Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Thu Mar 25, 2021 7:33 pm

PhilipBass wrote:
If you have a mission which requires only 3 to 4000 NM range is there a way to reduce weight on a 777-200 ER or 777-300. Are there excess in-built fuel tanks which can be temporarily removed and replaced when the plane is returned to Lessor or sold?
Basically to close the efficiency gap to modern planes like 330Neo, A350 77X what can you do cheaply?
de-rate engines. remove tanks?

Fuel tank is part of the structure and the 777s you listed don't have optional auxiliary tanks, so no.
 
Antarius
Posts: 3436
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:01 pm

PhilipBass wrote:
If you have a mission which requires only 3 to 4000 NM range is there a way to reduce weight on a 777-200 ER or 777-300. Are there excess in-built fuel tanks which can be temporarily removed and replaced when the plane is returned to Lessor or sold?
Basically to close the efficiency gap to modern planes like 330Neo, A350 77X what can you do cheaply?
de-rate engines. remove tanks?


Nope. The 777 is a generation behind the 787, a350 and eventual 777X. You aren't going to be able to make that up.

That said, if you already have one and it is paid off, it beats the Capex of a new one, so I expect people to fly them for a while even if their Opex is higher than the new birds.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:10 pm

I had a quick question on the 300ER. We hear constantly about the reliability of the 300ER and how such a great aircraft it is etc. It’s not the most efficient out there anymore but airlines still love it.

What makes the 300ER so good besides the efficiency. People say it’s reliable but aren’t most aircraft currently in service reliable?

CEO of Korean air recently said:

I believe the Boeing 777 is one of the most successful aircraft in aviation history,” Cho said. “If asked, I would say the B777-300ER is my favourite model.”

And obviously you see the same opinion when you look at STC and Akbar etc
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:25 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I had a quick question on the 300ER. We hear constantly about the reliability of the 300ER and how such a great aircraft it is etc. It’s not the most efficient out there anymore but airlines still love it.

What makes the 300ER so good besides the efficiency. People say it’s reliable but aren’t most aircraft currently in service reliable?

CEO of Korean air recently said:

I believe the Boeing 777 is one of the most successful aircraft in aviation history,” Cho said. “If asked, I would say the B777-300ER is my favourite model.”

And obviously you see the same opinion when you look at STC and Akbar etc

Part of it is somewhat of a halo effect from how much better the 77W was than it’s direct contemporary competitor (the A346). It was basically unheard of keeping in mind that the two jets were of the same generation.

I’ve heard the 777 is reliable but when does break is usually fairly MX friendly and easy to get back into the air with minimal frustration. Also apparently seen as very solid with less evidence of penny pinching present on later aircraft (from both OEMs).
Last edited by Polot on Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2709
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:27 pm

Very high engine reliability made it usable on high capacity transpacific routes, beating the cost of the 747-400.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2832
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:23 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I had a quick question on the 300ER. We hear constantly about the reliability of the 300ER and how such a great aircraft it is etc. It’s not the most efficient out there anymore but airlines still love it.

What makes the 300ER so good besides the efficiency. People say it’s reliable but aren’t most aircraft currently in service reliable?

CEO of Korean air recently said:

I believe the Boeing 777 is one of the most successful aircraft in aviation history,” Cho said. “If asked, I would say the B777-300ER is my favourite model.”

And obviously you see the same opinion when you look at STC and Akbar etc


- The unusually good fuel efficiency advantage over its competitor (as noted above).
- Perfect size for a lot of replacements of early 747s and 744s, plus good timing.
- Excellent payload and range capabilities.
- Flexible with how it could be configured and what missions it could do very well.
- Commonality with the (at the time) reasonably well-established 772 and 77E.
- It's a very good airliner. Seems obvious to say, but the 777 is (I believe) Boeing's last truly great airliner, and its combination of efficiency, reliability and safety has made it a winner.

All my opinions, but I don't think I'm far off what more informed people will think.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5461
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:27 pm

Among the world's major full service long-haul airlines, the 777-300ER became virtually a must-have. Air France certainly knew what they were doing when they got in ahead of the rush. British Airways, by contrast rued leaving it so late.

And I wonder if regret at missing the boat was instrumental in Lufthansa being so quick to commit to the 777X.

Anyway, not a favourite of mine as a passenger but you can't argue with its appeal for airlines.
 
FlyingHonu001
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:33 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Sep 03, 2021 4:26 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I had a quick question on the 300ER. We hear constantly about the reliability of the 300ER and how such a great aircraft it is etc. It’s not the most efficient out there anymore but airlines still love it.

What makes the 300ER so good besides the efficiency. People say it’s reliable but aren’t most aircraft currently in service reliable?


