Gecas Firms Order For Eight 772LRs!

FinnWings · Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:24 am

I re-checked the range....and I was a bit wrong earlier...sorry for that.

According to Boeing site B777-200LR can make Europe-Australia non-stop...even from LHR.

EWR-SYD: 15980km/8629nm, approximately same distance as from Central-Europe to Australia so I guess it is able to fly that flight. However, I'm not sure are payload restrictions required...

Best Regards,
FinnWings

ConcordeBoy · Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:37 am

even from LHR

It can in theory...

...but take into account the yearround still air and ETOPS/diversion/holding reserves-- and it's doubtful that the route can be flown nonstop roundtrip yearround with profit-potential payload.

I do however think that Boeing will eventually develop the aircraft with the capability it needs to offer positive revenue-potential on the Kangaroo route. Incorporation of the higher-rated GE90s being a likely step in that direction.

Horus · Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:43 am

even from LHR

I remember reading the aircraft can do the LHR-PER route but not the LHR-SYD.

Horus

DfwRevolution · Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:57 am

EWR-SYD: 15980km/8629nm, approximately same distance as from Central-Europe to Australia so I guess it is able to fly that flight. However, I'm not sure are payload restrictions required...

Assuming another 400nm for reserve fuel, and 400nm lost to headwinds and weather... I think a 772LR could be opperated at about 90% full payload. Also, a 772LR in simmilar configuration could carry an additional 35,000 lbs of payload on EWR-HKG compared to the 656k variant of the 772ER. This all how I interpret the Boeing payload/range charts, so if anyone disagree's please chime in, but who knows... maybe some new ULH ambitions for CO Big grin

ConcordeBoy · Sun Aug 08, 2004 2:00 am

compared to the 656k variant of the 772ER

...even more significant, considering CO's MTOW isnt that high

DfwRevolution · Sun Aug 08, 2004 2:08 am

...even more significant, considering CO's MTOW isnt that high

I was relativly sure that CO had the 656k variant, the article Alain Mengus wrote on the EWR-HKG sites this-

http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Networks/COEWRHKG.html

If not the 656k, what variant do they have? -

http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/acaps/7772sec3.pdf

cwapilot · Sun Aug 08, 2004 2:16 am

Hmmm, from what ConcordeBoy said, an Asian operator, not currently a 777 operator, with a need for very few....could it be Garuda? They have 777s coming, in 2007 or so. There has just been a new "open skies" agreement signed with the U.S., allowing Indonesian carriers to use gateways other than LAX...I dunno, just a thought. I can't think of any other Asian carriers which are not also 777 operators, besides Philippines,...unless, of course, we are considering Middle East operators as Asian operators here, in which case, I would have to say one of those sounds more likely. As for the other carrier(s), who knows?!

ConcordeBoy · Sun Aug 08, 2004 2:48 am

I was relativly sure that CO had the 656k variant

Hmm, could've sworn they were 648k, but the higher variant makes sense considering that CO flies close to the aircraft's max capability..

Will check.

ConcordeBoy · Sun Aug 08, 2004 2:50 am

Hmm... yep, y'all have it right: 656k mtow and 120.1k payload.

My bad Big thumbs up

PanAm_DC10 · Sun Aug 08, 2004 2:51 am

Given what ConcordeBoy said, I too, thought of Garuda. Another I thought of is China Airlines?

EMBQA · Sun Aug 08, 2004 4:45 am

Why do I say no to Qantas..?

1)From what I understand, Qantas OWNS their aircraft, they do not lease them.

2)They have an extensive line of aircraft that already cover all nitches. 747-400ER, 747-400, 747-300, A330-200, A330-300, 767-300ER...and they have early order numbers on the A380. Why would they need a new plane.

3) Like many airlines that fly under the Crown, they're a Rolls-Royce airline...not GE powered when given the option. The only long range aircraft they have that are not RR powered are the 767's. and the -400ER's. (is there any other eng. option with these two..)

4) From a co-worker that actually worked a Qantas. They had looked at the 777 years ago, but decided it would not work in their fleet with what they had planned for the furure.

