Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

bells · Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:12 pm

Flight International's website says Boeing is going to develop a new version of the 777-200LR with enough range to fly Sydney-London all year round. Do you guys reckon anyone will want to fly that far nonstop? Or will the airlines want it?

http://www.flightinternational.com/A...ing+looks+at+longer-range+777.html

NAV20 · Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:27 pm

Big potential First/Business Class market here. I'd pay extra for it, anyway, if they offer 'Executive Economy'. Same as I would for non-stop to NYC, my other frequent destination.

The flight time wouldn't be that much of a problem - MEL-LAX is already 14 hours, if you can stand that you can stand 18 hours to Heathrow.

I think that there might be quite a large potential market in South America too - a lot of their cities are a 'long way from anywhere' at the moment.

ua777222 · Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:28 pm

I have a feeling this is geared towards the airlines that are getting rid of **other aircraft** for this. I don't think it would take that much longer to add the fuel tanks. But, what will airlines say about the loss of passengers for fuel?

301 passengers...humm....

My twocents

Matt

Glareskin · Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:32 pm

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 2):
301 passengers...humm....

It will definitely be less than that since this isn't invented for y-class.......

DeltaWings · Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:39 pm

Would this just be an option, to have more then six auxillary fuel tanks, when you buy the 777LR?, or would this 777 be called someting like 777ULR? (ultra)

Thorben · Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:39 pm

Great, I've always wanted to fly VLL-CHC non-stop. Thanks Boeing for making this wish come true.

Seriously, how many would of you would want to fly for 18, 19, or more hours? In addition to that, I really wonder how big the market for that plane would be. The 772LR already hasn't huge sales numbers, so does the A345. OK, the latter need to be replaced immediatly, I know, but that can be done with 772LRs.

Who could use this 772ULR, then? Qantas to fly to LHR? And who else? BA, to fly to SYD? Wow, could make up to six sales then.

Is the whole thing just an effort to sell 777s to Qantas?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 1):
I think that there might be quite a large potential market in South America too - a lot of their cities are a 'long way from anywhere' at the moment.

Which cities are how far from what there?

sq212 · Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:41 pm

Quoting Bells (Thread starter):
Or will the airlines want it?

I smell QF and SQ are potential customers going for it.

Cheers

6thfreedom · Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:43 pm

You can count me out...

regardless of class of travel, i would much rather take an extra 1-2 hrs, and have time to stretch the legs rather than be confined in a tube..

ua777222 · Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:52 pm

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 7):
regardless of class of travel, i would much rather take an extra 1-2 hrs, and have time to stretch the legs rather than be confined in a tube..

And pay landing fee's, airport taxes, airport food, and other costs to sit around an airport for a few hours? I think, if the airlines are able to get within a $200-$400 gap beween one stop and non-stop I would pay more for sure...

My twocents

Matt

SNATH · Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:06 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Great, I've always wanted to fly VLL-CHC non-stop. Thanks Boeing for making this wish come true.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
I really wonder how big the market for that plane would be.

Boeing will have done their homework. You are absolutely right that the market for the B772LR is already limited, and the one for the B772ULR (let's call it that, for lack of a better name) even more so. The article mentions that the B772ULR will basically be a B772LR with 6 auxiliary tanks and a lighter interior. So, I can't believe that it will be very expensive to develop. And if this model is the deciding factor on whether a couple of important customers (say SQ and QF) place a large Boeing order which will include B787s and B777s, then the development costs will probably be more than worth it. Also could it be that they are planning to offer the new interior for the baseline B772LR and B773ER to make them even more attractive than they already are?

Tony

zvezda · Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:09 pm

There is definitely a market. LHR-SYD and LHR-MEL are the obvious ones. GRU-NRT is another.

SQ has no need for additional range beyond that offered by the B777-200LR. They can reach everywhere except Central America, the southern Caribbean, and the northwestern part of South America (Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuala, Peru, etc.)

keesje · Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:11 pm

Interesting, curious what more is currently offered to airlines like SQ, QF, BA and EK.

Maybe variants of the 744Adv, A388, 789, A359, A346 are offered too. E.g. A380 MSN001 is planned for a 600t MTOW take-off soon.