KL among others has proven they can now customize their 300's for cargo usage if pax demands falls. Throughout 2020 they have made full use of their belly and cabin spaces for this advantage.
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/klm-new ... seat-bags/

Also the crew rest area's for the cabin crew are usually bigger compared to other widebody aircraft
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:17 pm

FlyingHonu001 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I had a quick question on the 300ER. We hear constantly about the reliability of the 300ER and how such a great aircraft it is etc. It’s not the most efficient out there anymore but airlines still love it.

What makes the 300ER so good besides the efficiency. People say it’s reliable but aren’t most aircraft currently in service reliable?


KL among others has proven they can now customize their 300's for cargo usage if pax demands falls. Throughout 2020 they have made full use of their belly and cabin spaces for this advantage.
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/klm-new ... seat-bags/

Also the crew rest area's for the cabin crew are usually bigger compared to other widebody aircraft


Carrying cargo on passenger seats is not something they are designed for. And looking at the link, they have a little problem with maths, 950x6.4 kg is not 10 tonnes. 950 boxes would take ages to load and unload.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8976
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:31 am

Less than 300 orders for the 777X even before the pandemic shows what a world beater the 777-300ER is. Most of them apparently don’t need replacing!
 
User avatar
N1011
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 2:22 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:02 pm

High capacity, relatively inexpensive, reliable, lots of parts support, readily available.......all the things that keep it relevant.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:19 pm

The 777-300ER has now truly inherited the 744’s role, even if it is not the same icon. Airline execs love it for its reliability, its capability and understand that midway through its economic life, it is not a fuel burn leader anymore. There are adjustments you can make for that and still give it a role in the industry.

The 300ER is a total success and IMO, it made the 777 program as a whole into a home run. Just as the 744 did for the 747 program.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:50 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
The 777-300ER has now truly inherited the 744’s role, even if it is not the same icon. Airline execs love it for its reliability, its capability and understand that midway through its economic life, it is not a fuel burn leader anymore. There are adjustments you can make for that and still give it a role in the industry.

The 300ER is a total success and IMO, it made the 777 program as a whole into a home run. Just as the 744 did for the 747 program.

What kind of adjustments can you make to accommodate that?
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 6:17 pm

Opus99 wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
The 777-300ER has now truly inherited the 744’s role, even if it is not the same icon. Airline execs love it for its reliability, its capability and understand that midway through its economic life, it is not a fuel burn leader anymore. There are adjustments you can make for that and still give it a role in the industry.

The 300ER is a total success and IMO, it made the 777 program as a whole into a home run. Just as the 744 did for the 747 program.

What kind of adjustments can you make to accommodate that?


What I notice is carriers put their best fuel burn aircraft on the assignment where it saves the greatest amount of fuel. Likely, this means 77W will be cycled off of the ULH and ultra high utilization jobs, if the carrier also has 787 or A350 to do those parts of the network. The 77W will do more mid haul flying and, as time goes on, and the monthly ownership cost gets lower, be more flexible capacity (5 days per week instead of 7).

There is also the thing of charter carriers eventually putting 440 seats in them.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 7:29 pm

zeke wrote:
FlyingHonu001 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I had a quick question on the 300ER. We hear constantly about the reliability of the 300ER and how such a great aircraft it is etc. It’s not the most efficient out there anymore but airlines still love it.

What makes the 300ER so good besides the efficiency. People say it’s reliable but aren’t most aircraft currently in service reliable?


KL among others has proven they can now customize their 300's for cargo usage if pax demands falls. Throughout 2020 they have made full use of their belly and cabin spaces for this advantage.
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/klm-new ... seat-bags/

Also the crew rest area's for the cabin crew are usually bigger compared to other widebody aircraft


Carrying cargo on passenger seats is not something they are designed for. And looking at the link, they have a little problem with maths, 950x6.4 kg is not 10 tonnes. 950 boxes would take ages to load and unload.


No, of course not, but we carried PPE back from PVG to LHR with boxes on economy and economy+ seats, as well as overhead lockers (about 300 or so?) and full holds on the 77W. Only took about 30 minutes with a decent amount of labour thrown at it. The only other aircraft in the fleet capable of that were the A380 (way too expensive without passengers), 787-9 (too small, much less volume) and the A350. We took the seats out of a 777-200ER and that could carry similar amounts given the smaller hold capacity but the 77W has proven itself to be a pretty good cargo haulier for what is a passenger plane.

The 77W also has just about the best performance to payload ratio out of the hot and high destinations like JNB and GRU back to London.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 7:52 pm

BA777FO wrote:
The 77W also has just about the best performance to payload ratio out of the hot and high destinations like JNB and GRU back to London.


No way, its not great out of JNB at all. The 340-300 could lift more payload than it could, and the 744 even more so.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:02 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
The 777-300ER has now truly inherited the 744’s role, even if it is not the same icon. Airline execs love it for its reliability, its capability and understand that midway through its economic life, it is not a fuel burn leader anymore. There are adjustments you can make for that and still give it a role in the industry.

The 300ER is a total success and IMO, it made the 777 program as a whole into a home run. Just as the 744 did for the 747 program.

