Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Breathe
Topic Author
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:06 pm

Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:02 pm

Are Emirates planning on retiring their 777-300 fleet? They seem to have put a lot of their remaining fleet into storage. Are there any plans on holding onto their 777-200LR's for a while longer?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:08 pm

I suppose EK cannot replace the 777-200LR until the 777-8 arrives on property.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10197
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:12 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
I suppose EK cannot replace the 777-200LR until the 777-8 arrives on property.

Or A359's.
 
kaitak
Posts: 9957
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:16 pm

airbazar wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
I suppose EK cannot replace the 777-200LR until the 777-8 arrives on property.

Or A359's.


The 778s will ultimately replace the 77Ls; the A359 is going up against the 789/10 - a completely different competition.
 
migair54
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:24 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:23 pm

I dont´think the B773 will stay in EK fleet much longer, some of the B77W already left the fleet, the B77L is not a plane really needed in EK network, except maybe for FLL route, but I guess they will not leave the fleet until the 10 years lease expire, during that time they can be used in any route with seasonal fluctuations, I don´t know where do they fly right now, I think FLL and HND are two of the routes.
 
dubaiamman243
Posts: 1153
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:35 pm

Yesterday a B773 has left Dubai for storage at Teruel.
The next airline CEO :crossfingers:
 
User avatar
maortega15
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:52 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:00 pm

5 of the 773's will be going to CX.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7184
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:01 pm

kaitak wrote:
airbazar wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
I suppose EK cannot replace the 777-200LR until the 777-8 arrives on property.

Or A359's.


The 778s will ultimately replace the 77Ls; the A359 is going up against the 789/10 - a completely different competition.


I have no doubt that many, or most, 77L's will be replaced by 778's.
However, the A350-900, especially in 280t guise, is capable of replacing a 77L on many missions, and at a lower operating cost than a 778 will be.
It will have a nominal range of some 8 500m, remarkably similar to the 77L with no aux tanks (and most 77L's don't have these), with 35% lower fuel burn.
something the 778 won't have (because it's bigger and heavier)

So whilst I agree with the principle, in application I suspect the "competition" is more nuanced than that.

Rgds
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1791
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:22 pm

astuteman wrote:
kaitak wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Or A359's.


The 778s will ultimately replace the 77Ls; the A359 is going up against the 789/10 - a completely different competition.


I have no doubt that many, or most, 77L's will be replaced by 778's.
However, the A350-900, especially in 280t guise, is capable of replacing a 77L on many missions, and at a lower operating cost than a 778 will be.
It will have a nominal range of some 8 500m, remarkably similar to the 77L with no aux tanks (and most 77L's don't have these), with 35% lower fuel burn.
something the 778 won't have (because it's bigger and heavier)

So whilst I agree with the principle, in application I suspect the "competition" is more nuanced than that.

Rgds


Yes, but the 778 will be able to take quite a bit more payload, so not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
Whatever
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3000
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:30 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
astuteman wrote:
kaitak wrote:

The 778s will ultimately replace the 77Ls; the A359 is going up against the 789/10 - a completely different competition.


I have no doubt that many, or most, 77L's will be replaced by 778's.
However, the A350-900, especially in 280t guise, is capable of replacing a 77L on many missions, and at a lower operating cost than a 778 will be.
It will have a nominal range of some 8 500m, remarkably similar to the 77L with no aux tanks (and most 77L's don't have these), with 35% lower fuel burn.
something the 778 won't have (because it's bigger and heavier)

So whilst I agree with the principle, in application I suspect the "competition" is more nuanced than that.

Rgds


Yes, but the 778 will be able to take quite a bit more payload, so not exactly an apples to apples comparison.


778 is also a larger aircraft compared to the A359 and 77L while still being slightly smaller than the 77W, I think EK will enjoy having an aircraft in this capacity range.
 
User avatar
flybynight
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:46 pm

Well the 773 flies daily to SEA. Since SEA has refused to upgrade the airport to allow for A380's, I would imagine the 778 will definitely fly to Seattle.
Not sure how much more capacity the 778 allows for compared to the 773ER.
The one flying to SEA right now was built in 2011, so not exactly an old plane!!
Last edited by flybynight on Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Heia Norge!
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3000
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:47 pm

flybynight wrote:
Well the 773 flies daily to SEA. Since SEA has refused to upgrade the airport to allow for A380's, I would imagine the 778 will definitely fly to Seattle.
Not sure how much more capacity the 778 allows for compared to the 773ER.


None or equal. since the 778 is a smaller aircraft, I think you mean 779. Also the 773 and 77W are 2 different aircraft, the aircraft you see at SEA is the 77W aka 777-300ER. 773 refers to the 777-300.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7184
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 7:46 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
astuteman wrote:
kaitak wrote:

The 778s will ultimately replace the 77Ls; the A359 is going up against the 789/10 - a completely different competition.