Just my thoughts

[Edited 2004-08-07 22:05:54]

Korg747 · Sun Aug 08, 2004 4:52 am

EMBQA,
You forgot that the 747-400ER are GE powered.

DfwRevolution · Sun Aug 08, 2004 4:55 am

Not to mention the 737NG are all GE/SNECMA powered

EMBQA · Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:04 am

DFW-

If you note, I said LONG RANGE..... besides, there is not even any other option on the 737NG then GE...!!!

DfwRevolution · Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:07 am

My mistake... but if a Rolls Royce loyalty ran that deep, I'd an airline to opt for IAE V2500 engines on the A320. BTW- what powerplant will the JetStar A320's have?

The777Man · Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:25 am

Thanks for the clues! That still leaves us to guessing but that's part of the fun.

With an Asian airline that does not currently operate 777s, that would still leave lots of possibilities:

Garuda (GA) - have 777-200ER on order but could "sell" their order to GECAS who would convert it to and get 777-200LR instead.

Philippines (PR) may need long range aircraft to fly to the Eastern part of the US or Europe.

Air-India (AI) have talked about getting long range aircraft for nonstops to the US.

Gulf Air (GF) have talked about expanding and to be competitive with the other carriers with nonstop flights to the US.

Qatar (QR) but didn't they order A340-500s ?

Other much less likely candidates would be Biman Bangladesh (BG) need to replace their DC-10s but quite a big jump to -200LR, Iran Air (IR) probably would not be allowed to get them unless the US wants to improve relations and allow nonstop flights to Iran from the US, Uzbekistan (HY) wants to be a big global player with nonstop flights to US but no enough traffic for this, Shanghai Airlines (FM) wants to get a jump start on other Chinese carriers with new nonstops to the US but they don't have any intercontinental flights yet.

The777Man

[Edited 2004-08-07 22:28:51]

solnabo · Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:27 am

So these 772 are like "rent a Boeing at Hertz"??????

Mike//SE Big grin

ConcordeBoy · Sun Aug 08, 2004 7:06 am

Qatar (QR) but didn't they order A340-500s

Only one, and only for government use.

eksath · Sun Aug 08, 2004 7:31 am

Asian?

ok..let me throw in another one into the pot

How about Sri Lankan?

it is not a current 777 operator but as Air Lanka had an affinity for American aircraft. It is current operated by Emirates (40% ownership and 100% management by Emirates folks). So it mimics Emirates (right down to the new livery!). Since Emirates has 777s it would not much of a technical far reach for operation.

Most importantly, Sri Lankan has taken off like a rocket since its low point when it lost almost 5 aircrafts (2 A330s,1 A340,2 A320s) to Tamil LTTE terrorists in July 2001.It is expanding deeply into India and being a conduit for travel to Europe and Far East for Indians who want better service than currently available from traditional Indian carriers....

so how is that Concordboy?... Wink/being sarcastic

...long shot...

[Edited 2004-08-08 00:32:16]

aussie747 · Sun Aug 08, 2004 7:51 am

"I remember reading the aircraft can do the LHR-PER route but not the LHR-SYD."

That is one of the routes Qantas have stated publicly they are interested in for a long haul product.

EMBQA: I think you a right there QF are interested in an long haul product, and I think we will find out soon enough within about 2 weeks perhaps when their results are announced.

However the QF have quite a few of their aircraft leased (7 x 763's are leased through BA, their 10 x BAE 146's are leased through National Jet Systems, whilst a proportion of their DASH 8's and 717's are also leased, A few of their 733 Jet Connect New Zealand based fleet are also leased, Their First three JQ A320's are also leased through SALE).

gkirk · Sun Aug 08, 2004 9:01 am

Unfortunatly the 777 is way too small for LHR-SYD Wink/being sarcastic

PER744 · Sun Aug 08, 2004 9:26 am

Aussie747:

The leased QF 763's have been around for years. The BAE's, Dash8's and 717's are Qantaslink/Jetstar, and hence different to mainline.