What kind of adjustments can you make to accommodate that?


What I notice is carriers put their best fuel burn aircraft on the assignment where it saves the greatest amount of fuel. Likely, this means 77W will be cycled off of the ULH and ultra high utilization jobs, if the carrier also has 787 or A350 to do those parts of the network. The 77W will do more mid haul flying and, as time goes on, and the monthly ownership cost gets lower, be more flexible capacity (5 days per week instead of 7).

There is also the thing of charter carriers eventually putting 440 seats in them.

This makes so much sense. Especially when you look at airlines like QR. The 77W does flights to Asia and Europe and the 35Ks now focus on the US and Australia
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:21 pm

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
The 77W also has just about the best performance to payload ratio out of the hot and high destinations like JNB and GRU back to London.


No way, its not great out of JNB at all. The 340-300 could lift more payload than it could, and the 744 even more so.

What are the numbers? I understand the 77W faces some heavy restrictions due to it being twin engined and it’s tire speed limits, but I find it hard to be believe that it is so restricted that a ~75t lower MTOW A343 can lift more payload when you have (had) airlines using the 77W on routes like JNB-HKG.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:37 pm

Polot wrote:

What are the numbers? I understand the 77W faces some heavy restrictions due to it being twin engined and it’s tire speed limits, but I find it hard to be believe that it is so restricted that a ~75t lower MTOW A343 can lift more payload when you have (had) airlines using the 77W on routes like JNB-HKG.


Have done the numbers before years ago, you will need to search tech ops.

The 343 did not have the tyre speed limit issue, lower OEW, and burnt a couple of tonnes less fuel an hour than the 77W. The 77W would takeoff at a higher weight than the 343, however less of that weight was available for payload (higher OEW, greater trip fuel). The 346 was even better, it would lift more payload out of JNB than the 744.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:41 pm

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
The 77W also has just about the best performance to payload ratio out of the hot and high destinations like JNB and GRU back to London.


No way, its not great out of JNB at all. The 340-300 could lift more payload than it could, and the 744 even more so.


Last time I flew out of JNB our RTOW was at the MTOW.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:52 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:

What are the numbers? I understand the 77W faces some heavy restrictions due to it being twin engined and it’s tire speed limits, but I find it hard to be believe that it is so restricted that a ~75t lower MTOW A343 can lift more payload when you have (had) airlines using the 77W on routes like JNB-HKG.


Have done the numbers before years ago, you will need to search tech ops.

The 343 did not have the tyre speed limit issue, lower OEW, and burnt a couple of tonnes less fuel an hour than the 77W. The 77W would takeoff at a higher weight than the 343, however less of that weight was available for payload (higher OEW, greater trip fuel). The 346 was even better, it would lift more payload out of JNB than the 744.

Just for some reference I found a thread where you talked about it a long long time ago:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=757955

It seems around ~5000nm (basically within range of all of Europe) is when the two are at parity. Presumably less than that the 77W will start carrying more payload. Of course this was 12/13 years ago and subsequent PIPs might have changed numbers a bit.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:45 pm

BA777FO wrote:
Last time I flew out of JNB our RTOW was at the MTOW.


77W MTOW is around 350 tonnes, trip fuel JNB-LHR is around 90 tonnes, 10:30 flight time, that makes a landing weight around 260 tonnes. MLW of the 77W is around 250 tonnes. BA does not plan on landing their aircraft 10 tonnes above MLW.

When I do RTOW calculation off 03L 15 degC, 1013, nil wind, dry, packs off, alternate CG, RTOW is around 320 tonnes, no way you are taking off 30 tonnes heavier.

I think someone has been exposed not telling the truth.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 10:22 pm

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
Last time I flew out of JNB our RTOW was at the MTOW.


77W MTOW is around 350 tonnes, trip fuel JNB-LHR is around 90 tonnes, 10:30 flight time, that makes a landing weight around 260 tonnes. MLW of the 77W is around 250 tonnes. BA does not plan on landing their aircraft 10 tonnes above MLW.

When I do RTOW calculation off 03L 15 degC, 1013, nil wind, dry, packs off, alternate CG, RTOW is around 320 tonnes, no way you are taking off 30 tonnes heavier.

I think someone has been exposed not telling the truth.


My apologies, I should have written TOPL, not RTOW. But BA use 340.2 tonnes as MTOW for the 77W.

Just because you can lift 340 tonnes out JNB doesn't mean you will. Clearly you're ZFW limited, in our case to 237.7 tonnes. So (trip fuel was actually lower than your quote as our payload was a bit lighter) at MZFW our takeoff weight would have still been ~20 tonnes lighter than TOPL and MTOW.

Not telling the truth? Glad I don't have to fly with you, I bet you're a barrel of laughs!
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 10:26 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:

What are the numbers? I understand the 77W faces some heavy restrictions due to it being twin engined and it’s tire speed limits, but I find it hard to be believe that it is so restricted that a ~75t lower MTOW A343 can lift more payload when you have (had) airlines using the 77W on routes like JNB-HKG.


