difference. Same reason as Airbus still has A343s technically available - it doesn't cost them anything substantial to offer what is a very similar aircraft.

Quoting Delimit (Reply 1):
2. Range for the LR. Is anyone buying ERs anymore?

How about CO. They've had 2 delivered this year so far..

Quoting Delimit (Reply 1):
Overall though, the ER has outsold the LR.

The 300ER is flying out the door faster though. The 77F as well.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
BasilFawlty
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:23 am

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:31 am

Quoting Delimit (Reply 1):
Is anyone buying ERs anymore?

No orders at the moment as far as I know.

Quoting Delimit (Reply 1):
I thought ER sales had pretty much dried up. The planes coming off the line were sold long ago.

BA ordered 4 (delivered in mid 2009) in early 2007 and OZ ordered 2 (which are not delivered yet) in mid 2008, I think these are the most recent orders.
'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
 
codc10
Posts: 1749
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:50 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 4):
How about CO. They've had 2 delivered this year so far..

Mostly because CO already had a fleet of 20 777-200ERs, and did not want to take on such a small subfleet of 77Ls. Worth noting is that the 77L is about 15,000lb heavier than the 77E.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:54 am

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 5):
BA ordered 4 (delivered in mid 2009) in early 2007 and OZ ordered 2 (which are not delivered yet) in mid 2008, I think these are the most recent orders.

NH ordered a set of five this time last year to cover delays in getting their 787s.
 
Dldiamondboy
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:21 pm

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:43 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 4):
The 300ER is flying out the door faster though. The 77F as well.

Per Boeings website 1166 of all 777 variants have been ordered. 777-300ER is the best selling variant followed by the 777-200ER. The 777-200LR is the lowest selling.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:18 pm

Quoting DLdiamondboy (Reply 8):
The 777-200LR is the lowest selling.

The 77L almost didn't appear; it was a natural addition with the 77W, but there was little demand for it. That is why the 77W appeared first; but enough airlines desired the 77L that Boeing went ahead and certified it.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:57 am

Now with A350-900 approaching, buying any B777-200 is a daring undertaking. Residual value may be hurt after the usual utilization of ~10-12 years. A B772L might make a good converted freighter, though.
I think when the B777-200ER is replaced by B787-9 and A350-9, they will replace many DC10s and even B747-200/400 converted freighters.
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Sat Dec 11, 2010 3:42 pm

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 10):
Now with A350-900 approaching, buying any B777-200 is a daring undertaking.

You still have to meet today's needs. Just as when you buy a computer, you know something better is coming tomorrow. If you have need of an aircraft today the A359 will do you no good at all, and if the best plane for your mission is a 772 then you need to buy it. Yes, residual value will suffer some when better planes become available, but don't forget that it will take many years for them to be widely available, and many more before they are readily available on the used market.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
c5load
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:40 pm

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:09 pm

Has there been another airplane that has been out for years, been succeeded by a longer, better airplane, then taken some points from that better plane, appled it to the original and succeed as a new airplane. If not, why couldn't it? Take the 767 for argument. In theory, could the 763ER be fitted with 772 engines, 764 wings, and come out as the 767-300LR?
"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:06 am

Quoting c5load (Reply 12):
In theory, could the 763ER be fitted with 772 engines, 764 wings, and come out as the 767-300LR?

Why would you do that? Just buy a 787. Besides, the 772 engines are too large and heavy to fit on any variant of a 767.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19599
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:36 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 9):

The 77L almost didn't appear; it was a natural addition with the 77W, but there was little demand for it. That is why the 77W appeared first; but enough airlines desired the 77L that Boeing went ahead and certified it.

It kind of had to. Basically, it's just the 77W in a 772 airframe.
-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: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:52 pm

The 777-200LR and 777-300ER programs launched together in 2000, but lack of interest in the 777-200LR had Boeing stop design work on it for about a year until BR and PK placed orders in 2002, at which point they started up again.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:41 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
It kind of had to. Basically, it's just the 77W in a 772 airframe.

They didn't HAVE to; they still had to spend considerable money certifying it. If nobody wanted it, why spend the money, even if (as you correctly state) most of the work had already been done? There was still more required.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:50 am

The 77L is the best performing ultra long haul aircraft currently in production. In simple terms, it is fully modernized and current. Going forward the 787 will push much of this technology further.

The 77E is a design and product of the early/mid 90s. To put in perspective, the technology was predicated on delivering a type that would compete against the MD-11.

The 77L will be a mainstay in legacy fleets around the world for another 20 years. It's role will be replaced with flagship A350 and potential 787 future derivatives, but secondary support fleets will persist - much like DC-10 and 747 classics did in the '90s and the MD-11 with KL still today.

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 10):
I think when the B777-200ER is replaced by B787-9 and A350-9, they will replace many DC10s and even B747-200/400 converted freighters.



Yes, that's probably true... albeit in 10-12 years.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
They didn't HAVE to; they still had to spend considerable money certifying it.



Not considerable - that's a stretch. However, Boeing IS spending considerable money certifying the 787.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 4):
Quoting Delimit (Reply 1):
2. Range for the LR. Is anyone buying ERs anymore?

How about CO. They've had 2 delivered this year so far..



Two airframes delivered in 2010 isn't saying much; it's December 26th..
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4950
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:46 am

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 6):
Worth noting is that the 77L is about 15,000lb heavier than the 77E.

But at a passenger load of about 300 passengers the TOW of the 77L is only 9000lb above the 77E. This is due to lower fuel load because of the better airframe engine performance of the 77L. This gap is probably closer today, the above data was from 2005.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:44 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 17):
Not considerable - that's a stretch.

It depends on your perspective. Compared to a new aircraft, yes, it is small. But if it came out of your pocket I think you'd consider it considerable. Just the flight testing alone has to amount to many, many millions.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:08 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
They didn't HAVE to; they still had to spend considerable money certifying it. If nobody wanted it, why spend the money, even if (as you correctly state) most of the work had already been done? There was still more required.

Well by certifying the 777-200LR, it should have helped streamline the certification of the 777 Freighter, so there was a benefit of doing so even if orders had been thin.



Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 10):
I think when the B777-200ER is replaced by B787-9 and A350-9, they will replace many DC10s and even B747-200/400 converted freighters.

Based on rumors of the conversion cost, 777-200ERs will only be viable for low-density package freight using the current main deck. To carry general cargo densities (160kg/m3) requires the entire main deck to be removed and replaced with the aluminum deck from the 777 freighter and that cost is said to be up to $100 million.

  

Nobody is going to do that, since the 777 Freighter is similar in price (when you add in the cost of the airframe) and would offer much better performance and better economics. So MD-11s flying general cargo loads and 747-200Fs will be replaced by 777 Freighters, which is actually good for Boeing since it means more sales.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 777LR Vs 777ER

Fri Dec 31, 2010 6:16 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19):
It depends on your perspective. Compared to a new aircraft, yes, it is small. But if it came out of your pocket I think you'd consider it considerable.



Why should we compare it to if it were out of our pockets? That's not relevant figuring Boeing is No 28 on the Fortune list. Boeing had nearly $12B in gross income last year and was well in the black during the cerification of the 77L.

So in the bigger picture, the millions spent on flight testing the 77L was not great enough to warrant the decision not to certify it, especially when adding the Freighter to the equation. The 77L is a niche aircraft, but it has sold - and will continue to do so.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/financia...ng-company/ba/nys/income-statement

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...500/2010/industries/207/index.html
There's nothing quite like a trijet.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 23 guests