Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:50 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 47):
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)?

I stand corrected......you are correct on your call....for some reason, I got your comments confused with the -LR and the -ULR...SQ doesn't have a need for the -ULR

I still think EK might use it for a couple of routes, that being said, it seems there will be very minimal cost associated with taking the -LR to the -ULR..
 
User avatar
malaysia
Posts: 2670
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:26 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:21 am

Quoting DeltaWings (Reply 4):
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)

It should be a 777-200CR

Boeing 777-200CR "Complete Range"

Boeing 777-200WR "World Range" ??

haha
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7173
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:12 am

Quoting Slarty (Reply 26):
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.

The environmental part of it is simply the other way around.

If we compare two routes half way around the world, one non-stop and one with a fuel stop half way, then...

The non-stop flight will spend an enormous amount of fuel on the first quarter around the world on transporting fuel for the second quarter.

And on the second quarter it will suffer from being a much too large, powerfull and heavy plane since a sustantial part of the take-off weight has been converted into contrails.

On the type of ranges we are discussing here the weight of the fuelload will be roughly ten times the payload weight. And consequently some 80% of the fuel will be wasted on transporting fuel rather than payload.

Very long range flights have always been fuelwise inefficient. That was the case with the DC-7C, and it will always be the case.

Consequently, if the crude oil stays at $50 or 60/barrel, then we may have seen the last "standard" 777LR order, and the 777ULR will most likely stay a paperplane or "dreamliner" only.

Let's take a real example: A 777ULR will carry less payload than th LR, let's say 250 instead of 300 pax. On LHR - SYD non-stop it will need 160 tons of fuel.

A 767-400ER with one fuel stop could do the same in 3 class layout on 120 tons of fuel.

$80 million more plane - that's $25,000 more leasing costs per day. 40 tons more fuel, that's another $25,000. $50,000 for making the trip in 18 hours instead of 20 hours - or $200 more per seat one way whether it's filled or not (that will be $6-7-800 on a return ticket), I doubt that the market will be there.

And if it will be there, then it will be a niche market only.
 
baw716
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:22 am

Well, if you reduce the seating from nine across to eight, put the BA type recaro designed World Traveler type seat in them, you could pitch it at 36 inches and you wouldn't probably be able to drop enough weight in the back to make it work.

Its the F and C cabins where the weight of the seats are REALLY heavy. However, if those are the cabins that would run full, then it would make sense to have an 18/60/175 pax version (256 seats). The reduction of 46 seats and the commensurate body weight (175-200lbs) would probably make the weight difference you would need to get the extra 1500 miles you would need to make the flight work with reserves.

That would be some airplane. However, one problem with an aircraft that has that kind of range - there would have to be some provision for larger waste tasks and water tanks, as well as extra capacity for boarding food carts. An 18 hour flight would have to have at least one meal every six hours, plus snacks, so we would be talking about three full meals. Most aircraft now, except the 747 are not capable of carrying that kind of provisioning. It would be interesting to see how the 777LR carries that off. Downstairs galley?
Would make sense, since they are using the upstairs for crew rest.

Would take one and a half crews to make that run; four pilots for sure. God it would be worth it. Anyone who could fly nonstop London-Sydney and put on a good service will make tons of money. Lets see if Boeing can pull it off. It might be the one thing that will really stimulate sales of the 777LR.

baw716
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15186
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:27 am

ENOUGH!!!!

Every freaking time someone mentions the LHR-SYD route or the 772LR, you get all these "who'd want to fly that long" comments. Give it a rest!

We've heard your comments. You don't want to do it. Fine. Don't do it!

Just shut up about it already.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:29 am

I think that if A boosts the A350-900s range (8k+ nm), that leaves a small niche for the heavier 777LR.

Operators would also be able to choose the engine themselves, Genx or Trent. http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/article_1032756.html
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1289
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:32 am

Quoting A350 (Reply 49):
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.