Have done the numbers before years ago, you will need to search tech ops.

The 343 did not have the tyre speed limit issue, lower OEW, and burnt a couple of tonnes less fuel an hour than the 77W. The 77W would takeoff at a higher weight than the 343, however less of that weight was available for payload (higher OEW, greater trip fuel). The 346 was even better, it would lift more payload out of JNB than the 744.



Not disputing your numbers but it begs an obvious question. The 777 killed the A340 in sales and the 346 never gained any traction versus the 77W. The A346 sold a total of 97 frames and the entire A340 family sold 375. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A340

The 777 family (not including the 777X) has sold 1,730 frames and the 77W has sold 838. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

The 77W will likely end up outselling the A346 by a margin of 10 to 1. So were (are) the airlines stupid? Why on Earth would airlines continue to buy so many 777 aircraft if the A340 is so obviously superior?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 10:40 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:

Not disputing your numbers but it begs an obvious question. The 777 killed the A340 in sales and the 346 never gained any traction versus the 77W. The A346 sold a total of 97 frames and the entire A340 family sold 375.


And yet the operator based out of JNB almost exclusively flew quads long haul, including the 343 and 346.

When flying into JNB it was very common to see more 340s, 744s, and 380s than anything else.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Sep 04, 2021 11:24 pm

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:

Not disputing your numbers but it begs an obvious question. The 777 killed the A340 in sales and the 346 never gained any traction versus the 77W. The A346 sold a total of 97 frames and the entire A340 family sold 375.


And yet the operator based out of JNB almost exclusively flew quads long haul, including the 343 and 346.

When flying into JNB it was very common to see more 340s, 744s, and 380s than anything else.



So your point was more operations at JNB. Valid point. I know DL flew the 77L out of JNB to ATL but specially rated tires were required as I recall. Now however the operator out of JNB is flying A350's and so is DL while UA is flying 789's. The 4 holers seem to be going the way of the dinosaur.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:09 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:

Not disputing your numbers but it begs an obvious question. The 777 killed the A340 in sales and the 346 never gained any traction versus the 77W. The A346 sold a total of 97 frames and the entire A340 family sold 375.


And yet the operator based out of JNB almost exclusively flew quads long haul, including the 343 and 346.

When flying into JNB it was very common to see more 340s, 744s, and 380s than anything else.



So your point was more operations at JNB. Valid point. I know DL flew the 77L out of JNB to ATL but specially rated tires were required as I recall. Now however the operator out of JNB is flying A350's and so is DL while UA is flying 789's. The 4 holers seem to be going the way of the dinosaur.

Ultimately the JNBs of the world are too niche for manufacturers to focus on. Outside airlines are not going to base entire fleet decisions on one or two destinations like JNB, and airlines based in places like JNB will just have to deal with restrictions.

SAA returned the A350s after only a couple of months of operation due to covid now. They only have a handful of A340s and A330s in their name now, with currently I think only the A330 (and A320s of course) coming back with the relaunch.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:12 am

BA777FO wrote:
But BA use 340.2 tonnes as MTOW for the 77W.


The four GECAS ones are 351534 kg, eg STBB, that operated JNB-LHR on Aug 31.

Polot wrote:
Ultimately the JNBs of the world are too niche for manufacturers to focus on. Outside airlines are not going to base entire fleet decisions on one or two destinations like JNB, and airlines based in places like JNB will just have to deal with restrictions.


Exactly, very few airport require true hot and high capability.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16014
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:23 am

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:

Not disputing your numbers but it begs an obvious question. The 777 killed the A340 in sales and the 346 never gained any traction versus the 77W. The A346 sold a total of 97 frames and the entire A340 family sold 375.


And yet the operator based out of JNB almost exclusively flew quads long haul, including the 343 and 346.

When flying into JNB it was very common to see more 340s, 744s, and 380s than anything else.


Not for nothing, the operator based out of JNB was almost exclusively more interested in patronage and stuffing state funds into the pockets of executives than running an airline. Their express carrier was also grounded for multiple safety violations. Not sure that group has had any credibility worth mentioning since at least 15 or so years ago.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 2:12 am

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
But BA use 340.2 tonnes as MTOW for the 77W.


The four GECAS ones are 351534 kg, eg STBB, that operated JNB-LHR on Aug 31.


No they're not. Unless you know more than BA's own 777 FCOM :roll:

https://ibb.co/5rv6ryC
 
bourbon
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 3:35 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 2:58 am

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:

Not disputing your numbers but it begs an obvious question. The 777 killed the A340 in sales and the 346 never gained any traction versus the 77W. The A346 sold a total of 97 frames and the entire A340 family sold 375.


And yet the operator based out of JNB almost exclusively flew quads long haul, including the 343 and 346.

When flying into JNB it was very common to see more 340s, 744s, and 380s than anything else.