With reduced payloads, overseized structures & removable fuel tanks much is possible, if there is demand for more range.

klmcedric · Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:12 pm

If it were in Y or even exec Y, I would seriously doubt about it.
We're talking about flights that could last up to twenty hours.
If I had the money for first/biz, I'd go for it.You have all the comfort you
need and lots of space to stretch your legs.
Why bother making an intermediate stop, deboard, lose time in the airport,
board again, plus the fact that every intermediate landing gives extra risk
for delays to occur.If you fly LHR-SYD non-stop you know for sure that you'll
be at your destination 18-20hrs later, you don't have that certainty if you
land in SIN,BKK,HKG... on your way to Sydney.
Now if future operators of these ULroutes would offer a possibility to shower
onboard, no need to even consider other options IMHO.

jacobin777 · Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:31 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 1):
The flight time wouldn't be that much of a problem - MEL-LAX is already 14 hours, if you can stand that you can stand 18 hours to Heathrow.

agree...look at SFO/LAX-SYD....thats 14+ hours....last year, I flew EK JFK-DXB-JFK cattle class....the return trip was 15+ hours long and it was packed!!!

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Seriously, how many would of you would want to fly for 18, 19, or more hours?

SQ has a business based on it already....I can see EK and QF do it also....especially if the 777-200ULR can do SYD-LHR-SYD nonstop......might even see BA added to the mix........

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
. The 772LR already hasn't huge sales numbers, so does the A345.

the -200LR has started to sell nicely, and the 200F is based on the 200LR model, and expect to see sales of the -200F to pick up in the future....

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):

Who could use this 772ULR, then? Qantas to fly to LHR? And who else? BA, to fly to SYD? Wow, could make up to six sales then.

Is the whole thing just an effort to sell 777s to Qantas?

try SQ, EK amongst other Middle East Carriers.......

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 8):
And pay landing fee's, airport taxes, airport food, and other costs to sit around an airport for a few hours? I think, if the airlines are able to get within a $200-$400 gap beween one stop and non-stop I would pay more for sure...

UA777222...if I'm not mistaken, it costs more (for a pax) to run a ULR flight than to fly with connections...i'm not sure if it costs air carriers more or less though..

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):

SQ has no need for additional range beyond that offered by the B777-200LR. They can reach everywhere except Central America, the southern Caribbean, and the northwestern part of South America (Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuala, Peru, etc.)

Zvezda....I would think that the Central/South America/Caribbean market combined would be a large enough of a market to warrant a few of these birds.

I think people will be surprised to see how many sales of the -200LR/ULR will be sold......just a couple of years ago, it seemed as if the -200LR sales would be in jeapordy, now there have been a few sales of the -200LR and -200F..

Halibut · Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:42 pm

Quoting SNATH (Reply 9):
So, I can't believe that it will be very expensive to develop

Agreed ,
It appears this will just be an option for the 777LR "extra fuel tanks" . Similar to that of a car with options . Like power windows, diffrent interior and/or larger gas tank .

777-200ULR , I like the sound of that ! Boeing's 777s continue to impress me .

bigthumbsup

STT757 · Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:49 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Who could use this 772ULR, then? Qantas to fly to LHR? And who else? BA, to fly to SYD? Wow, could make up to six sales then.

It would increase the potential of other 777 sales (777-200ER, 777-300ER) and 787s since they will share some commanality and have minimal pilot transition times, if this aircraft provides the emphasis for a large 777 and 787 order from carriers like Qantas and BA it's well worth the investment.

[Edited 2005-09-26 16:53:23]

birdbrainz · Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:54 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Seriously, how many would of you would want to fly for 18, 19, or more hours?

It's not so much wanting to fly that long. Rather, it's a matter of the alternatives. For instance, if I could theoretically go from SFO to CPT non-stop, it would be a killer, I'd do gladly do it.

I wouldn't have to worry about getting my bags lost at LHR/FRA/CDG/AMS, and wouldn't have the long layover at one of the above airports.

Also, the absolute worst part about going from JNB to ATL is waking up at 2am for that dreaded fuel stop in Cape Verde, not to mention the pathetic domestic service within the US.

NAV20 · Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:59 pm

Only disagree about Emirates, Jacobin777. Whether for the sake of cheap fuel, or reducing 'hotel time' for their crews, EK route all their flights via Dubai at the moment. They could have a big adjustment problem.

I suspect that the airlines have been caught on the hop by the 772LR. They've invested in a lot of existing hardware based on a two-stop approach to Australia/UK, and Australia/Eastern USA, come to that; plus the A380s that almost all the airlines serving Australia already have on order.

So non-stop services will 'bleed' passengers from their existing cattle-trucks. The most profitable passengers, too, First/Business Class plus discriminating 'tourist' frequent-flyers (like me) who are prepared to pay a premium for less hassle/travel time.