Concorde flew LHR-SIN via Bahrain in about 9 hours, versus 12-13 hours for a non-stop 747 flight. An extension to SYD was considered but never taken due to economic and sonic boom concerns. If the leg was flown at Mach 2 all the way, it probably would have almost 4 hours flying time; add another hour of ground time for the SIN tech stop and arrival at SYD, and you're likely looking at a 14-hour flight from London requiring two en-route stops and two flight crews. The BAH/SIN route was pulled in 1980 due to low yields and high costs.

--B2707SST
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:40 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 55):
I think that if A boosts the A350-900s range (8k+ nm), that leaves a small niche for the heavier 777LR.

At what cost? Already the A350-900 is short on payload and range compared to the 777-200ER. While it is certainly going to be lighter and more fuel efficient, it does not come close to the same class as the 772LR/A345. . .


Hamlet69
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6028
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:43 am

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 57):
At what cost? Already the A350-900 is short on payload and range compared to the 777-200ER. While it is certainly going to be lighter and more fuel efficient, it does not come close to the same class as the 772LR/A345. . .

Haven't you learned that you are not to allow trivial matters such as facts get in the way?!
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:48 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 52):
The environmental part of it is simply the other way around.

If we compare two routes half way around the world, one non-stop and one with a fuel stop half way, then...

The non-stop flight will spend an enormous amount of fuel on the first quarter around the world on transporting fuel for the second quarter.

And on the second quarter it will suffer from being a much too large, powerfull and heavy plane since a sustantial part of the take-off weight has been converted into contrails.

While that maybe true of a best of breed modern aircraft, the 772LR is supposed to be more fuel efficient than the 772ER for all but the shortest routes.

Quoting widebodyphotog:
In a nutshell, for equal amounts of fuel and payload above 2,000nm the 777-200LR has to carry some increased amount of payload to burn more fuel than the ER. At any equal payload/range above 2,000nm the 777-200LR will burn less fuel than the ER. And at any payload/range value that requires MTOW for 777-200ER the LR can dramatically increase that range as its TOW is 113,000lbs higher than the ER.

So it would be fair to say that lugging around that extra aircraft weight after the fuel is burned off isn't going to be a problem compared to aircraft airlines fly currently.

Without detailed information regarding take off fuel consumption and ground handling energy requirements, I don't think I can evaluate the first assertion.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7173
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:53 am

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 53):
Its the F and C cabins where the weight of the seats are REALLY heavy. However, if those are the cabins that would run full, then it would make sense to have an 18/60/175 pax version (256 seats). The reduction of 46 seats and the commensurate body weight (175-200lbs) would probably make the weight difference you would need to get the extra 1500 miles you would need to make the flight work with reserves.

Sorry to disappoint you, Baw716. 46 pax at 200 lbs = just over 4 tons. Add seats and baggage and it may be almost 6 tons.

Convert that to 6 tons more fuel. It will bring you some 350 miles further, not anywhere near 1500 miles. And then we haven't even counted the weight of the extra tanks.

It will take a lot more dramatic changes to increase range 1500 miles. Increased gross weight, longer runway requirement, ignorance of hot and high performance, etc, etc. And a reduced payload. And a considerably higher fuel burn per seat.

A "standard" 777LR could extend its range by 1500 miles if it had to carry zero seats, zero pax, zero payload, and it carried the same weight as extra fuel. And maybe a little more than 1500 miles, but not much. It wouldn't make +2000 miles.

A 777LR + 1500 miles would probably be something like a ten seat biz-jet !!!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:09 am

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 57):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 55):
I think that if A boosts the A350-900s range (8k+ nm), that leaves a small niche for the heavier 777LR.

At what cost? Already the A350-900 is short on payload and range compared to the 777-200ER. While it is certainly going to be lighter and more fuel efficient, it does not come close to the same class as the 772LR/A345. . .

I´m not saying it would match the capabilities, but that the niche would become small.

Airbus sofar did not start to put fuel in the cargo hold to boost range, but they could.

I doubt this "772LR+" and the "787-10" would pop up if there was no competitive pressure.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6028
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:12 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 61):
I doubt this "772LR+" and the "787-10" would pop up if there was no competitive pressure.