Would that be for the Quads engine out performance. Outside of a select few airports the 77W was the obvious choice for just about any flight except for a few Quad flights that ETOPS routing wouldn’t allow for any cost savings.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3865
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 3:26 am

jayunited wrote:
zeke wrote:
[
As a pure cargo carrier without any passengers, it is very inefficient on a cost per tonne basis, even a 343 looks much better. 77W being newer still attract higher lease rates and per hour costs. The same reason we saw cargo airlines operating converted passengers aircraft well after they stopped flying passengers.


Compared to a 744, MD11 or even as you said a A343 on a similar route like NRT-ANC-ORD how much tonnage could a pure fully converted 77W carry? And what would the fuel burn look like I'm just interested because it is interesting an A343 would perform better than a 77W. I'm not doubting you I'm just a bit shocked that a twin 77W would be inefficient even against a A343 on a cost per tonne basis.

I wonder is this because the main deck of a 77W would require so much reinforcement do to the fact it is a stretch version of the original 777?


No it's due to strengthening the 777-300ER Composite floor vs the metal floor on the 777-300. It was to save weight for the passenger model. Sadly it cuts the effectiveness of a conversion in terms of fuel & max load.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 3:32 am

BA777FO wrote:
No they're not. Unless you know more than BA's own 777 FCOM :roll:

https://ibb.co/5rv6ryC


What I posted is correct, reference https://siteapps.caa.co.uk/g-info/

eg STBB (one of the leased GECAS aircraft, this is the data corresponding to the CAA certificate of airworthiness for the particular airframe)

Aircraft details for: G-STBB
Information as at: 03-Sep-2021 19:45

Return to search results Search again
Previous
Showing item 1 of 1
Next
Registration details
Mark:
G-STBB
Current reg. date:
31-Aug-2010
Previous ID:
NEW USA
De-reg. date:
Status:
Registered
To:
View registration history
Aircraft details
Manufacturer:
BOEING COMPANY
Type:
BOEING 777-36NER
Serial no.:
38286
ICAO 24 bit aircraft address:
Binary: 0100_0000_0110_0010_0001_1100

Hex: 40621C

Octal: 20061034

ICAO aircraft type designator:
B77W
Popular name:
-
Aircraft class:
FIXED-WING LANDPLANE
Airworthiness category:
CS-25 : Large Aeroplane
Engines:
2:
2 x GENERAL ELECTRIC CO GE90-115B

MTOW:
351534 kg
Total hours:
53843 at 06-Jul-2021
Year built:
2010
Approved maint. programme:
MP/BOEING 777/1000/GB0441
CofA / permit:
CAA Certificate of Airworthiness
ARC expiry:
04-Aug-2022
Validity reference:
G-STBB/UK.MG.0037/05082019
 
Niloko
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:43 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:34 am

MrHMSH wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I had a quick question on the 300ER. We hear constantly about the reliability of the 300ER and how such a great aircraft it is etc. It’s not the most efficient out there anymore but airlines still love it.

What makes the 300ER so good besides the efficiency. People say it’s reliable but aren’t most aircraft currently in service reliable?

CEO of Korean air recently said:

I believe the Boeing 777 is one of the most successful aircraft in aviation history,” Cho said. “If asked, I would say the B777-300ER is my favourite model.”

And obviously you see the same opinion when you look at STC and Akbar etc


- The unusually good fuel efficiency advantage over its competitor (as noted above).
- Perfect size for a lot of replacements of early 747s and 744s, plus good timing.
- Excellent payload and range capabilities.
- Flexible with how it could be configured and what missions it could do very well.
- Commonality with the (at the time) reasonably well-established 772 and 77E.
- It's a very good airliner. Seems obvious to say, but the 777 is (I believe) Boeing's last truly great airliner, and its combination of efficiency, reliability and safety has made it a winner.

All my opinions, but I don't think I'm far off what more informed people will think.

In my opinion the title of being a truly great airliner is deserved only for the 2nd gen 777. The B77W for obvious reasons and 77L for being the best selling ULR plane and probably the best freighter plane in the world currently. The B773 was just a simple stretch of B772 and wasn't good anywhere outside of regional routes. The B772 is quite good, especially the ER variant but I think it's still a step down from being as impressive as B77W since the A333 and A343 were just as good if not better in most aspects. It's relevance nowadays is also far lower than the A333 even tho they were both of the 90s and the size gap isn't too much.