Look at the recent purchases: A332's, A333's, 744ER's, 738's and look ahead to the A380. These are purchased, not leased.

To lease 8 (or less) planes through GECAS just doesn't make sense at this point.

aussie747 · Sun Aug 08, 2004 10:07 am

"The leased QF 763's have been around for years. The BAE's, Dash8's and 717's are Qantaslink/Jetstar, and hence different to mainline.Look at the recent purchases: A332's, A333's, 744ER's, 738's and look ahead to the A380. These are purchased, not leased."

Dirr, I was pointing this out that QF does have leased aircraft in their fleet as a previous post in this thread had said QF had no leased aircraft. Read my post properly next time.

EMBQA · Sun Aug 08, 2004 11:32 am

...a previous post in this thread had said QF had no leased aircraft...

Aussie747-

And you read mine properly. I never said "NO" leased planes. What I said was....."From what I understand, Qantas OWNS their aircraft, they do not lease them"

bill142 · Sun Aug 08, 2004 11:48 am

To lease 8 (or less) planes through GECAS just doesn't make sense at this point

Its not out of the realm of possibilities tho is it?

ConcordeBoy · Sun Aug 08, 2004 11:56 am

To lease 8 (or less) planes through GECAS just doesn't make sense at this point

Sure it does, if GECAS (or whomever) could secure particular delivery slots that the airline otherwise could not acquire.

panam330 · Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:15 pm

The777man,

"I agree that CO seems like a likely candidate; not just nonstop EWR-HKG with no payload restrictions but perhaps also for other new routes eg EWR-SYD, EWR-JNB?"

CO indeed did seem like a player, but CBoy already stated that the new operator does not currently have 777s, so that puts them out Sad

. He did, however, state this after you posted. CO has publicly stated they do not intend to serve Australia in the near-term future, eg. within 10 years. Also, It'd be absolutely amazing if they added -200LRs and flew to JNB and/or CPT. I'd be off to South Africa on the inaugural flight Big grin

!

As for the possible operators, it's got to be either China Airlines, more for Eva Air, or Sri Lankan. I can't think of any others, unless you include the Middle East as Asia, like some do. Then there are like 20 carriers you can add to the mix, who would probably buy 7 of the 8, just because they've got the cash Big grin

.

gigneil · Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:34 pm

3) Like many airlines that fly under the Crown, they're a Rolls-Royce airline...not GE powered when given the option. The only long range aircraft they have that are not RR powered are the 767's. and the -400ER's. (is there any other eng. option with these two..)

RB211 engines were options on both planes, and they opted for the GE engine instead. Trent engines were also an option for the A330, the market leader in fact, but QF instead selected the CF6.

Hmm... yep, y'all have it right: 656k mtow and 120.1k payload.

I'm surprised the 656k mtow is an option with the 90k engines.

N

The777Man · Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:42 pm

Agree that CI could be a possibility also.

The777Man

airxliban · Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:43 pm

RB211 engines were options on both planes, and they opted for the GE engine instead. Trent engines were also an option for the A330, the market leader in fact, but QF instead selected the CF6.

The 747-400ER is not available with the RB211, just the PW4062 (63,300 lb) or CF6 (62,100).

gigneil · Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:48 pm

The 747-400ER is not available with the RB211, just the PW4062 (63,300 lb) or CF6 (62,100).

That's not actually accurate. RR did want QF to order the RB211 for their 747-400ERs, but, since they didn't, the RB211 was never certified.

Granted, it wouldn't have been a match made in heaven.

N

na · Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:16 pm

As everyone guesses who might get some of these pretty birds:
China Southern could be possible, and what about Air India who try to get evreything "leasable" at the moment?

MaverickM11 · Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:11 am

I vote Air India since they're looking for more aircraft, and I'm sure Boeing is more than happy to help them reconsider their A340 order.