MD11junkie · Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:03 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 1):
I think that there might be quite a large potential market in South America too - a lot of their cities are a 'long way from anywhere' at the moment.

Isn't the range of routes to/from South America covered by the 747-400 (AR, QF) and the A340 (AR, LA)? I don't think there is that much market, I'm guessing Brazil, that is covered once a week by AR.

Good to hear Boeing is opening a new door by getting rid of 'checkpoint' in one of the most profitable routes. This is gonna be trully benefitial for customers and airlines. Let's hope Airbus can match this. Smile

Cheers!

Gastón - The MD11 Junkie

BlueSky1976 · Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:22 am

This will be a very niche market, but it definitely exists. If Qantas wants to go for the expanded frequency for their Western European routes, I could see them ordering quite a few of them. Air New Zealand - maybe, Singapore - who knows, British Airways - possible... I hope thought that this plane will have SYD-LHR range with a full passenger load offered in order to have some advantages for those, who'd still want to fly in the economy class...

tockeyhockey · Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:25 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Seriously, how many would of you would want to fly for 18, 19, or more hours?

not this old debate again. it's not about whether we want to fly this long or not. it's whether the market will bear this kind of flight. i think it will.

RayChuang · Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:30 am

I think Boeing is probably already looking at configuring a 777-200LR in a roomier two-class configuration similar to what SQ did with the A340-500's--say about 200 passengers maximum--to sell to SQ, QF, BA, and possibly NZ and EK.

Why roomier Business and Economy class seating only? Most likely to keep the weight of the interior fittings down and to ensure every passenger is comfortable for what amounts to an 18-19 hour non-stop flight between LHR and SYD.

zeke · Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:38 am

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 18):
Isn't the range of routes to/from South America covered by the 747-400 (AR, QF) and the A340 (AR, LA)? I don't think there is that much market, I'm guessing Brazil, that is covered once a week by AR.

QF dont fly to South America, its being done code share with an A340.

Airbus has had additional centre tanks for additional range for A318/319/320/321/330/340 for some time, it not a new idea. The A319CJ is a flying prodict with these tanks installed.

Thorben · Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:38 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17):
Whether for the sake of cheap fuel, or reducing 'hotel time' for their crews, EK route all their flights via Dubai at the moment

They do that mainly because it is their hub and their business model is to connect as many cities as they can with one stop in DXB. I don't think they'll start flying LHR-SIN or NRT-CPT non-stop. What would be the sense of that?

NAV20 · Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:52 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 23):
What would be the sense of that?

Thorben - the sense of it would be that if their competitors on the Kangaroo Route start offering nonstop services, they'll lose out if they don't follow suit.

BlueSky1976 · Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:00 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 24):
the sense of it would be that if their competitors on the Kangaroo Route start offering nonstop services, they'll lose out if they don't follow suit.

Does EK have the authority to serve SYD-LHR-SYD??

Slarty · Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:10 am

The trend is unmistakable. Frequent travellers prefer to fly non-stops. I'll also choose P2P over hub-connecting frequency also. Many reasons why:

Safer; faster; less likely to be delayed; and more efficient from an environmental perspective.

jacobin777 · Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:35 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17):
Only disagree about Emirates, Jacobin777. Whether for the sake of cheap fuel, or reducing 'hotel time' for their crews, EK route all their flights via Dubai at the moment. They could have a big adjustment problem.

Nav20..you have some good points, but I think EK could use the -200LR/ULR in routes such as DXB-LIM/SCL/MEX/MIA/SFO/LAX/YVR,etc

..while I'm not saying EK will fly those routes right now, the ability is there now for EK to expand with those routes, and it still doesn't take away as DXB being EK's superhub.

Quoting Slarty (Reply 26):
The trend is unmistakable. Frequent travellers prefer to fly non-stops. I'll also choose P2P over hub-connecting frequency also. Many reasons why:

Safer; faster; less likely to be delayed; and more efficient from an environmental perspective.

absolutely agree....last month, I flew KHI-DXB-CDG-LHR-JFK-DFW-SJC...ok..I could have flown less....such as KHI-ORD-SJC... or KHI-LHR-SFO...the route timings were off for me and I also realise the importance of having less connections........

I've had one too many flights with even just 1 stop where its caused me missed flights, flight delays, ect.....

I'll be happy to pay a few $$$ more to fly a more direct route.. yes

PPVRA · Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:37 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
:

There is definitely a market. LHR-SYD and LHR-MEL are the obvious ones. GRU-NRT is another.