The 3rd gen 777 I believe has the potential to be a great aircraft too. It's launch has been very unsmooth, maybe even you can call it disastrous but still can't rule out it being a very reliable and safe plane once in service just yet. Along with the current 300 orders, for many airlines like Turkish, Saudia, Korean, etc. ordering the 777-9 is a matter of when not if. A freighter version should definitely be released and if it is done, I think the total sales of 777X will match what the 747-400 had. That much would definitely enough to call it a successful program.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:40 am

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
No they're not. Unless you know more than BA's own 777 FCOM :roll:

https://ibb.co/5rv6ryC


What I posted is correct, reference https://siteapps.caa.co.uk/g-info/

eg STBB (one of the leased GECAS aircraft, this is the data corresponding to the CAA certificate of airworthiness for the particular airframe)

Aircraft details for: G-STBB
Information as at: 03-Sep-2021 19:45

Return to search results Search again
Previous
Showing item 1 of 1
Next
Registration details
Mark:
G-STBB
Current reg. date:
31-Aug-2010
Previous ID:
NEW USA
De-reg. date:
Status:
Registered
To:
View registration history
Aircraft details
Manufacturer:
BOEING COMPANY
Type:
BOEING 777-36NER
Serial no.:
38286
ICAO 24 bit aircraft address:
Binary: 0100_0000_0110_0010_0001_1100

Hex: 40621C

Octal: 20061034

ICAO aircraft type designator:
B77W
Popular name:
-
Aircraft class:
FIXED-WING LANDPLANE
Airworthiness category:
CS-25 : Large Aeroplane
Engines:
2:
2 x GENERAL ELECTRIC CO GE90-115B

MTOW:
351534 kg
Total hours:
53843 at 06-Jul-2021
Year built:
2010
Approved maint. programme:
MP/BOEING 777/1000/GB0441
CofA / permit:
CAA Certificate of Airworthiness
ARC expiry:
04-Aug-2022
Validity reference:
G-STBB/UK.MG.0037/05082019


You're posting the manufacturing specifications. You are aware that airlines reduce MTOW of various airframes to save on aeronautical charges, right?

I can assure you that the British Airways 777 FCOM is correct, especially given that it is a CAA approved document. You don't routinely ignore your FCOM, do you?
 
Niloko
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:43 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:41 am

cedarjet wrote:
Less than 300 orders for the 777X even before the pandemic shows what a world beater the 777-300ER is. Most of them apparently don’t need replacing!

Definitely considering more than half of 777-300ER's orders were placed after 2010 and the plane was first delivered on 2004. It definitely isn't in a need of replacement for most airlines.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2832
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 6:28 am

Niloko wrote:
In my opinion the title of being a truly great airliner is deserved only for the 2nd gen 777. The B77W for obvious reasons and 77L for being the best selling ULR plane and probably the best freighter plane in the world currently. The B773 was just a simple stretch of B772 and wasn't good anywhere outside of regional routes. The B772 is quite good, especially the ER variant but I think it's still a step down from being as impressive as B77W since the A333 and A343 were just as good if not better in most aspects. It's relevance nowadays is also far lower than the A333 even tho they were both of the 90s and the size gap isn't too much.

The 3rd gen 777 I believe has the potential to be a great aircraft too. It's launch has been very unsmooth, maybe even you can call it disastrous but still can't rule out it being a very reliable and safe plane once in service just yet. Along with the current 300 orders, for many airlines like Turkish, Saudia, Korean, etc. ordering the 777-9 is a matter of when not if. A freighter version should definitely be released and if it is done, I think the total sales of 777X will match what the 747-400 had. That much would definitely enough to call it a successful program.


I think the 707, 727, 737, 747 and 777 are the true 'great airliners' for Boeing, and the A320 family and A330 are for Airbus. 787 may eventually get there, A350 should do.

I'm sure the 777X will go on to be a safe and reliable aircraft, but I'm a little pessimistic on its prospects, it's been delayed so long that it risks being overtaken by 787 and A350 derivatives/re-engines, it's a very large aircraft which are increasingly less needed, and the way people fly is shifting towards more point to point flying, or at least flights to smaller destinations with fewer connections. This means that existing 77W operators will likely order fewer 777Xs and cover the rest with smaller aircraft, or maybe even miss it altogether. A pandemic which would have ramifications for a few years isn't helpful either, I think the 777X will get to 500, but I'd be surprised if it got to 600. Whether that's enough to make a profit overall remains to be seen.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:26 am

BA777FO wrote:
You're posting the manufacturing specifications. You are aware that airlines reduce MTOW of various airframes to save on aeronautical charges, right?

I can assure you that the British Airways 777 FCOM is correct, especially given that it is a CAA approved document. You don't routinely ignore your FCOM, do you?


Incorrect, G-INFO displays the official CAA data that is associated with the certificate of airworthiness for that particular tail, if you lookup one of the non-GECAS leased aircraft on G-INFO like STBM which is leased Novus the certificate of airworthiness is issued with a MTOW of 340194 kg.

FCOM is not a legal document when it comes to the certificate or airworthiness, which is issued based upon the type certificate data sheet. The type certificate data sheet says the controlling document is the aircraft flight manual (AFM). I would however suggest you have never seen the individual AFM for each 777 (they do exist), BA would have CAA exemption/approval to use a single fleet wide FCOM in lieu of the individual tail specific AFM, and the tail specific AFM does not need to be carried. That will be listed on your AOC and OPS-A, it is a standard item checked on ramp inspections.