It isn't always about that. Some times a customer just asks for it, and is willing to pay for it. If a good customer asks for a change in order to meet their goals, why wouldn't Boeing do it?
 
RichardJF
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 7:07 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:16 am

The reasons for QF if they did buy such a plane are purely defensive and PR reasons. If your running LHR-SYD and SYD-JFK they wouldn't expect to make anything out of it but it takes a bit of the attractiveness of the Australia market off EK. It would be possible that QF would order 6 or so.They would be careful not to undermine their LAX ops i'm sure so I highly doubt they'd be running things like SYD-DFW. The planes would be full all year around and people would pay the extra.
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1893
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:18 am

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 57):
At what cost? Already the A350-900 is short on payload and range compared to the 777-200ER.

You're right about the payload, but...
How is A350-900 15,700km range come short of 777-200ER's 13,900km?? You sure you didn't get A350-900 confused with A340-300???
 
N60659
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:24 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:22 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 61):
Airbus sofar did not start to put fuel in the cargo hold to boost range, but they could.

As it is, the A350 looks to be payload restricted. By placing fuel cells in the cargo hold, you will be restricting any meaningful commercial payload being carried. Not to mention the crew rest compartment. The only way I see a version of an A350 competing with the 772LR is if one could devise a mechanism for mid-air refuelling for a commercial airliner.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 61):
I doubt this "772LR+" and the "787-10" would pop up if there was no competitive pressure.

It is called market demand.

-N60659
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:26 am

The A350-900 range is currently specified as 13.900 km.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 62):
If a good customer asks for a change in order to meet their goals, why wouldn't Boeing do it?

Because cost are important. You can´t satisfy everyone always, making money is essential.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7173
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:27 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 59):
While that maybe true of a best of breed modern aircraft, the 772LR is supposed to be more fuel efficient than the 772ER for all but the shortest routes.

That may be true. But the 767-400ER will do the same job two hours slower spending 25% less fuel. And a 777ER with one fuel stop will do it on roughly the same fuel, but carry 50% more pax, plus a few tons of freight.

Extreme rance has its price. It is of course a lot more fuel efficient to carry 200 pax on 80 tons of A321 than on 300+ tons of airplane no matter how briliantly the latter has been designed.

It all means that high fuel prices will mean more fuel stops on long routes - and visa versa. And high fuel prices will mean less ultra long range planes built.

If crude oil drops from today's $63/barrel to, say $15, then it may be the push which creates a 777ULR.

A345 and 777LR sales already suffer badly from today's fuel prices.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:50 am

The market for these jets could be more attractive than imagined assuming the fuel burn non-stop doesn't end up ferociously in excess of the burn per passenger with a well chosen mid-way stop.

Reason. The liberalisation push is clearly headed to truly open skies, just like we have to all intents and purposes open seas for cargo liners.

My view is that Australia will lead the way in this once Qantas is freed from its foreign ownership capacity constraints.

This would allow EK and SQ to fly non-stop between Australia and anywhere, not necessarily via Dubai or Singapore.

Of course to work it requires more than Australia to agree to this. You get a headache just thinking of the struggle to throw open access to European cities to anyone who wants to take the commercial risk/reward of flying non-stop to Australia.

Some of you may think this very radical, but if you study the Australian rules and the speeches given by the likes of Peter Costello, all the signals are that at the end of the day, any airline is going to be allowed to fly to this country anyway they want, including non-stop or multi-stop.

In such an environment we will see more than one competent design for such missions emerge, but I expect the 777-200LR will be the first.

Antares
 
RichardJF
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 7:07 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:34 am

For Australia to allow a liberalised approach would ultimately be the best thing for QF. You let SQ,EK,CX run SYD-LAX,SFO or whatever you just get a lot more services. You might ultimately get numerous cities in North America having some flights down under with things like TN PPT-JFK just being the start.
 
Adam T.
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 7:01 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:59 am

I know lots of talk in Qantas in here but I did see Air New Zealand mentioned a few times. Do you think NZ would look at the 777-ULR for the AKL-LHR route? People here have told me how they dread having to wait at LAX. Some have just started flying Singapore Airlines, Emirates, or Qantas for the purpose of avoiding LAX.