GRU-NRT is still about 800nm farther than SYD-LHR. We don't know what the range is going to be, but the difference between these two routes is significant.

Fingers crossfingers

though

Cheers

Danny · Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:39 am

They haven't even sold more that a couple of current version and already are planning to launch another? Does Boeing have a gold mine to finance all that?

NAV20 · Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:45 am

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 25):
Does EK have the authority to serve SYD-LHR-SYD??

Yes. I don't use them myself - but I think they also serve Melbourne, Perth, and Brisbane.

Glareskin · Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:50 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
Seriously, how many would of you would want to fly for 18, 19, or more hours?

In an A345 I would.... No, seriously I believe there is a good market for every class exept Y... Stop-overs are killing you! hypnotized

khenleydia · Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:51 am

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 20):
not this old debate again. it's not about whether we want to fly this long or not. it's whether the market will bear this kind of flight. i think it will.

I agree that it will. Besides, I take it not many people that complain about being stuck in an airplane for 18+ hours have flown from IAD,ATL,JFK to JNB direct, with a tech stop. You stay on the plane for fueling now. That is easy 18+ hours. Some times 21+ on the way back.

With that said, I'm not sure that Boeing would develop a new version of 777, but maybe just modify future 772LRs to support the extra fuel tanks. Of course, I have been wrong before... once or twice.

KhenleyDIA

NAV20 · Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:01 am

Besides - most customers go to the travel agent and say they want to travel from A to B on a given date. The first thing that will come up on the agent's screen is the direct flight. If the customer accepts that, the booking is done then and there.

Human nature says that, faced with a satisfied customer, the agent isn't going to say, "I could get that for you for 300 bucks less if you don't mind a stop at Singapore."

Nor are most customers going to say, "What aeroplane does that airline fly? I'd rather have an A340 than a Triple Seven......."

whitehatter · Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:02 am

LHR-SYD won't work. It is already a low profit route.

Where are these premium passengers going to come from? BA don't make much from the route and Qantas are the same. Putting a long range no-stopper on the route just makes it even more uneconomical due to crippling fuel costs. You have to carry fuel to carry fuel.

And again the EK crap. How many times does it have to be stated that they don't get any cheap fuel deal at DXB? Repeating it over and over in cheerleader fashion does not make it true.

Running LHR-SYD nonstop is the economics of the madhouse. Turning a profit on such an operation would be virtually impossible and a minefield of pilot problems, let alone cabin crew.

jacobin777 · Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:10 am

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 34):
LHR-SYD won't work. It is already a low profit route.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 34):
Running LHR-SYD nonstop is the economics of the madhouse. Turning a profit on such an operation would be virtually impossible and a minefield of pilot problems, let alone cabin crew.

"Dixon (Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon)says that, although the A380 is required to boost capacity at slot-constrained airports, non-stop flights from Sydney to London remain the “holy grail”, enabling it to avoid stopping in hubs such as Singapore or Bangkok. He says Boeing is “now not too far from getting an economic payload into London”. "

lets see..should I believe someone from A.net who doesn't have too much credibility or should I listen to the CEO of QF??? sarcastic

wingman · Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:32 am

So are you saying that Boeing, BA and QF are examining this idea in a delusional vacuum without realizing there are no premium passengers to make the route profitable? Seems rather strange that all three parties would waste the time, effort and money looking into it so seriously.

aerosol · Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:34 am

I think this aircraft makes sense as well. With the number of aircraft Emirates, Qatar and Etihad will have in the near future, European and Austral Pacifics majors will have to offer a competitive advantage - which a non stop flight can offer and can not be copied by the airlines mentioned above.

garpd · Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:58 am

You can always count on Whitehatter doing his best to discredit anything Boeing.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 34):
LHR-SYD won't work. It is already a low profit route.

Let me have some of what you're smoking will ya.
A non stop LHR-SYD-LHR service would and will be a gold mine.

tockeyhockey · Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:05 am

Quoting KhenleyDIA (Reply 32):
I agree that it will. Besides, I take it not many people that complain about being stuck in an airplane for 18+ hours have flown from IAD,ATL,JFK to JNB direct, with a tech stop. You stay on the plane for fueling now. That is easy 18+ hours. Some times 21+ on the way back.

yes, what people are interested is the shortest way possible to get from point A to point B. when you add in plane changes, tech stops, layovers, etc., a one or two stop flight is always longer than a direct. i'm guessing that businessmen in particular are going to care about hours spent travelling, not hours spent inside the airplane.