If you are actually interested learning something about the aircraft you fly, I would suggest you could contact your 777 chief pilot or one of your test pilots they will confirm that the actual official MTOW for those GECAS leased aircraft is 351534 kg however they choose to operate it at 340194 kg for reduced cost and and fleet wide simplicity. Your FCOM is a internal BA document, is has many in house BA amendments, as the end user you do not get to see the original tail specific FCOM issued by the OEM.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:12 am

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
You're posting the manufacturing specifications. You are aware that airlines reduce MTOW of various airframes to save on aeronautical charges, right?

I can assure you that the British Airways 777 FCOM is correct, especially given that it is a CAA approved document. You don't routinely ignore your FCOM, do you?


Incorrect, G-INFO displays the official CAA data that is associated with the certificate of airworthiness for that particular tail, if you lookup one of the non-GECAS leased aircraft on G-INFO like STBM which is leased Novus the certificate of airworthiness is issued with a MTOW of 340194 kg.

FCOM is not a legal document when it comes to the certificate or airworthiness, which is issued based upon the type certificate data sheet. The type certificate data sheet says the controlling document is the aircraft flight manual (AFM). I would however suggest you have never seen the individual AFM for each 777 (they do exist), BA would have CAA exemption/approval to use a single fleet wide FCOM in lieu of the individual tail specific AFM, and the tail specific AFM does not need to be carried. That will be listed on your AOC and OPS-A, it is a standard item checked on ramp inspections.

If you are actually interested learning something about the aircraft you fly, I would suggest you could contact your 777 chief pilot or one of your test pilots they will confirm that the actual official MTOW for those GECAS leased aircraft is 351534 kg however they choose to operate it at 340194 kg for reduced cost and and fleet wide simplicity. Your FCOM is a internal BA document, is has many in house BA amendments, as the end user you do not get to see the original tail specific FCOM issued by the OEM.


Yeah, I told you it's reduced for cost. Literally what I told you. Do you regularly bust your FCOM stated limits, do you? I'll go tell my tech manager that you know more. Cheers.

Now back to the thread where you think the A340 is wonderful and the 77W is awful.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 10:31 am

BA777FO wrote:
Yeah, I told you it's reduced for cost. Literally what I told you. Do you regularly bust your FCOM stated limits, do you? I'll go tell my tech manager that you know more. Cheers.


A number of aircraft we operate have multiple MTOWs, some even variable MTOWs. Each of our 77Ws for example have 3 MTOWs, however from an airworthiness standpoint, the highest MTOW is what the certificate of airworthiness is issued against. I didn't see you acknowledge that the GECAS leased aircraft were CAA certified to around 350 tonnes, where others were lower.

I know the flight technical and fleet technical managers at BA, they are good people. We bounce ideas off each other from time to time.
 
bigb
Posts: 1450
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:00 pm

Disregards....
Last edited by bigb on Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
Niloko
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:43 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:02 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Niloko wrote:
In my opinion the title of being a truly great airliner is deserved only for the 2nd gen 777. The B77W for obvious reasons and 77L for being the best selling ULR plane and probably the best freighter plane in the world currently. The B773 was just a simple stretch of B772 and wasn't good anywhere outside of regional routes. The B772 is quite good, especially the ER variant but I think it's still a step down from being as impressive as B77W since the A333 and A343 were just as good if not better in most aspects. It's relevance nowadays is also far lower than the A333 even tho they were both of the 90s and the size gap isn't too much.

The 3rd gen 777 I believe has the potential to be a great aircraft too. It's launch has been very unsmooth, maybe even you can call it disastrous but still can't rule out it being a very reliable and safe plane once in service just yet. Along with the current 300 orders, for many airlines like Turkish, Saudia, Korean, etc. ordering the 777-9 is a matter of when not if. A freighter version should definitely be released and if it is done, I think the total sales of 777X will match what the 747-400 had. That much would definitely enough to call it a successful program.


I think the 707, 727, 737, 747 and 777 are the true 'great airliners' for Boeing, and the A320 family and A330 are for Airbus. 787 may eventually get there, A350 should do.

I'm sure the 777X will go on to be a safe and reliable aircraft, but I'm a little pessimistic on its prospects, it's been delayed so long that it risks being overtaken by 787 and A350 derivatives/re-engines, it's a very large aircraft which are increasingly less needed, and the way people fly is shifting towards more point to point flying, or at least flights to smaller destinations with fewer connections. This means that existing 77W operators will likely order fewer 777Xs and cover the rest with smaller aircraft, or maybe even miss it altogether. A pandemic which would have ramifications for a few years isn't helpful either, I think the 777X will get to 500, but I'd be surprised if it got to 600. Whether that's enough to make a profit overall remains to be seen.