I have no doubt that many, or most, 77L's will be replaced by 778's.
However, the A350-900, especially in 280t guise, is capable of replacing a 77L on many missions, and at a lower operating cost than a 778 will be.
It will have a nominal range of some 8 500m, remarkably similar to the 77L with no aux tanks (and most 77L's don't have these), with 35% lower fuel burn.
something the 778 won't have (because it's bigger and heavier)

So whilst I agree with the principle, in application I suspect the "competition" is more nuanced than that.

Rgds


Yes, but the 778 will be able to take quite a bit more payload, so not exactly an apples to apples comparison.


May I suggest you read my post again and relax a bit ....

quote:- I have no doubt that many, or most, 77L's will be replaced by 778's.
quote:- 778 is bigger and heavier .....

everything you need to be re-assured of should be in there.....

There was no "apples to apples" comparison - the point I was making was that a 778 might not be the only alternative to replace a 77L in the EK fleet.

Or is that an A-net heresy which I've not picked up on? :)

Rgds
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:19 pm

astuteman wrote:
...the point I was making was that a 778 might not be the only alternative to replace a 77L in the EK fleet.


Looking at the general use of the 777-200LR within the ME3's route structure, they seem to be there to launch ULH routes that have the growth potential to be up-gauged to 777-300ERs (often with blocked seats) down the road. It also seems to be used on cargo-heavy routes because it can lift it's full usable payload of 45,000kg on even 42 degree days at DXB.

The 777-8 solves two issues EK has: the small(er) size of the 777-200LR and the inability of the 777-300ER to be used at full effect on their longest routes. It offers close to a 777-300ER's payload with a 777-200LR's range, which will allow EK to operate the routes without needing to block seats* and should also allow them to depart DXB on the hottest days with a full usable payload aboard.

Based on your excellent analysis in the TechOps thread on the A350-900ULR's performance, it's not going to be able to match the usable payload of the 777-200LR though it could get close on the passenger capacity and, of course, it will burn significantly less fuel than the 777-200LR on such missions. So if EK chooses the A350-900 for their regional RFP airframe, that could open a role for the A350-900ULR to replace the 777-200LR as a "route opener" with the 777-8 eventually taking over as traffic grows (much as the 777-200LR and 777-300ER pair serve now).


* Yes, a 777-8 will offer less total seats than a 777-300ER (342 compared to 354 with the current cabin product) due to the shorter cabin length, but I believe on the worst days out of DXB, EK needs to block around 30 seats on their 777-300ERs for their longest missions, which puts them at an effective 324 so the 777-8 would still move 18 more folks than the 777-300ER and do so with lower fuel burn.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15277
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:36 pm

Breathe wrote:
Are Emirates planning on retiring their 777-300 fleet? They seem to have put a lot of their remaining fleet into storage. Are there any plans on holding onto their 777-200LR's for a while longer?


Just to be clear I believe most of the EK 777-300 are actually leased. If they are being put into storage it would be more of s return to the lessor, and the lessor unable to place the aircraft in the market.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:38 pm

Stitch wrote:

Looking at the general use of the 777-200LR within the ME3's route structure, they seem to be there to launch ULH routes that have the growth potential to be up-gauged to 777-300ERs (often with blocked seats) down the road. It also seems to be used on cargo-heavy routes because it can lift it's full usable payload of 45,000kg on even 42 degree days at DXB.


Actually that is not true. I suppose you were looking at the standard payload/range chart.

ISA + 33°C and 14,000 feet runway at sea level gives a MTOW of 325t. The 77L is offered at 347t MTOW, so the aircraft is weight limited out of DXB.

Of course the weight penalty is rather small compared to the 77W, but it cannot use its "full usable payload", unless you sacrifice fuel for payload.

Image
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:27 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Actually that is not true. I suppose you were looking at the standard payload/range chart.


I was going off comments from EK Fleet Operations folks on PPRune.net.
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:49 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Stitch wrote:

Looking at the general use of the 777-200LR within the ME3's route structure, they seem to be there to launch ULH routes that have the growth potential to be up-gauged to 777-300ERs (often with blocked seats) down the road. It also seems to be used on cargo-heavy routes because it can lift it's full usable payload of 45,000kg on even 42 degree days at DXB.


Actually that is not true. I suppose you were looking at the standard payload/range chart.

ISA + 33°C and 14,000 feet runway at sea level gives a MTOW of 325t. The 77L is offered at 347t MTOW, so the aircraft is weight limited out of DXB.

Of course the weight penalty is rather small compared to the 77W, but it cannot use its "full usable payload", unless you sacrifice fuel for payload.

Image


Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think EK's 77L came with the 115's... same as the 77W. The above chart would be inaccurate in that case.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
astuteman
Posts: 7184
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:51 pm

Stitch wrote:
astuteman wrote:
...the point I was making was that a 778 might not be the only alternative to replace a 77L in the EK fleet.


Looking at the general use of the 777-200LR within the ME3's route structure, they seem to be there to launch ULH routes that have the growth potential to be up-gauged to 777-300ERs (often with blocked seats) down the road. It also seems to be used on cargo-heavy routes because it can lift it's full usable payload of 45,000kg on even 42 degree days at DXB.