ConcordeBoy · Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:51 am

help them reconsider their A340 order.

what A340 order?

na · Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:14 am

Air India didn´t order A340 so far, but they are known to seek for lease contracts for several pending a future fleet decision which seems to be delayed, delayed, delayed.
As they are going to lease, and these lease contracts will not be for very long periods, they could as well catch some of these 772LRs if the lease rates aren´t skyrocketing for this very expensive super-longrange airliner. Wouldn´t they perfectly serve a Non-stop-NY-route?
Maybe they make a smart move and lease a few A340s and 777s for a two or 3 year period to evaluate which is better for them for a future decision to order en masse.

Hamlet69 · Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:39 am

"As they are going to lease, and these lease contracts will not be for very long periods"

Just FYI - the lease tenders AI sent out were for contracts between 7 and 10 years. This is certainly no wet-lease, at least. OTOH, reports are now emerging from India that the gov't is looking at placing large duties on any leased aircraft. . .

Regards,

Hamlet69

MaverickM11 · Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:09 am

"what A340 order? "

I didn't know what to call it... A340 recommendation? Attempted but later retracted potential order? Garden variety Indian government decision? Planned but soon thereafter retracted purchase? Maybe we could coin a new phrase here along the lines of "Indian giver": "Indian order"?

...Different kinda "Indian" though...

ConcordeBoy · Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:10 am

Maybe we could coin a new phrase here along the lines of "Indian giver": "Indian order"?

Shweet!

I like it Big thumbs up

buckfifty · Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:28 am

Don't think CX will be in the equation this time.

Since this is now a rumour thread, I'm hearing now that the consideration is to order more 346's in HGW guise, in addition to a couple of new airframes to replace the overweight examples currently in the inventory.

Again, just a rumour spoken of in some lonely cockpit. Probably will not become reality, but interesting to note nevertheless. The 346's have been performing quite well on the JFK route, which lends a bit of creedence to this idea.

And they keep updating the manuals over and over again, doesn't look like they'll be rid of them anytime soon.

mrniji · Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:45 pm

As they are going to lease, and these lease contracts will not be for very long periods, they could as well catch some of these 772LRs if the lease rates aren´t skyrocketing for this very expensive super-longrange airliner. Wouldn´t they perfectly serve a Non-stop-NY-route?

Principally agreed. The tenders are already placed on the AI webpage. The A345 or 772LR tenders are for long-term period of 7-10 years, not for short-term.

If this comes through finally (proposed leasing tax for a/c in India!), I would rather prefer to see the 345 in order to create some synergy, in case the 343 order will go through in future Angry

and in case the 332 will be leased, too.

ConcordeBoy · Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:37 am

I would rather prefer to see the 345 in order to create some synergy, in case the 343 order will go through in future

or...

...by ordering the 772LR; they could place the 772ER order, like they originally wanted anyways, with less persuasive drag from the CFM56 acquisition.

mrniji · Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:34 am

Great you are back, Freddy - and the old one.. and good to know that your original antipathy against the 340 series still exists Big grin

ConcordeBoy · Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:33 am

...it's Freddie,
and what do you mean "back"?

JMO-777 · Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:31 am

Hi!
PanAm330: EVA has already 777s on order!

What about the indonesian carrier CebuPacific(IIRC), who wants to fly to the USA and Europe?? the 772LR could be their favorite plane for such routes.

And what's about
Royal Brunei???

GreetZ,
Jan

runway23 · Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:44 am

My money is on either Royal Brunei or Qantas. A very unlikely airline but not impossible is Garuda. The rule of thumb in aviation is to be careful about rumours and only believe it once it's actually signed.

T.

ConcordeBoy · Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:20 am

Keep in mind that this'll be a split order even if the [first] intended carrier does indeed bite.

PanAm_DC10 · Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:58 am

For either carrier is it just a 772LR order alone or is it part of a larger order package?

cx340 · Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:40 am

This is just wishful thinking, but, could at least part of the order be for a Mexican carrier? I don't think so, buy specially with Mexican carriers, you never know. . .

matt777 · Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:36 am

Great news, I'd love to see a 777-200LR in Alitalia's colors btw. Big thumbs up

JMO-777 · Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:46 pm

Any update available at the moment???
'cause "next week" is running now. Wink/being sarcastic

Thanks

GreetZ,
Jan

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net