Adam
 
sllevin
Posts: 3314
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:13 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 41):
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.

And not that it's "subsidized" but not having a corporate tax in Dubai certainly doesn't hurt the numbers, either.

As far as who would want to fly LHR-SYD non-stop: Almost all premium passengers. I'm really surprised that BA hasn't opted to fly 777-200LR's in a more premium configuration already (since at a 220-pax configuration, I believe that the LR could in fact do it both directions). It might well still happen.

Steve
 
RichardJF
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 7:07 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:20 am

Quoting Adam T. (Reply 70):
know lots of talk in Qantas in here but I did see Air New Zealand mentioned a few times. Do you think NZ would look at the 777-ULR for the AKL-LHR route? People here have told me how they dread having to wait at LAX. Some have just started flying Singapore Airlines, Emirates, or Qantas for the purpose of avoiding LAX

Not in a million years. No business case whatsoever.
I believe QF would like to remove some of the attraction of Australia to EK at the top end of the market so a SYD-LHR is possible.
 
coa747
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:11 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:52 am

If the enhanced 77-200LR does come to fruition and has the legs for a nonstop UK-Australia I have no doubt that QF and BA will snap it up. BA could really put the screws to Virgin then. We all know that Sir Richard has a passion for 4 engines for the long haul. Wonder if he will have a change of heart when he sees all his premium passengers defecting to the nonstop QF and BA flights. It doesn't matter what rediculous amenities you put in the plane you won't be able to keep those premium pax when the lure of a nonstop option is available.
 
dalecary
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2000 10:28 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:56 am

Gigneil,

I seem to recall many a time when you suggested QF would "never" operate the 772LR from SYD-LHR due to reduced payload issues. I eagerly await what will eventually happen, and I think there is a pretty good chance you will be wrong.
But let's wait and see.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:56 am

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 64):
How is A350-900 15,700km range come short of 777-200ER's 13,900km?? You sure you didn't get A350-900 confused with A340-300???

. . . because the A350-900 has no where near that range. According to Airbus, the max. range of the -900 is 13,900km. You sure you didn't confuse the -900 with the -800 (although IIRC, the -800 has more range than 15,700km)?

Also, the max. range of the 777-200ER is 14,300km, not 13,900.


Regards,

Hamlet69
 
hz747300
Posts: 2421
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:16 am

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 3):
It will definitely be less than that since this isn't invented for y-class.......

I agree, you cannot have typical economy class seating in a flight that long, and it should be geared towards anyone willing to pay a small premium. More space between seats and a footrest is all that is really necessary.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9314
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:31 am

>> I'm really surprised that BA hasn't opted to fly 777-200LR's in a more premium configuration already (since at a 220-pax configuration, I believe that the LR could in fact do it both directions). It might well still happen.

Slleiven: The current 772LR can fly LHR-SYD non-stop with payload, but it cannot fly the return SYD-LHR route. Hence the need for an additional range enhancement, allowing in theory, non-stop flights in both directions.

>> It all means that high fuel prices will mean more fuel stops on long routes - and visa versa. And high fuel prices will mean less ultra long range planes built.

If crude oil drops from today's $63/barrel to, say $15, then it may be the push which creates a 777ULR.

A345 and 777LR sales already suffer badly from today's fuel prices.


Not true, Prebennorholm.

On routes over 5,000-6,000 nautical miles or so, the 772LR becomes more and more efficent to fly than the 772ER. Past 7,000 nm or so, when other aircraft require a technical stop, the 772LR offers a significant fuel savings per seat.

The reason is simple: aircraft are most efficent in cruise. Take-off and climb burns tons of fuel compared to level flight, and the 772LR is more optimized for long-range cruise than the 772ER due to engine and wing modifications.

>> Because cost are important. You can´t satisfy everyone always, making money is essential.

An interesting point, coming from you Keesje...

The cost of adding an additional body tank are likely trival compared to the sale of several high-yielding widebodies. The structure is already capable of being certified to the 773ER's 775 klb with no design work and the engines simply require an electronic uprate. For one, possibly two customers, it makes sense.