The 777-8 solves two issues EK has: the small(er) size of the 777-200LR and the inability of the 777-300ER to be used at full effect on their longest routes. It offers close to a 777-300ER's payload with a 777-200LR's range, which will allow EK to operate the routes without needing to block seats* and should also allow them to depart DXB on the hottest days with a full usable payload aboard.

Based on your excellent analysis in the TechOps thread on the A350-900ULR's performance, it's not going to be able to match the usable payload of the 777-200LR though it could get close on the passenger capacity and, of course, it will burn significantly less fuel than the 777-200LR on such missions. So if EK chooses the A350-900 for their regional RFP airframe, that could open a role for the A350-900ULR to replace the 777-200LR as a "route opener" with the 777-8 eventually taking over as traffic grows (much as the 777-200LR and 777-300ER pair serve now).


* Yes, a 777-8 will offer less total seats than a 777-300ER (342 compared to 354 with the current cabin product) due to the shorter cabin length, but I believe on the worst days out of DXB, EK needs to block around 30 seats on their 777-300ERs for their longest missions, which puts them at an effective 324 so the 777-8 would still move 18 more folks than the 777-300ER and do so with lower fuel burn.


Thanks for the considered response.

I think my first duty is to reiterate (again) that I did say I expected the 777-8 to be the standard replacement for a 77L, for all the reasons you describe.
It does feel a bit like I've stumbled on a heresy of some sort, as I feel as if I have received 3 rebuttals so far to a point I have not actually made.
The only point I HAVE made is that it doesn't necessarily have to be the ONLY option

Now that we are here, though, a couple of points do come to mind.

Firstly, to say that an A350LR won't lift the payload a 77L will is a bit of a blunt instrument.
In the typical non-auxiliary tank configuration, the A359LR will match it (in practical terms) up to about 6 500Nm still air.
Beyond 8 500Nm still air, it will match, or out-lift the LR, which is admittedly on very low payloads.
At 7 500Nm still-air, the 77L has a distinct advantage in payload, as the A359LR will be limited to about 40t payload where the 77L is still at MZFW.
All depends on the mission required

Secondly, as you point out, this only becomes a conversation if the A359 does get selected for the "regional" role, as that would give a fleet commonality.

Thirdly, as Karel has observed, the A359LR will offer significantly superior hot field performance to the 77L.
Sadly, unlike the incredibly informative Boeing ACAP linked by Karel showing ISA+27c and ISA+33c performance, Airbus show ISA+15c as the warmest example.
However, at those temperatures, the A350LR, even at 280t does sport a 1 300ft - 1 500ft runway length advantage over the 77L.
It's unlikely that it would be materially different at ISA+27c or ISA+33c.
I don't anticipate the A359LR would take any MTOW hits even at those temperatures.

The second point is the most relevant though IMO. I can't see the A359 being selected by EK JUST for a ULR role - that would make no sense whatsoever (to me anyway).

Rgds
 
george77300
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:51 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
I suppose EK cannot replace the 777-200LR until the 777-8 arrives on property.


This is not entirely true. Unlike QR and EY, Emirates do not need the range of the B77L. Their longest 777 flight is DXB-IAH and operated by B77W and their longest route is DXB-AKL operated by A388. There is no real need for them to keep them. For example currently they are flying to HAM and HKG. They also use for some shorter routes with less demand such as IKA. They really don't need the range and can be replaced by B77W in the EK fleet.
 
Arion640
Posts: 3112
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:01 pm

george77300 wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
I suppose EK cannot replace the 777-200LR until the 777-8 arrives on property.


This is not entirely true. Unlike QR and EY, Emirates do not need the range of the B77L. Their longest 777 flight is DXB-IAH and operated by B77W and their longest route is DXB-AKL operated by A388. There is no real need for them to keep them. For example currently they are flying to HAM and HKG. They also use for some shorter routes with less demand such as IKA. They really don't need the range and can be replaced by B77W in the EK fleet.


Doesn't the 77L go into fort lauderdale? I imagine FL would become a 787-9 or A359 route eventually.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:13 pm

astuteman wrote:
I think my first duty is to reiterate (again) that I did say I expected the 777-8 to be the standard replacement for a 77L, for all the reasons you describe.
It does feel a bit like I've stumbled on a heresy of some sort, as I feel as if I have received 3 rebuttals so far to a point I have not actually made. The only point I HAVE made is that it doesn't necessarily have to be the ONLY option.


True. Depending on the role, the A350-900 or 787-9 could very well be a replacement option and therefore should not be viewed as a "heretical" opinion as both can reach most locations from DXB with a viable usable payload. :angel:


astuteman wrote:
Firstly, to say that an A350LR won't lift the payload a 77L will is a bit of a blunt instrument.