I'm not at all doubting the greatness of other truly amazing airplanes out there like A320, 737, 747, etc. I was just talking about in the context of 777 family. However, barely any wide body variant of any kind has and will ever match the greatness 77W alone achieved.

And yeah even I'm not that greatly optimistic about the future of 777X and A350-1000 since the thing they'll be used for most is replacing the 777-300ER. The 77W has all sorts of diverse operators and I don't see many of them buying a large airplane ever again. However 500 for the passenger version will definitely be reached since there are a very good number airlines that rely a lot on large airplanes left to order anything yet..I think along with a freighter version if made, the 777X program like I said above definitely can reach the heights that the 747-400 did. I think even if Boeing makes just a little bit of profit in this program if the 777X can maintain or even increase the order gap it and A35K has consistently even until the future, that's enough to call that program a success.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:10 pm

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
Yeah, I told you it's reduced for cost. Literally what I told you. Do you regularly bust your FCOM stated limits, do you? I'll go tell my tech manager that you know more. Cheers.


A number of aircraft we operate have multiple MTOWs, some even variable MTOWs. Each of our 77Ws for example have 3 MTOWs, however from an airworthiness standpoint, the highest MTOW is what the certificate of airworthiness is issued against. I didn't see you acknowledge that the GECAS leased aircraft were CAA certified to around 350 tonnes, where others were lower.

I know the flight technical and fleet technical managers at BA, they are good people. We bounce ideas off each other from time to time.


I didn't acknowledge it because I was talking about the practicalities of a departure from JNB. We couldn't legally load the aircraft up to over 340.2 tonnes even if we wanted to. However, the TOPL will allow us to depart at the MTOW of 340.2 tonnes if we needed to, but obviously on a flight to London we'd be ZFW limited.

They are indeed good people. Glad you have a good relationship with them as I know they strive for best practice and commercial competition never gets in the way of safety.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Sep 05, 2021 11:18 pm

BA777FO wrote:
We couldn't legally load the aircraft up to over 340.2 tonnes even if we wanted to.


They could on those GECAS leased aircraft, all they would need to do is to issue a crew notice in Comply365 as the actual airworthiness limit is higher. They won’t do that as there are more efficient aircraft in the fleet to fly ULH.

BA777FO wrote:
However, the TOPL will allow us to depart at the MTOW of 340.2 tonnes if we needed to, but obviously on a flight to London we'd be ZFW limited.


Could you tell me what runway and environmental conditions would permit a RTOW of 340.2 tonnes from JNB.
 
CBRboy
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:03 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:07 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
How many freight conversions do you think we'll see, with the eldest of the 300ERs turning 17 this spring? A big fraction of the 800+ 300ERs delivered? I doubt it.

IMHO the OP's reference by the asset owner is an example of magical thinking: We need it to be true so we advance the argument. Owners of leasing firms, airlines that own the aircraft, lenders to leasing firms... nobody wants to read that $ tens of Billions of assets need to be written off (in the form of DL's $1.4 Billion write-down of just eight old 777 and ten 77L). It's of the same form as WN claiming they'd be at 95% of 2019 flight count in December 2020. (How'd that go!) It's the same form as Ryanair very recently arguing that vaccinations will create a summer 2021 travel boom. (What nation has a credible plan for vaccinating 70+ % to create herd immunity in that time frame? Is the UK going to allow unrestricted travel to/from places that have just 10-30% of people vaccinated?)

But O’Leary told an investor call that bookings would “snap back very strongly” once confidence grows in the rollout of vaccines across the European Union.

“I would be reasonably confident ... that we will see a return to relatively high-volume travel in that key July, August, September quarter,” he said.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ryan ... A11F6?il=0

Agree 100%. There's a lot of magical or naïve thinking in this thread, just as there has been throughout the last 18 months on a.net and from airline executives. Alan Joyce at Qantas would be a prime example. The reality is that lockdowns in advanced economies have shown that a lot of business can be conducted via virtual meetings, and the expense and time of long-distance travel avoided. While undoubtedly there's lots of pent-up tourism demand, the realities of the Delta variant of SARS-COV-2 are that there is unlikely to ever be true herd immunity. Even fully-vaccinated people will be at (low) risk of dying from the disease, and will be able to transmit it to the unvaccinated. So wise people are going to be reluctant to resume old travel habits.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:18 am

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
We couldn't legally load the aircraft up to over 340.2 tonnes even if we wanted to.


They could on those GECAS leased aircraft, all they would need to do is to issue a crew notice in Comply365 as the actual airworthiness limit is higher. They won’t do that as there are more efficient aircraft in the fleet to fly ULH.


The point was I can't just turn up after a layover in JNB, climb aboard, load the aircraft up to 345 tonnes and takeoff. But 10½ hours is hardly ULH.

Could you tell me what runway and environmental conditions would permit a RTOW of 340.2 tonnes from JNB.


We use CARD for performance calculations, it's not available offline. Next time I fly a -300 I'll put some figures in and see what TOPL I get.

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