>> I doubt this "772LR+" and the "787-10" would pop up if there was no competitive pressure.

787-10... definitly. It's obvious Boeing is making a reactionary move.

777-200LR "plus"... you must be joking.

Airbus has, and is capable of offering, zero competitive pressure to the 772LR. Zip. Nada. Boeing is offering the 772LR+ on the basis of solidifying a customer that would otherwise be uncertain or hesistant. Boeing isn't offering this aircraft in reaction to the A345. The A345 can not reach and then exceed the 772LR's range to satisfy the demands of an LHR-SYD and SYD-LHR routing.
 
dazeflight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 1999 1:32 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:46 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 54):
ENOUGH!!!!

Every freaking time someone mentions the LHR-SYD route or the 772LR, you get all these "who'd want to fly that long" comments. Give it a rest!

We've heard your comments. You don't want to do it. Fine. Don't do it!

Just shut up about it already.

I'm sure your wish will be fullfilled if there should ever appear a thread about the A380 without your valuable contribution, i.e. follow your own guidelines.

ciao
Daniel
 
highflyer9790
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:21 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:57 am

I would love that new version....i think LHR SYD year round would be a hit
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:17 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 77):
787-10... definitly. It's obvious Boeing is making a reactionary move.

I don't think it is reactionary, as they had already made changes such as increasing wing span that some have indicated as paving the way for a stretch much earlier in the year before this recent hinting at a 787-10. Boeing has been thinking ahead about the where the family will go. Now Boeing would rather save this for later to reduce current R&D expense and resource requirements and avoid the reduction of orders for the 772, but who are they kidding. The 787-10 concept has been an obvious future direction to A.netters and EK for quite some time.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:39 am

Quoting Adam T. (Reply 70):
Do you think NZ would look at the 777-ULR for the AKL-LHR route?

The B777-200LR can already fly AKL-LHR and LHR-AKL (both eastbound) with a reasonable payload. The only question is whether there are enough high-yield passengers to justify the service. My guess is there are enough to support one daily nonstop carrying about 200 passengers. The problem for NZ is there may be no other routes for which they need the B777-200LR. AKL-JFK? Maybe. If just LHR, then 2 aircraft doesn't allow any downtime for maintenance. 6x weekly? Probably not a good idea on a very high yield route. A fleet of 3 would be underutilized and still might not allow for heavy maintenance visits. If LHR and JFK, then a fleet of 5 would work well.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16419
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:49 am

From memory QF is already using all of its allocated slots at LHR.

Would that mean they would give up a slot that would have normally had a 744/380 on it for a 772 ?

Or would these flights be called direct to London going to STN or LGW ?

A market would exist for the product, however I would have thought the yield on a 744 load be better than the yield on a 772. Thought this route had declining business travel, and increasing leisure travel.

Could they do this in conjunction with a 744 reconfiguration, to reduce the first and business and increase economy, and run the business/first on the direct flight ?
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:34 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 81):
The problem for NZ is there may be no other routes for which they need the B777-200LR. AKL-JFK?



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 77):
On routes over 5,000-6,000 nautical miles or so, the 772LR becomes more and more efficent to fly than the 772ER.

So theoretically NZ could use their -200ER fleet to the U.S. West Coast and into China ( upto about 6000nm) and for DEL /ORD/JFK and LHR eastbound ( all 7000nm or more) use the -200LR.
As for demand AKL/LHR non-stop they could expect feeder traffic from MEL/BNE
which they get now for their via LAX service.
I would imagine they could add the -200LR at quite attractive pricing based on the deal they did with Boeing when they purchased the -200ER's and 787's.
The -200LR did not include AKL by accident on it's recent world tour!
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:24 pm

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, this site is an interesting resource, particularly for the 772 LR.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/longer_range/lr_back2.html

If you click on 'Technical Specs.', then 'range', then a city, then an aircraft type, you get the maximum ranges for all 777 variants from major 'route centre' cities. I see that Boeing have added Sydney to the 772LR diagram from London, since I last looked at it. Possibly interesting news for NZ, too; Auckland-New York is now on the menu....but not Auckland-London, unfortunately.