Also true, as I am admittedly only really looking at it through the lens of her being a freight-train, which favors both the 777-200LR and 777-8 (and also disfavors them for any other role compared to other Boeing and Airbus offerings) as that has been one of the roles it appears to have been used for in EK's route-planning.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:37 pm

astuteman wrote:
kaitak wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Or A359's.


The 778s will ultimately replace the 77Ls; the A359 is going up against the 789/10 - a completely different competition.


I have no doubt that many, or most, 77L's will be replaced by 778's.
However, the A350-900, especially in 280t guise, is capable of replacing a 77L on many missions, and at a lower operating cost than a 778 will be.
It will have a nominal range of some 8 500m, remarkably similar to the 77L with no aux tanks (and most 77L's don't have these), with 35% lower fuel burn.
something the 778 won't have (because it's bigger and heavier)

So whilst I agree with the principle, in application I suspect the "competition" is more nuanced than that.

Rgds




Do you have any information regarding your statement on the 35% better fuel burn of the 359 versus the 778? I say this with all due respect.....but that number sounds completely ridiculous. The 77L is within 25% of the 359 on a 5000nm mission and gets much better on true ULH....closer to 10-12% percent over 6000nm.

The 778 has a 10% lower SFC than a 77L and due to the use of a bigger/better wing and composites overall efficiency is roughly 15% better than the 77L. That would put it at roughly equal to the 359 on ULH with a plane that holds 30-40 more pax and can carry many, many more tons of payload over the same distance than the 359. And in reality, the true competitor to the 778 would be the 350-1000. The 359 is much smaller.

I am not necessarily saying you are wrong...but 35% better does not sound accurate. If there is information out there that contradicts me that would be fine. I'd love to see it.


This a-net link discuss the differences between the 778 and A350 in more detail. Thanks.


viewtopic.php?t=582625
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15277
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:49 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
Do you have any information regarding your statement on the 35% better fuel burn of the 359 versus the 778? I say this with all due respect.....but that number sounds completely ridiculous. The 77L is within 25% of the 359 on a 5000nm mission and gets much better on true ULH....closer to 10-12% percent over 6000nm.


This does sound the wrong way around to me. On shorter sectors the cost to carry extra fuel is low, on longer sectors the penalty to carry fuel is higher.

Our experience with the 77W and A359 is the longer the sector length the greater the differance.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:51 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
astuteman wrote:
However, the A350-900, especially in 280t guise, is capable of replacing a 77L on many missions, and at a lower operating cost than a 778 will be. It will have a nominal range of some 8 500m, remarkably similar to the 77L with no aux tanks (and most 77L's don't have these), with 35% lower fuel burn.
something the 778 won't have (because it's bigger and heavier).

Do you have any information regarding your statement on the 35% better fuel burn of the 359 versus the 778? I say this with all due respect.....but that number sounds completely ridiculous.


The comparison cited is between the 777-200LR and A350-900, not the 777-8 and A350-900. And at extreme ranges (when most of the payload being hauled is fuel), a 35% delta does not sound completely far-fetched.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:47 pm

Stitch wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
astuteman wrote:
However, the A350-900, especially in 280t guise, is capable of replacing a 77L on many missions, and at a lower operating cost than a 778 will be. It will have a nominal range of some 8 500m, remarkably similar to the 77L with no aux tanks (and most 77L's don't have these), with 35% lower fuel burn.
something the 778 won't have (because it's bigger and heavier).

Do you have any information regarding your statement on the 35% better fuel burn of the 359 versus the 778? I say this with all due respect.....but that number sounds completely ridiculous.


The comparison cited is between the 777-200LR and A350-900, not the 777-8 and A350-900. And at extreme ranges (when most of the payload being hauled is fuel), a 35% delta does not sound completely far-fetched.



The comparison is still off. As I said....on a 5000nm mission the fuel burn difference on a 77L versus a 359 is 25%.....not 35%. Specifically, the 77L burns 26.9 lbs of fuel per minute versus 21.4 lbs per minute for the 359. However, even this is misleading because the 359 fuel burn jumps up to 25.1 lbs of fuel per minute of a mission of 6542 nm.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft


As for the 778 to compare it to a 359 is apples to oranges. The 778 seats 30-40 more pax and can carry 28,000 lbs more payload over the same distance as the 359. The better comparison is between the 350-1000 versus the 778. But even that comparison the 778 can carry 8,000 lbs more payload and can fly almost a 1000 nm further.

The 778 is a unique aircraft. I would not deploy it on missions between JFK and IAD. But if you need a very large payload carried efficiently from DXB to say LAX it's the best thing out there, I feel confident EK was aware of all of these variables and made the correct business decision.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:10 am

Breathe wrote:
Are Emirates planning on retiring their 777-300 fleet? They seem to have put a lot of their remaining fleet into storage. Are there any plans on holding onto their 777-200LR's for a while longer?


They only had 12 773's to begin with, 3 are stored, 3 are returned to lessor/with other airlines, and 1 destroyed -- 5 are still active with EK. All were produced between 1999 and 2003 --all between 14-18 years old -- so it's time to go.