Maersk737 · Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:07 am

Quoting GARPD (Reply 38):
Let me have some of what you're smoking will ya.
A non stop LHR-SYD-LHR service would and will be a gold mine.

Why do you think that?

Cheers

Peter

gigneil · Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:07 am

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 34):
How many times does it have to be stated that they don't get any cheap fuel deal at DXB?

Wait wait wait.

I agree that EK is not subsidized, and that the government doesn't support their operations, but the reality of the matter is that fuel at DXB is a bare fraction of the cost it is anywhere else.

N

garpd · Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:10 am

Quoting Maersk737 (Reply 40):

Why do you think that?

Cheers

Peter

Plenty business going on between the UK and Oz. Plenty people who could do with a slightly faster flight with more garauntee of no delays due to the lack of a tech stop.

Maersk737 · Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:14 am

Quoting GARPD (Reply 42):
Plenty business going on between the UK and Oz. Plenty people who could do with a slightly faster flight with more garauntee of no delays due to the lack of a tech stop.

Do you have any figures?

Cheers

Peter

Ken777 · Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:18 am

I've flown both QF & BA from SYD and the expensive seats have been fairly full most of the time. I think a non-stop would be very attractive to both airlines.

As for me flying it - nope, I'm too old for that. The other factor is that there is too much to see in Asia not to stop for a night or two. I can plan meetings in a way that will let me take the trip "casually" and land in LHR reasonably refreshed. When you pass 60 these things start to matter.

Ibhayi · Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:22 am

While it may be ideal for numerous airlines to order an aircraft such as the 772LR or the 345 that can fly such distances, there aer many variables that need to be considered as well. At LHR which is heavly slot-restricted, would mean more flights would have to be put on from syd-lhr to accomodate the capacity that is being offered by the 744m. This could lead to un-ideal landing and departure times or the airlines not being awarded the slots they need to operate there. There are extra costs involved which could create a problem, more pilots, more insurance, more maintenance more parking fee's the list is endless so they can make the trip non-stop. Yet while I don't have the figures it would be important for the airline to way up the extra fee's incurred to stop over.

garpd · Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:30 am

Quoting Maersk737 (Reply 43):
Do you have any figures?

Not really, just what my associate tells me about the loads on BA and QF flights.

That being that the premium cabins can get quite busy.

zvezda · Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:33 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 13):
Zvezda....I would think that the Central/South America/Caribbean market combined would be a large enough of a market to warrant a few of these birds.

Which specific cities in this area do you think have enough premium traffic to justify nonstop service from SIN (only cities outside the current B777-200LR range)?

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 16):
For instance, if I could theoretically go from SFO to CPT non-stop, it would be a killer, I'd do gladly do it.

The current B777-200LR can fly SFO-CPT easily. It can also make the return trip, but may occasionally have load restrictions westbound.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 21):
I think Boeing is probably already looking at configuring a 777-200LR in a roomier two-class configuration similar to what SQ did with the A340-500's--say about 200 passengers maximum--to sell to SQ, QF, BA, and possibly NZ and EK.

SQ are looking at a 3-cabin configuration with just over 200 seats for the B777-200LR.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 28):
GRU-NRT is still about 800nm farther than SYD-LHR. We don't know what the range is going to be, but the difference between these two routes is significant.

That's true, but the winds are typically less severe GRU-NRT than SYD-LHR. It might work.

NAV20 · Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:46 am

Maersk737 - Peter - on the one hand, you can't get 'hard figures', because the service doesn't EXIST yet.

But on the OTHER hand, you've already had half-a-dozen Australians, Britons, and Americans come on here and say that they can't wait to use the service - and pay extra for it - if the airlines will only lay it on.

I'll use it anyway, if it happens - and much as I'd like to have the services of the (female) flight attendants all to myself (even at my advanced age) I somehow doubt that I'll be that lucky!

Years back, here in Melbourne, I had occasion to do some (mutually successful) business with the current Qantas Chairman (Chairperson?). I'm beginning to wonder if I should maybe ring her up, remind her of old times, and tell her to bloody well get on with it before I finally get too old to travel. Smile

Tony

A350 · Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:46 am

I always wondered if the LHR-SYD route was ever flown by a Concorde and, if yes, how many refueling stops it needed and how long it took. Perhaps a 772LR nonstop connection can make it in the same time as Concorde? Does amyone know more? Since we know there was a limited, but existing market for supersonic service and there is a market for SIN-LAX/EWR nonstop, although they are all expensive and burn a lot of fuel, I don't have any doubt that there will be a market for LHR-SYD nonstop, too.

A350

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net