[Edited 2005-09-27 06:35:02]
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:45 pm

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 60):
A "standard" 777LR could extend its range by 1500 miles if it had to carry zero seats, zero pax, zero payload, and it carried the same weight as extra fuel. And maybe a little more than 1500 miles, but not much. It wouldn't make +2000 miles.

A 747-400 already made the LHR - SYD flight... didn't it???
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:20 pm

I believe that one did, Shenzhen - stripped down and with extra tanks.

But LHR-SYD wouldn't have been a problem for the 772LR even before Boeing added more fuel - the prevailing winds are favourable. The extra fuel will make nonstop feasible westbound, which wasn't previously possible.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8080
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:30 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 85):
A 747-400 already made the LHR - SYD flight... didn't it???

QF's first 744 VH-OJA flew LHR-SYD on its delivery flight.

As for NZ with the 772LR, I think there is a chance on a route like AKL-JFK and say AKL-GIG/GRU, would they need that sort of range to fly to Brazil? I think AKL-LHR would be good but seriously could the aircraft fly that long?
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:54 pm

Sao Paulo is only about 7,000nms. 'crow's flight', ZK-NBT - though the shortage of alternates might mean that the route had to be a bit 'north-about' to satisfy ETOPS requirements.

Occurs to me that if Air NZ did set up nonstops from Auckland to New York they might do a lot of business with Australia, if they set up feeders from Australian cities. Maybe codeshare with Qantas for NYC, and do the same the other way for Heathrow?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23077
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:09 pm

One point that QF made that should be brought up again: They're having trouble getting the slots they want at DUB and SIN. (Sorry, I don't have the link.) So having an aircraft capable of bypassing intermittent stops might be the only way to increase range.

Also, lets not forget that the 777LR would open up SYD-DFW and SYD-new york city (is QF JFK or EWR?).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 82):

Or would these flights be called direct to London going to STN or LGW ?

Good question. Since the 777LR would be carrying premium traffic, expect the 747/380 to be the diverted airframe to STN/LGW.

I'm not expecting to see many 777LR's, but a few dozen would could open up some interesting routes.

Lightsaber
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10143
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:14 pm

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 7):
have time to stretch the legs rather than be confined in a tube..

Thats what you can do....walk around the aircraft as what the airlines ask you to do on long haul flights, perfect way to stretch

I would fly it as long as the IFE/PTVs and legroom is good.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:19 pm

Australia/NYC still looks like being out of reach, because of winds, Lightsaber. DFW or O'Hare would be well within range, though. I believe a few of Qantas' flights to LAX go on to Kennedy, but mostly they just codeshare the onward connections to American.

Stansted or Gatwick would be OK for 747s, but I doubt that the A380 would be able to land there, unless there was enough traffic to justify taxiway/gate/terminal improvements.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:40 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 85):
A 747-400 already made the LHR - SYD flight... didn't it???

Yes, full fuel load (no extra tanks), no payload. I believe there were just two pilots onboard (one asleep at most times other than T/O and landing).
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:12 pm

Quoting dfw (Reply 76):
Airbus has, and is capable of offering, zero competitive pressure to the 772LR. Zip. Nada.

Hmm, lets not get overexited, Airbus are the market leader in this segment.


Airbus is offering an extended range A340-500 (intro into service end 2006) as well as a HGW A340-600 version (didn't EK order 20?).
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/211255_air09.html

The chances that Airbus will just wait & see what happens is very small IMO.
http://www.airbus.com/store/photolib...Airbus_ads/att00002879/clouds.mpeg

I think increased range version of the A340-500/600, A350-900 and A380-800 are not at all impossible or unlikely, if there is demand.

Increased-weight versions of the A340-600 and 777-300ER are taking a bigger bite out of the bottom of the A340-500/777-200LR market/ The A350-800 and 787-8 will get beyond the nominal 8,000nm range bar and could be classified as ULR aircraft too.