Only 1 77W has been returned to the lessor.

All 772LR's are 110K, Qatar has 115K.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15277
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:07 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
The comparison is still off. As I said....on a 5000nm mission the fuel burn difference on a 77L versus a 359 is 25%.....not 35%. Specifically, the 77L burns 26.9 lbs of fuel per minute versus 21.4 lbs per minute for the 359. However, even this is misleading because the 359 fuel burn jumps up to 25.1 lbs of fuel per minute of a mission of 6542 nm.


This is not true. The fuel burn on any aircraft reduces as the flight progresses as fuel is burnt off over a sector. Suggest you lookup the breguet range equation.

The differance in broard terms between a 77L. At the start of a 6000 nm flight a 77L will burn around 10,000 kg/hr, and at the end around 7000 kg/hr. the A359 will start off under 7000 kg/hr and at the end back below 5000 kg/hr. On longer sectors the differance between the initial fuel burns increase as the cost to carry fuel increases even further.

The reason for this is firstly the the drag on the A359 is lower, the engine is more modern the TSFC is lower, the aircraft is lighter, the fuel uplift is lower, the A359 cruises 4-6000 ft higher initially, it flies faster, i.e. covers more ground miles for a given fuel burn.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15277
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:09 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
They only had 12 773's to begin with


How many did EK own vs lease ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
crazyplane1234
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:19 am

maortega15 wrote:
5 of the 773's will be going to CX.

Wasn't A6-EMW (the aircraft that was written off) originally one of these 5? Will CX source a plane from somewhere else, or will they hold onto one of their 772s for a bit longer?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15277
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:25 am

My understanding none of the aircraft are coming from EK they are coming from a lessor without engines.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:47 am

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The comparison is still off. As I said....on a 5000nm mission the fuel burn difference on a 77L versus a 359 is 25%.....not 35%. Specifically, the 77L burns 26.9 lbs of fuel per minute versus 21.4 lbs per minute for the 359. However, even this is misleading because the 359 fuel burn jumps up to 25.1 lbs of fuel per minute of a mission of 6542 nm.


This is not true. The fuel burn on any aircraft reduces as the flight progresses as fuel is burnt off over a sector. Suggest you lookup the breguet range equation.

The differance in broard terms between a 77L. At the start of a 6000 nm flight a 77L will burn around 10,000 kg/hr, and at the end around 7000 kg/hr. the A359 will start off under 7000 kg/hr and at the end back below 5000 kg/hr. On longer sectors the differance between the initial fuel burns increase as the cost to carry fuel increases even further.

The reason for this is firstly the the drag on the A359 is lower, the engine is more modern the TSFC is lower, the aircraft is lighter, the fuel uplift is lower, the A359 cruises 4-6000 ft higher initially, it flies faster, i.e. covers more ground miles for a given fuel burn.



Obviously you did not look at the data set provided nor do you understand basic aerodynamics. The link I provided will explain it to you clearly. But since you did not read it I will summarize.

Fuel burn increases for virtually every aircraft as mission length increases. The tipping point is usually around 50% of max range. The reason should be obvious. As mission length increases you must take on more fuel. Fuel equals payload. The greater the payload the greater the fuel burn. For example this is fuel burn over a variety of mission lengths for a 777-200. Notice at a certain point....roughly 50% of max range...fuel burn increases significantly.

Image


A 359 averages 21.4 lbs per minute fuel burn on a 4972 nm mission. This increases to 25.1 lbs per minute on a 6542 nm mission. A 789 averages 20.8 lbs of fuel burned per minute on a 4650 nm flight. This increases to 25.5 lbs per minute on a 6542 nm flight. You can see this same pattern on virtually every commercial aircraft once past roughly 50% of max range.

I encourage you to look at the data set provided or many other data sets that folks have posted here on a net. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:00 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Stitch wrote:

Looking at the general use of the 777-200LR within the ME3's route structure, they seem to be there to launch ULH routes that have the growth potential to be up-gauged to 777-300ERs (often with blocked seats) down the road. It also seems to be used on cargo-heavy routes because it can lift it's full usable payload of 45,000kg on even 42 degree days at DXB.


Actually that is not true. I suppose you were looking at the standard payload/range chart.

ISA + 33°C and 14,000 feet runway at sea level gives a MTOW of 325t. The 77L is offered at 347t MTOW, so the aircraft is weight limited out of DXB.

Of course the weight penalty is rather small compared to the 77W, but it cannot use its "full usable payload", unless you sacrifice fuel for payload.

Image


Karel,

You are using a reference document for airport planning purposes. One which does not take into account the full set of tools available to a crew, for maximizing RTOW on a 42C day out of OMDB.


With a OAT of 42C, the crew will select two additional options in the FMC for takeoff.

1. APU to PACKS, (standard on the -200LR/F/-300ER) to feed the A/C packs with APU bleed. Which in turn reduces the bleed air demand from the engine, hence more thrust.
2. TO-B (Thrust Bump).


Below is the output from the Boeing Onboard Performance Toll (OPT) for a -200LR equipped with GE90-110B1L1 engines:

RWY 30L (DXB ATC will accomodate departures from 30L when required in the summer months). Dispatch will relay this to ATC before the crew even sets foot on the aircraft. ATC is well aware of runway requirements during the hot summer months.
TO-B
APU TO PACKS
nil wind
1003Hpa
Flaps 5

Result: 343,369kgs

Less than MTOW? Not in EK's case....their -200LRs have 343,369kgs MTOW. They never foresaw a need for 347t. Only DXB-AKL could have used the extra 4t (on certain days) while it was being operated by the -200LR.

In the rare event that 30L cannot be used due to ATC restrictions or runway work, 30R will still result in a RTOW: 341,495kgs. Less than 2,000kgs short of MTOW....


Note:
EK's freighters are optioned with the full 347,452kgs MTOW and -110B1L1 rating. Output for the same conditions as above, RTOW off RWY 30L: 345,650kgs.

A -115B1L1 powered -200LR, such as QR optioned their -200LR's and -200Fs with, would be at MTOW!

To be restricted to a mere 325t in a -200LR out of DXB off RWY 30L, you would need a OAT of 48C.

Hope that clears some things up!
Last edited by Qantas744er on Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
You live and you die, by the FMA
 
User avatar
RL777
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:43 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:24 am

The 77Ls will be around for a long time at least until 2023-2025 when the 778s begin arriving. Nothing EK can get in the interim will truly be able to replace those frames even the A359LR. In terms of the 773s, they're already on the way out. Some have been returned to the lessor. I believe the 5 frames CX will be getting soon are indeed EX-EK birds but will be returned to the lessor prior. As Zeke has pointed out, the CX deal may not include power plants.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15277
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:30 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
Obviously you did not look at the data set provided nor do you understand basic aerodynamics. The link I provided will explain it to you clearly. But since you did not read it I will summarize.


If you knew my qualifications and background you would not make such a silly statement, I don't need to refer to wiki when I have access to the manufacturers data (which is what my posts are based upon). Nor do I need to paraphrase something someone posted on wiki and present it as my own words which is my view is intellectual dishonesty. The reason the graph is shaped that way has to do with the flight profile. On shorter trips aircraft spend a higher proportion of the flight in climb (in fact on shorter trips the optimum profile is to climb and into an idle descent with no cruise). As a rule of thumb the climb will burn an hours worth of cruise fuel in half an hour.

I would love to know where you got your A350 numbers from, I actually fly that aircraft and have the manufacturers data, what you have posted is not correct. And while you are at it, tell me which airlines operate the A350 in lbs as a unit for FOB or fuel flow ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15277
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:38 am

Qantas744er wrote:
RWY 30L (DXB ATC will accomodate departures from 30L when required in the summer months). Dispatch will relay this to ATC before the crew even sets foot on the aircraft. ATC is well aware of runway requirements during the hot summer months.
TO-B
APU TO PACKS
nil wind
1003Hpa
Flaps 5

Result: 343,369kgs


I ran those numbers for a 77W with the 115 engines, thrust bump, packs off, and alternate CG the best it will do is 337.3 tonnes (F15, packs off, CG >=23.9%), a 5 kt tailwind will drop that further to 331.8 t and a CG required >=24%. Can you explain how a -110 engine will do better ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:00 am

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Obviously you did not look at the data set provided nor do you understand basic aerodynamics. The link I provided will explain it to you clearly. But since you did not read it I will summarize.


If you knew my qualifications and background you would not make such a silly statement, I don't need to refer to wiki when I have access to the manufacturers data (which is what my posts are based upon). Nor do I need to paraphrase something someone posted on wiki and present it as my own words which is my view is intellectual dishonesty. The reason the graph is shaped that way has to do with the flight profile. On shorter trips aircraft spend a higher proportion of the flight in climb (in fact on shorter trips the optimum profile is to climb and into an idle descent with no cruise). As a rule of thumb the climb will burn an hours worth of cruise fuel in half an hour.

I would love to know where you got your A350 numbers from, I actually fly that aircraft and have the manufacturers data, what you have posted is not correct. And while you are at it, tell me which airlines operate the A350 in lbs as a unit for FOB or fuel flow ?



The fuel burn numbers for the 359 have been posted from multiple sources here on a.net and every data set agrees. Please refer to the Technical Ops forum for further information. Fuel burn increases with flight length past a certain point....roughly 50% of max range for virtually all aircraft. I have provided data to prove this point.

A 359 has a higher fuel burn rate on a 6500 nm mission than a 4500 nm mission because it must carry much more fuel which increases payload. The heavier the payload the greater the fuel burn.

Are you disputing this basic point?
Last edited by ElroyJetson on Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
716131
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:51 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:05 am

airbazar wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
I suppose EK cannot replace the 777-200LR until the 777-8 arrives on property.

Or A359's.