IMO it is not a large market, meaning that even if you win it, it's not a new way of living for either A or B.

[Edited 2005-09-27 10:39:00]
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10143
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:58 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 93):
Hmm, lets not get overexited, Airbus are the market leader in this segment.

Well I wonder why.....no B772LR to compete with.....yet
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:14 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 93):
Airbus is offering an extended range A340-500 (intro into service end 2006)

They're offering it, but it won't enter service in 2006, as to date, no one's ordered it. The A340-600HGW, which the -500HGW is of course based on, is scheduled to EIS in 4Q06, with QR if I remember correctly. EK's 18 won't begin deliveries until 2007.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 93):
The chances that Airbus will just wait & see what happens is very small IMO.

The chances that Airbus are going to throw more money at an aircraft they just spent $3.5B+ developing, just to try and make it as capable as it's competitor, is even smaller. Airbus did not gain 50% of the market by being stupid with their money. They have a good platform with the A350 to try and attack the ULR market in the foreseeable future. The A340-500 is as far as the A340 is going to go.


Regards,

Hamlet69
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:22 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 94):
Well I wonder why.....no B772LR to compete with.....yet

IMO a.net urban legend. The 772X (forerunner of LR) was first offered to SIA in 1997.

Nov. 9, 2000 Popular Science magazine names the 777-200 Longer Range airplane, with General Electric GE90-115 engines, to its Top 100 Best of What's New for 2000.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_milestones.html

It was relaunched in March 2003.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:36 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 96):
IMO a.net urban legend. The 772X (forerunner of LR) was first offered to SIA in 1997.

Offered or discussed. The problem back in 1997 was they didn't have the engines to power the airplane, therefore I doubt it was offered. I'm sure they discussed it, with say an APU that provided thrust, but that was just an idea.

Cheers
 
WINGS
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:43 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 95):

The chances that Airbus are going to throw more money at an aircraft they just spent $3.5B+ developing, just to try and make it as capable as it's competitor, is even smaller.

Why not? Would you expect Airbus to stop investing into the A340-500/600 program and let Boeing capture all of this segment? they will further inhance its product to match and exceed that of the B777 family.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 95):
Airbus did not gain 50% of the market by being stupid with their money.

They spent their money offering a wide range of family aircraft from the 100 -550 PAX. The A340 family makes up a large part of its family, for this reason they have no choice if not investing further into the A340 family to match that of the B777.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 95):
They have a good platform with the A350 to try and attack the ULR market in the foreseeable future.

In the mean time they have to offer what they have. Meaning they will have to do with what they have at this current time.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 95):
The A340-500 is as far as the A340 is going to go.

This market segment is one of little growth potential. But I would expect to see Airbus to try and recapture the tittle for the longest range airplane once again.

Regards,
Wings
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:02 pm

Quoting WINGS (Reply 98):
Why not? Would you expect Airbus to stop investing into the A340-500/600 program and let Boeing capture all of this segment? they will further inhance its product to match and exceed that of the B777 family.

Because the 345/6 wing can't take much more MTOW hike beyond what they have planned at 380t. The advertised 380t 345 range is 9,000nm. For comparsion, the MTOW of the 772lr is 347.5t and the range is 9,400nm. To get another 1,000nm of range out of the 345, the a/c will need significant MTOW increase. Then Airbus will need a newer, bigger wing. As is now, the 345/6 already has a much heavier empty weight. With a newer, bigger wing, it will further increase the 345/6 empty weight disadvantage, and it will cost them another $3B. If Airbus want to throw more money into this aircraft, I think Boeing will tell Airbus that they are more than welcome to do so.  Wink

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 330lover, 717atOGG, ADL77W, airsmiles, aristoenigma, atal17, aznmadsci, Baidu [Spider], candidgoat, czpdx, DavidByrne, DKNEF, FlyingElvii, GBNLY, gokmengs, Google Adsense [Bot], gunsontheroof, ikolkyo, Jonnyville8, Majestic-12 [Bot], Monotropa, pspfan, raylee67, Toenga, Tokyo777, tommer419 and 201 guests

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