Not sure about the A359's, but at this time they can only replaced them when the first 777X arrived in 2020.
If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:14 am

zeke wrote:
Qantas744er wrote:
Result: 343,369kgs

I ran those numbers for a 77W with the 115 engines, thrust bump, packs off, and alternate CG the best it will do is 337.3 tonnes (F15, packs off, CG >=23.9%), a 5 kt tailwind will drop that further to 331.8 t and a CG required >=24%. Can you explain how a -110 engine will do better ?


Well we are talking the 777-200LR, not the 777-300ER.

The DOW for an EK 77L is 164,000kg compared to 178,000kg for an EK 77W, so could you run the simulation with those numbers and see what is generated?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15277
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:18 am

Shouldn't be much differance we are talking about takeoff weight, essentially the same wing and engines.

DOW is just a component of TOW, the TOW limit should be common across the same type even when DOW is different for each sector.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
emiratesdriver
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:04 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:37 am

zeke wrote:
Shouldn't be much differance we are talking about takeoff weight, essentially the same wing and engines.

DOW is just a component of TOW, the TOW limit should be common across the same type even when DOW is different for each sector.


Perhaps Zeke you should contact the Boeing boffins who produce their OPT. I've just run the numbers on mine and can confirm the numbers Qantas produced.
As to why the difference? No idea, a guess might be related to EO considerations with respect to C of G limits and rudder deflection..but I'm guessing.
 
Opaque
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:22 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:20 am

zeke wrote:
Shouldn't be much differance we are talking about takeoff weight, essentially the same wing and engines.

DOW is just a component of TOW, the TOW limit should be common across the same type even when DOW is different for each sector.


Is it possible that the shorter fuselage of the 77L permits a sooner / faster rotation compared with the 77W, resulting in the better runway performance?

[first ever post!]
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13338
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:56 am

astuteman wrote:
In the typical non-auxiliary tank configuration, the A359LR will match it (in practical terms)

But IINM, Airbus has made no (public) mention of offering the A359ULR with auxiliary tankage, only the full use of the wing tankage that it's always been offered with.

Unless something's changed, in their offer to QR or something?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
astuteman
Posts: 7184
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:43 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
Do you have any information regarding your statement on the 35% better fuel burn of the 359 versus the 778? I say this with all due respect.....but that number sounds completely ridiculous. The 77L is within 25% of the 359 on a 5000nm mission and gets much better on true ULH....closer to 10-12% percent over 6000nm.


Firstly, I have made no statement at any point suggesting that the fuel burn of a 359 is 35% better than that of a 778.
THAT is a ridiculous statement, and I would be obliged if you would withdraw it.

As for evidence to support the analysis vis-à-vis the 77L, I used the manufacturers own data.

For the 77L Boeing's own ACAP show:-
8 200Nm with 145.5t of fuel when fully tanked at MTOW. Which is 56.35Nm per ton of fuel tanked.
9 400Nm with 163t of fuel when fully tanked at MTOW with 3xACT's. Which is 57.66Nm per ton of fuel tanked
(note that the fuel burn improves as the range increases. This is because the ZFW has reduced, so in the portion of flight past 8 200Nm the plane burns a lot less fuel per mile

The A350-900 ACAP (which I will assume is for the 275t variant for the purposes of conservatism) shows:-
8 800Nm with 108t of fuel when fully tanked at MTOW. Which is 81.48Nm per ton of fuel tanked.
To get to the fuel burn at MZFW requires a track-back via payload.
MZFW payload is 54t at 5 900Nm vs 25t at 8 800Nm
Fuel tanked therefore is 108t - (54-25), or 74t, i.e.
5 900Nm with 74t fuel tanked at MTOW and MZFW, which is 74.7Nm per ton of fuel tanked
Again less fuel per mile is burned at longer ranges because the ZFW is lower

To derive a R/P curve for the 280t A359LR with the extra tankage requires some extrapolation.
The extra 5t MTOW allows 5t extra fuel at MZFW, which increases the range by 350Nm - hence a derived
6 250Nm for the A359LR at MZFW, on 79t fuel -74.7Nm/t.

Back to the 77L R/P chart. It shows that at MZFW, to fly 6 200nm, TOW is 318t, some 29t below MTOW.
That reduction is clearly from less fuel tanked.
Fuel tanked at 7 600Nm (MZFW and MTOW) is 145.5t less the difference in payload between 7 600Nm and 8 200nm (8t)
Fuel tanked therefore is 131.5-29 = 108.5t fuel tanked, hence a derived
6 200Nm for the 77L at MZFW on 108.5t fuel - 57.1Nm/t

To chart some reference ranges

6 200Nm - 77L 108.5t fuel, A359LR 79t fuel, 77L is 36% higher (similar payload)
6 700Nm - 77L 118t fuel, A359LR 85t fuel, 77L is 40% higher (but with c. 5t more payload)
7 200nm - 77L 127.5t fuel, A359LR 91t fuel, 77L is 40% higher (but with c. 10t more payload)
7 600nm - 77L 137.5t fuel, A359LR 96t fuel, 77L is 42% higher (but with c. 15t more payload)
8 200Nm - 77L 145.5t fuel, A359LR 102t fuel, 77L is 42% higher (but with c. 20t more payload)
8 800Nm - 77L 145.5t fuel, A359LR 108t fuel, 77L is 35% higher (similar payload)
9 700nm - 77L 145.5t fuel, A359 108t fuel, 77L is 35% higher (both zero payload)

The manufacturers own data suggests that with similar payloads, the A359 will be consuming some 35% less fuel.
in that part of the range curve where the 77L true hauling capacity comes into play (6 700nm - 8 200Nm) the delta increases as the 77L is hauling a lot more payload.

Other sources come to similar conclusions.

The A350-900 derived fuel burn figures can be referenced back to comparisons with other aircraft (e.g. 787-9) where they can be shown to be representative of the 787-9's slight fuel burn advantage over the A350-900 acknowledged by most other reputable sources.

As a point of order, I don't consider 5 000nm - 6 000Nm ULR.
ULR for me starts around 7 500Nm still air

Rgds
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15277
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:53 am

emiratesdriver wrote:
Perhaps Zeke you should contact the Boeing boffins who produce their OPT. I've just run the numbers on mine and can confirm the numbers Qantas produced.
As to why the difference? No idea, a guess might be related to EO considerations with respect to C of G limits and rudder deflection..but I'm guessing.


My performance numbers include the obstacles published by the GCAA in the AIRAC cycle 05/2017 there are 8 obstacles on the LH side of the centreline which limits the takeoff performance on 30L, we use EU-OPS not FAA. I thought EK was also EU-OPS based upon what I have seen with their AFTLs.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15277
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:57 am

LAX772LR wrote:
But IINM, Airbus has made no (public) mention of offering the A359ULR with auxiliary tankage, only the full use of the wing tankage that it's always been offered with.


The A350-900 and -1000 have the same volume of fuel in the wing tanks, the difference is in the center tank. I dont see any reason why that same center tank volume could not be extended to the -900.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Acey
Posts: 1125
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:06 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:04 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
The fuel burn numbers for the 359 have been posted from multiple sources here on a.net and every data set agrees. Please refer to the Technical Ops forum for further information.


...you do realize how ridiculous it is to tell someone who is using manufacturer's numbers directly out of the actual aircraft to instead use garbage numbers from Wikipedia and seek "further information" from the sub-forum of an enthusiast's website?
If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 7528
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:06 am

flybynight wrote:
Well the 773 flies daily to SEA. Since SEA has refused to upgrade the airport to allow for A380's, I would imagine the 778 will definitely fly to Seattle.
Not sure how much more capacity the 778 allows for compared to the 773ER.
The one flying to SEA right now was built in 2011, so not exactly an old plane!!

What is the reason SEA does not want to upgrade to A380 status pls?
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7184
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:45 am

LAX772LR wrote:
astuteman wrote:
In the typical non-auxiliary tank configuration, the A359LR will match it (in practical terms)

But IINM, Airbus has made no (public) mention of offering the A359ULR with auxiliary tankage, only the full use of the wing tankage that it's always been offered with.

Unless something's changed, in their offer to QR or something?


Apologies, there is an ambiguity in the quote you have referred to.
The paragraph it is extracted from refers to the 77L - i.e. with the 77L in typical non-auxiliary tank configuration, the A359LR will match it (in practical terms).
I hope that helps

As others have said, the A359LR's extra fuel capacity comes from enabling the centre tank. No auxiliary tanks are offered, and rightly so, as it will never ever need them.

rgds
 
Caryjack
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:45 am

Re: Emirates 777-300 and -200LR fleet

Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:52 am

readytotaxi wrote:
flybynight wrote:
Well the 773 flies daily to SEA. Since SEA has refused to upgrade the airport to allow for A380's, I would imagine the 778 will definitely fly to Seattle.
Not sure how much more capacity the 778 allows for compared to the 773ER.
The one flying to SEA right now was built in 2011, so not exactly an old plane!!

What is the reason SEA does not want to upgrade to A380 status pls?


It's not that SEA doesn’t want to up-gauge to the A-380 (who wouldn't), but there just isn't room. SEA has 3 parallel runways which, as I understand, are too close together to allow simultaneous operations with a 380. Taxi ways would also be a problem.
There is much construction happening at SEA-TAC so making changes the 380's require would be very low on everyone's list, especially taxpayers.

Who would fly the largest passenger liner on earth to SEA? EK started with a 77LR and gradually increased to two 77Ws so you could replace both with a 380 but that greatly reduces flexibility and ignores cargo, which is very important. For example, there are many aerospace companies in the region that ship heavy, bulky pieces to and from places all over the world. BA and LH fly B-747s to SEA but I doubt they're up-gauge candidates.

SEA is a diversion port for the 380 so it can be done.
Thanks,
Cary

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos