Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6024
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:59 am

Quoting Sebring (Reply 49):
For what it's worth, Air Canada no longer appears to be selling the two A-345s and it appears to have cut its order for 777-200LRs to six while increasing its order of 777-300ERs to 11.

As of the end of September, BCA still showed 11 777-200LRs and 5 777-300ERs. Where did you hear this from? And what indication do you have that they are not selling their A340-500s any longer? If it's they have disappeared from sales lists somewhere, perhaps that merely means that the contract has been signed.

[Edited 2006-10-20 21:04:52]
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 6:23 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 42):
There have been 39 777-200LRs sold, and 23 777 Freighters (same airframe.) Sure, Pakistan is the only airline operating them, but that will change very soon.

Actually 29 Freighters with The latest order for six coming from CZ...

Deliveries for the 777-200LR are widely spread over the next 3-1/2 years. So unfortunately fleet hours are not going to start building up quickly until the 3rd quarter of next year. But between now and then there will be significantly more orders especially for the 777-200LRF.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 50):
As of the end of September, BCA still showed 11 777-200LRs and 5 777-300ERs. Where did you hear this from? And what indication do you have that they are not selling their A340-500s any longer? If it's they have disappeared from sales lists somewhere, perhaps that merely means that the contract has been signed.

And it would be pretty hard for AC to get out of this deal as it involved comitments on restructuring just to get the financing for the 32 plane order. This fleet reorganization plan also featured dramatic reductions in fuel costs as the centerpiece. It makes no sense to keep the A345 which burns 20% more fuel per unit payload than the 777-200LR...



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
sebring
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:08 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 50):
As of the end of September, BCA still showed 11 777-200LRs and 5 777-300ERs. Where did you hear this from? And what indication do you have that they are not selling their A340-500s any longer? If it's they have disappeared from sales lists somewhere, perhaps that merely means that the contract has been signed.



Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 51):
And it would be pretty hard for AC to get out of this deal as it involved comitments on restructuring just to get the financing for the 32 plane order. This fleet reorganization plan also featured dramatic reductions in fuel costs as the centerpiece. It makes no sense to keep the A345 which burns 20% more fuel per unit payload than the 777-200LR...

The source is the Air Canada IPO prospectus published by the company this week. See pages 35, 36

Page 35 reads as follows: "Air Canada plans to take delivery of five Boeing 777-300ERs and three Boeing 777-200LRs in 2007, six Boeing 777-300ERs and three Boeing 777-200LRs in 2008."

This is also reflected in the future fleet chart on page 36.

This is the same total number of fins AC ordered, and I dare say the value of the 777-300ER, as a larger plane, is probably greater than that of the 777-200LR. The deal has conversion rights to allow AC to switch between variants by fixed dates, which is I presume what they have done. The airline also has ordered two 777-200LRF freighters, but has a conversion right to turn them into either -200LR or -300ER passenger planes before the end of 2006.

So AC has not gotten out of the order, and they have not paid penalties to alter the mix of aircraft as they have liberal conversion rights.

On the issue of the 345, the 345s are now showing in the fleet chart as long-term holds. Earlier versions of the chart have shown these aircraft to be exiting the fleet. Why would AC keep the 345? One can presume three reasons. 1. They couldn't get a good price for them. 2. They own them outright, therefore there is no cash ownership cost in keeping them; 3. It allows AC to bias the 777 order towards the larger -300ER with a better seat-mile performance than the -200LR. AC has many more situations where it can use the -300ER than situations where a ULH aircraft is mandatory. The -300ER is selling exceptionally well, has exceeded expectations, and is a great high capacity aircraft whereas the 777-200LR has been met with less than wild enthusiasm. It is a niche aircraft and may represent the same resale problem for a carrier as the 340-500. Nobody manages the resale value of aircraft more aggressively than SQ, and they have not ordered the -200LR yet, much to the dismay of many a.netters. I suspect that the -200LR, like the 345, does not come across as a good resale value choice compared to the 777-300ER, for which there will be ample market for quite some time as it is likely to be larger than the largest 787 variant.

So why go and order more than you may need of this niche aircraft, when you already have two which you got new for a very cheap price ($87 million each) rather than lay out $150 million apiece for a niche aircraft like the 777-200LR? I suspect AC has noticed that many airlines are unconvinced about ULH flying, unconvinced there are many very long, thin routes where you can get the kind of volume/yield to justify such flights. Canada doesn't have as many of the opportunities - from Toronto, for example, you can reach virtually all the major capitals of Europe, Latin America and Eastern Asia with a 777-300ER. SQ may have a market for SIN-EWR, but there is no Canada-Singapore O&D market to speak of. There is no equivalent in the Canadian market to Sydney-Heathrow or Dubai-LAX. There is Toronto-Mumbai, maybe Toronto-Hong Kong if the 300ER takes a payload penality, and a couple of other routes that could be payroll optimized, but AC might just as well to wait for the 787 to develop thinner routes like YYZ-JNB or YVR-SYD for which a 777 would be, at the outset, too large.

Beyond that, AC has a huge reservoir of pilots familiar with the Airbus cockpit, a stockpile of Airbus rotables and great familiarity with the aircraft systems.

AC says the 777-200LR has an 11% fuel cost and 12% maintenance cost advantage over the 340-500, but when you own the latter outright and are concerned by the former's resale value, keeping the 340-500 is a decent if not optimal compromise. Why increasing your resale risk?

Resale value is an issue not often factored into the question by a.netters, but it a sophisticated part of the industry, and I would suspect that at this point, the 777-200LR is not doing much better in the appraisal market than the 345.

[Edited 2006-10-21 00:13:50]

[Edited 2006-10-21 00:19:41]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:54 am

Quoting Sebring (Reply 52):
AC says the 777-200LR has an 11% fuel cost and 12% maintenance cost advantage over the 340-500, but when you own the latter outright and are concerned by the former's resale value, keeping the 340-500 is a decent if not optimal compromise. Why increasing your resale risk?

Resale value is an issue not often factored into the question by a.netters, but it a sophisticated part of the industry, and I would suspect that at this point, the 777-200LR is not doing much better in the appraisal market than the 345.

Fairly big split in the purchase price of the aircraft as well, Boeing had the 200LR at the same price as a 744ER. From what I hear at SQ much the same story, the total cost of ownership of the existing 345 is lower than what they could do with new 200LRs.

Glad AC come out with some realistic comparison numbers for the two types, the 20% figure has been thrown about here for some time, I have questioned it in the past suggesting that that would be the case on some extreme specific routes. One can also load it the other way around, and the 772LR can come out worse, it depends on the route.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:02 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
Widebodyphotog has access to the latest numbers on the 772LR, and the new "full pax still air range" is 9700nm. Still air empty is going to be more than 6% greater than still air full payload. If you follow the "680 line" down to the "320 line" (both extrapolated) you get nearly 10,750nmi, and shifting the graph over for the 9700nm range as defined, you approach 11000nmi

"with the wind" it flew 11,600nm, and that is using the required calculation method (it flew further on the flight as measured by actual route, greater than 12000nmi). It also wasn't empty (had pax, but not a lot). And there was plenty of fuel to spare, according to the pilots.

I take it this was for the publicity flight, or was it for PK first revenue flight. You haven't been clear on this occassion
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27609
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:47 am

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 54):
I take it this was for the publicity flight, or was it for PK first revenue flight. You haven't been clear on this occassion

The HKG-LHR publicity/record-setting flight.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:15 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 53):
One can also load it the other way around, and the 772LR can come out worse, it depends on the route.

Please name or describe a route that the A345 would have better fuel burn per passenger than a 772LR, assuming equivalent seating rules.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
LimaNiner
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 6):
That's because Airbus kilometres are longer than Boeing kilometers.

Of course! Airbus uses metric km, whereas Boeing uses Imperial km.  Smile
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:43 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 53):
Fairly big split in the purchase price of the aircraft as well, Boeing had the 200LR at the same price as a 744ER. From what I hear at SQ much the same story, the total cost of ownership of the existing 345 is lower than what they could do with new 200LRs.

Glad AC come out with some realistic comparison numbers for the two types, the 20% figure has been thrown about here for some time, I have questioned it in the past suggesting that that would be the case on some extreme specific routes. One can also load it the other way around, and the 772LR can come out worse, it depends on the route.

I think it's more like they can't get reasonable price out of A345 rather than the price of LR. The resell price of A345 is probably too low, such that the it's cheaper for them to continue operating it with a higher fuel burn, rather than take a book write off.

I am sure when they signed the contract previously the price of LR has been spelled out, and it would be dumb of AC if they agreed on something that's too expensive for them.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:08 pm

Quoting Sebring (Reply 52):
On the issue of the 345, the 345s are now showing in the fleet chart as long-term holds. Earlier versions of the chart have shown these aircraft to be exiting the fleet. Why would AC keep the 345? One can presume three reasons. 1. They couldn't get a good price for them. 2. They own them outright, therefore there is no cash ownership cost in keeping them; 3. It allows AC to bias the 777 order towards the larger -300ER with a better seat-mile performance than the -200LR. AC has many more situations where it can use the -300ER than situations where a ULH aircraft is mandatory.

I can agree with that well thought out reasoning to some extent. However, if the A345 pricing was so favorable and so disparate from their 777-200LR buy why buy the LR at all? If you can own the A345 outright in just three years and the 772LR is priced so much higher an operator could practically never make up the cost difference even with the improved economics of the Boeing. If you need the capability why not just go back to Airbus and ask for more A345's at the same price or cheaper?...

Quoting Sebring (Reply 52):
So why go and order more than you may need of this niche aircraft, when you already have two which you got new for a very cheap price ($87 million each) rather than lay out $150 million apiece for a niche aircraft like the 777-200LR?

I'll be the one to stand up and say I don't believe that the 777-200LR is necessarily a niche aircraft! Rather to me it seems like a logical replacement/upgrade for carriers who have medium capacity, medium long, long, and ULH routes. With the 777-200LR vs -200ER you give up nothing in terms of operating economics, not including the price of the airplane, on medium range routes, and gain higher and more reliable payload performance on long and ULH routes. Order your 777-200LR, don't get the ACT's, opt for the lightweight interior and never worry about hot/high, high headwinds, or payload restrictions due to ETOPS factors again. To end the story your resale value is protected as when the time comes for you to get rid of them there will be 6 or 7 freighter operators drooling over your fleet for future 777-200LR/BCF a-la the 747-400. In the case of AC why not invest in the 777-200LR passenger aircraft for the long term growth of your freight business...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 53):
Glad AC come out with some realistic comparison numbers for the two types, the 20% figure has been thrown about here for some time, I have questioned it in the past suggesting that that would be the case on some extreme specific routes. One can also load it the other way around, and the 772LR can come out worse, it depends on the route.

Realistic when you factor in using the higher payload capability of the 777-200LR. Lower fuel burn disparity vs the A345 but higher payload and revenue generating capability. It's a compromise I've detailed many times here that's why I use very specific language when describing the difference in performance as in "fuel burn per unit payload"...

With that said AC will never max out the 777-200LR capability on it's longest routes but the 777-300ER can handle them and load 57% more cargo by volume. Maybe that's the compromise they are looking for...




-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:25 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 56):
Please name or describe a route that the A345 would have better fuel burn per passenger than a 772LR, assuming equivalent seating rules.

A departure aerodrome that will cause the 772LR to be payload limited hot and high, or with obstacles clearance issues, the 340 has better OEI performance especially hot and high, and better enroute obstacle clearance. South African Airlines would be the best mob to talk to on this regard, I understand they compared the 340 to 777 for their particular operation and made their decision.

Remote Pacific Islands also pose problems for 777s over certain routes. Johnston Atoll is no longer available as an alternate airport, they replaced it with CXI, however it does not have lights, no ILS, 30 m runway width, and Opr SR-SS with 48 hr PN, manned only when flt are opr, and far as I am aware no RFF.

Also seasonal issues when doing polar routes, times when WX conditions can bring the ETOPS and non-ETOPS alternates unusable.

The 772LR is great when taking off from sea level aerodromes at 15 deg C over flat terrain within range of open good airports, however real world is not like that all the time. PIA have found the 772LR to be payload limited on departure under some conditions that do occur locally for them (hot and high).

You can load examples either way to get the answer you want.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
sebring
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:29 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 59):

I can agree with that well thought out reasoning to some extent. However, if the A345 pricing was so favorable and so disparate from their 777-200LR buy why buy the LR at all? If you can own the A345 outright in just three years and the 772LR is priced so much higher an operator could practically never make up the cost difference even with the improved economics of the Boeing. If you need the capability why not just go back to Airbus and ask for more A345's at the same price or cheaper?...

Everything about the Boeing deal was a package. Airbus doesn't have a plane as good as the 777-300ER - AC wanted a 350-seater with such good economics - and Airbus certainly can't deliver a plane like the 787-8. When these negotiations were conducted, the Airbus 350 on offer was nothing like the one that is on offer, at least theoretically, today. Perhaps if Airbus comparable products, AC would have stayed with Airbus. AC certainly wanted commonality - an all Boeing or all Airbus fleet. But in the final analysis the cash outlay for these two 345s is zero, while the cash outlay for two more 777-200LRs might be a further $250-300 million. Also, remember AC will continue to fly the 330-300 until 2012, which was always the plan. My guess is that AC simply decided that it can keep the 340-500s until 2012, too, and perhaps order a couple more 787-9s or 787-10s in that timeframe. in my view, however, the decisive factor probably was the resale value of the 777-200LR and AC's own analysis that it didn't need a large fleet of ULH aircraft. It paid less for the 345s, so even if it writes them off, at some point, the value writedown is less.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 59):
To end the story your resale value is protected as when the time comes for you to get rid of them there will be 6 or 7 freighter operators drooling over your fleet for future 777-200LR/BCF a-la the 747-400. In the case of AC why not invest in the 777-200LR passenger aircraft for the long term growth of your freight business...

The 777 freighter market is completely undeveloped, and AC does not necessarily want a fleet of 12-14 of them. It will start with two and perhaps add one or two. It does not see itself with a large global network like LH Cargo. In any case, it will be about 15 years before a conversion market develops for the 777-200LR, and in aviation, that's a lifetime. I haven't heard of many airlines buying a new passenger aircraft because it is a good freighter conversion candidate, even if that possibility is out there. The fact is, within the 15 year time frame, an airline might be better off flipping 777s for the larger 787 variants, especially if you don't require the last hour or two of 777-200LR flying. Since AC views the 777-200LR as a 270-seat plane, the 787-10 might well be a better aircraft for most AC missions, depending on the range it offers. AC already planes to replace the 330-300 with the 787-9. AC planners may opt to replace the 345s and even the 777-200LR with 787-10s, and then AC would have a fleet of 777-300s for high density ops and 787s for every other type of intercontinental mission.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:31 pm

While you've given some examples of potential cases where the A345 could be more fuel efficient per passenger than the 772LR, most of these in actual fact, will not be.

First let's review some data about the two airplanes, using manufacturer's data.

Range
A345HGW: 9000 nm
772LR: 9420 nm (3 Aux Tanks)
772LR: 9000 nm (1 Aux Tank)

MTOW
A345HGW: 380 tonne
772LR: 347.5 tonne (3 Aux. Tanks)
772LR: 341.5 tonne @ fuel volume limit (1 Aux. Tank)

OEW
A345HGW: 174.8 tonne
772LR: 147.1 tonne (3 Aux Tanks)
772LR: 146.1 tonne (1 Aux Tank)

For an equivalent range airplane (9000 nm), the 772LR OEW is 28.7 tonne less than the A345HGW. By itself, this OEW difference will give the 772LR a 12% fuel burn advantage

As you have noted in other threads, the Trent 500 has a higher TSFC than the GE90-115B. This on the order of 1% to 2%.

On the basis of these two performance parameters alone, the 772LR would be 13% to 14% more fuel efficient than the A345HGW. This ignores airframe drag differences where I would estimate the 772LR would have a 4% to 6% advantage, pushing the total difference to 17% to 20%.

Now let's look at your cases.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 60):
A departure aerodrome that will cause the 772LR to be payload limited hot and high, or with obstacles clearance issues, the 340 has better OEI performance especially hot and high, and better enroute obstacle clearance.

While the A345HGW may indeed get more weight off the ground than the 772LR, it needs to lift 38.5 tonne more than the 772LR to achieve the same payload-range. Therefore it is not a given that the 772LR will need to off load passengers to fly the same mission as the A345HGW since it's takeoff weight requirements are less. Furthermore, if it were necessary to off load the 772LR, it could off load up to 13%-14% of its passengers and still have equal fuel burn per passenger to the A345HGW. (17%-20% if drag differences are included.)

Quoting Zeke (Reply 60):
Also seasonal issues when doing polar routes, times when WX conditions can bring the ETOPS and non-ETOPS alternates unusable.

It is very rare that Twins and Quads do not fly the same Polar routes as ETOPS restrictions are seldom limiting. However, the 772LR distances could be 13%-14% (or 17%-20%) longer than the A345HGW for equal fuel burn.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 60):
Remote Pacific Islands also pose problems for 777s over certain routes.

This is a good point unless the proposed LROPS rules are adopted but the same comments apply as in Polar ETOPS. 772LR mission distances could be significantly longer than the A345HGW for equal fuel burn per passenger.

In the real world, it appears to be very unlikely that the A345HGW would ever be more fuel efficient per passenger than the 772LR on any mission.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:45 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 62):
For an equivalent range airplane (9000 nm), the 772LR OEW is 28.7 tonne less than the A345HGW. By itself, this OEW difference will give the 772LR a 12% fuel burn advantage

I dont know where you are pulling your numbers from, those are neither the manufacturers numbers, nor ACs. The manufacturers empty weight and OEW are below the numbers you state. For example the manufacturers OEW for the (0 FC + 31 JC + 265 YC) version is 160.9t, not 174.8.

The real life AC aircraft have a 22t customisation, the OEW you have listed is actually below what they AC operate. I would also imagine the real life AC OEW for the 200LR will be about 10-15t heavier than what you have depicted.

Obviously AC has taken this into account with their comparison.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 52):
AC says the 777-200LR has an 11% fuel cost



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 62):
On the basis of these two performance parameters alone, the 772LR would be 13% to 14% more fuel efficient than the A345HGW. This ignores airframe drag differences where I would estimate the 772LR would have a 4% to 6% advantage, pushing the total difference to 17% to 20%.

So despite the operator saying is more like 11% you still harp on and try and push 20% ? Who should we believe, the operator who has objectively looked at both products, or a Boeing consultant .....

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 62):
As you have noted in other threads, the Trent 500 has a higher TSFC than the GE90-115B. This on the order of 1% to 2%.

However it is the thrust that is in those engines that give it the hot and high perfroamce advantage. They are derated over 10000 lb each engine. They flex to ISA+55, and derate to 40% (i.e. 15% more than most)

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 62):
It is very rare that Twins and Quads do not fly the same Polar routes as ETOPS restrictions are seldom limiting.

I am not saying it is an everyday occurrence, maybe 3 days a year, it does happen. I was responding to the question you posed, I was using rare and extreme examples as this is when the 345 has its advantages.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 62):
Therefore it is not a given that the 772LR will need to off load passengers to fly the same mission as the A345HGW since it's takeoff weight requirements are less.

Who are you trying to fool here ? The OEI situation which the 200LR is stuck on hot and high, just like the 300ER with South African. This is not rocket science, and you knew this before you asked me about it. PIA know its a fact for their operation.

A simple solution in many cases is for the aircraft to depart in cooler times of the day like they did in the 1960s, or do like PIA and do a "tech stop" in MAN, again I am not saying its an everyday occurrence, just a possibility. However moving flight times depends on the availability of slots at the correlating time at the other end which is not always a possibility.

As for the pacific, some days they might have to fly longer in a 200LR as the enroute airports are closed for weather, maintenance etc, this again is not an everyday occurrence but it does happen.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:59 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 60):
PIA have found the 772LR to be payload limited on departure under some conditions that do occur locally for them (hot and high).

Source please? All indications by PK pilots have been that the -200LR is performing as expected (which is greater than originally anticipated)...
"Up the Irons!"
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:16 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 63):
I dont know where you are pulling your numbers from, those are neither the manufacturers numbers, nor ACs. The manufacturers empty weight and OEW are below the numbers you state. For example the manufacturers OEW for the (0 FC + 31 JC + 265 YC) version is 160.9t, not 174.8.

Please see the Airbus website for the A345HGW OEW. You'll see I've used their number. Your value of 160.9t is not listed as a A345 OEW. The lowest value Airbus shows is 170.9 for the non-HGW A345.

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...0a340/a340-500/specifications.html

Quoting Zeke (Reply 63):
I would also imagine the real life AC OEW for the 200LR will be about 10-15t heavier than what you have depicted.

As would the A345HGW. Using the manufacturer's data was an attempt to keep things on an apples-to-apples basis.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 63):
So despite the operator saying is more like 11% you still harp on and try and push 20% ?

I'll willing to use a lower value to show all sides. That's why I gave an OEW and TSFC difference only answer of 13% to 14%. It agrees pretty well with 11%. Still doesn't change my main point.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 63):
I am not saying it is an everyday occurrence, maybe 3 days a year, it does happen. I was responding to the question you posed, I was using rare and extreme examples as this is when the 345 has its advantages.

And when it does happen, does route distance increase by 13%-14%?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 63):
Who are you trying to fool here ? The OEI situation which the 200LR is stuck on hot and high, just like the 300ER with South African. This is not rocket science, and you knew this before you asked me about it.

I'm not trying to fool anyone. Ask your friends at AC which airplane had the best payload capability from JNB to YYZ during their evaluation of the two types. TOW capability is not as important as delivered payload. Excess fuel and a high OEW do not help payload.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 63):
or do like PIA and do a "tech stop" in MAN,

The PIA stop in MAN is due to political/security reasons, not airplane performance.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 63):
the operator who has objectively looked at both products, or a Boeing consultant

I'm an independent consultant. And when AC looked at both products, they chose the 772LR. Isn't that the main point?

[Edited 2006-10-21 17:21:11]
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
sebring
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:35 am

Quote:
I'm not trying to fool anyone. Ask your friends at AC which airplane had the best payload capability from JNB to YYZ during their evaluation of the two types. TOW capability is not as important as delivered payload. Excess fuel and a high OEW do not help payload.

That's a route AC doesn't fly and may nto fly any time soon, at least until it can get a 787 variant on that route, in which case the 787 will likely trump the 777 from both a seat-mile and trip cost perspective.

[/quote]I'm an independent consultant. And when AC looked at both products, they chose the 772LR. Isn't that the main point?[/quote]

They chose it, and are now backing away from it, I believe, because of concerns over lack of suitable ULH opportunities, at least with a 300-seater, and the poor response to the 772LR in the marketplace, which impacts future resale value considerably. And I submit to you that SQ has come to the same conclusion. Conversely, the 773ER is outperforming promised specs and is selling like hot cakes, which favorably impacts its operating cost profile and its future resale value.

I sense that arguing over the 772LR vs the 340-500 is a bit like asking a five year old whether he likes mustard or relish on his chocolate cake.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 1:10 am

Quoting Sebring (Reply 66):
That's a route AC doesn't fly and may nto fly any time soon, at least until it can get a 787 variant on that route, in which case the 787 will likely trump the 777 from both a seat-mile and trip cost perspective.

While AC doesn't fly JNB-YYZ today, a lot of routes are evaluated when airplane purchasing decisions are being made.

As for the 777 vs 787, it depends on the mission. There are some 772LR routes where it would be more profitable due to its greater payload-range envelope. The question would be if an airline needed an airplane with that kind of capability, as you say in the quote below.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 66):
They chose it, and are now backing away from it, I believe, because of concerns over lack of suitable ULH opportunities, at least with a 300-seater, and the poor response to the 772LR in the marketplace, which impacts future resale value considerably. And I submit to you that SQ has come to the same conclusion.

No argument about the popularity of the 773ER as it has a payload-range capability that matches the market's needs. The 772LR is a niche player as its sales reflect, but it spawned a great freighter in the 777F.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 1:13 am

Quoting Sebring (Reply 66):
and the poor response to the 772LR in the marketplace, which impacts future resale value considerably.

I find it funny that people judge 772LR sales performance this early. Back 1/2 year or a year ago, when 772LR's sales was below A345, people shouted that LR will perform probably just as well as A345, and there's no market for that airplane. Now, with 772LR's sales almost twice of A345, people still say that there's no market for 772LR. I think it's mostly Boeing's fault to be very successful with 787's sales, that decent sales performance is now considered poor.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 66):
They chose it, and are now backing away from it, I believe, because of concerns over lack of suitable ULH opportunities

They did not back away from it, they just reduce the order. They probably see that 773ER suits their network better, for capacity expansion at current routes.

772LR is not only good for it's long range capability, but also the lift capability. when you get range quote from manufacturer, it only includes 30lbs of luggage per pax. It does not include cargo at all.

I find it funny when people arguing about how important cargo now days, and that's why A330 wins over 767, but when it comes to 772LR, people only see the 9400nm or so capability, not the payload range trade off. Like Boeing said, for SIN-LAX, you can haul ~30 (IIRC) more pax and 11 tons more cargo on 772LR than that of A345. I fail to see how it's not that important.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
sebring
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:17 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 68):
I find it funny that people judge 772LR sales performance this early. Back 1/2 year or a year ago, when 772LR's sales was below A345, people shouted that LR will perform probably just as well as A345, and there's no market for that airplane. Now, with 772LR's sales almost twice of A345, people still say that there's no market for 772LR. I think it's mostly Boeing's fault to be very successful with 787's sales, that decent sales performance is now considered poor.

And yet the aggregate sales of 772LRs is nowhere near the aggregate sales for 777-300ERs which continue to flow in, and they are only slightly better - by a few units - than the A340-500s already in service. You can ignore my points about resale value of niche aircraft all you want, but aircraft finance people watch these issues closely, and there is every indication that the resale value of the 773 is so good, and doubts about the need for ULH aircraft remain, that it impacts both the 345 and 772LR.

If anything, the extra 3.4 percent performance boost that Boeing has been able to achieve with the 777-300ER vs original specs may be causing some airlines that operate the 773ER to re-evaluate the need for a 772LR. Some of you focus on the 772LR vs the A345, but as I have said, the real story may be the 773ER vs the 772LR. It is becoming apparent that there may not be enough commercially profitable route opportunities where the tradeoffs between the 772LR and A345 are that important.

It occurs to me that there is one more reason why AC is keeping the 345s, having failed to sell them - from a pilot wage perspective, the AC's 345s are common-rated with the 343, whereas the 772LR is commonrated with the 773. So wage costs between the two planes are significantly less, especially since ULH flying entails double-crewing. Also, AC is looking at flying the 773ER with 320 passengers, so with fewer seats, passengers and luggage, AC might squeeze another percentage point of range out of the 773ER. Anyone care to comment on that or offer a more precise figure?

Each airline has its own market and other reasons for making decisions about fleet. Attempts by a.netters to argue every situation using a one-size-fits-all template often leads to counter-productive arguments. One thing is certain: So far, airlines ordering either the 345 or 772LR just dip their toe in the water, and some candidate carriers like SQ, QF and CX aren't rushing into the ULH concept as witnessed by the fact only one, SQ, flies a handful of 345s and has not ordered the 772LR. For most carriers, the 773ER with its range enhancements seem to make more sense most of the time.
 
macnamara532
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 2:00 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:28 am

Right on to DanGould 2000. No wonder Americans like the British!
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:38 am

Quoting Sebring (Reply 69):
Some of you focus on the 772LR vs the A345, but as I have said, the real story may be the 773ER vs the 772LR. It is becoming apparent that there may not be enough commercially profitable route opportunities where the tradeoffs between the 772LR and A345 are that important.



Quoting Sebring (Reply 69):
For most carriers, the 773ER with its range enhancements seem to make more sense most of the time.

A reasonable and accurate assessment.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
RIHNOSAUR
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:08 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 46):
Wait, I thought 772LR has outsold A345. I still can't understand how 772LR is less popular than A345 as of now. A345 only has 26 orders and 24 deliveries, while 772LR has 39 on order with 2 deliveries. 39-26 for the advantage of LR.

thank you for giving those figures, it is clear that in the near future the 777 will be more popular than the a340 500 but once again as of now in operation.....the A340 s still being operated by more carriers. Thats really what I mean

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 51):
It makes no sense to keep the A345 which burns 20% more fuel per unit payload than the 777-200LR...



Quoting Zeke (Reply 53):
Fairly big split in the purchase price of the aircraft as well, Boeing had the 200LR at the same price as a 744ER. From what I hear at SQ much the same story, the total cost of ownership of the existing 345 is lower than what they could do with new 200LRs.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 53):
Glad AC come out with some realistic comparison numbers for the two types, the 20% figure has been thrown about here for some time, I have questioned it in the past suggesting that that would be the case on some extreme specific routes. One can also load it the other way around, and the 772LR can come out worse, it depends on the route.

interesting to read indeed

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 47):
I know a lot of people on here are new to the industry, but if I may, I'd like to suggest doing a little research before posting some things. It would avoid any potential harsh criticisms, which this board is unfortunately much too filled with to begin with.

I agree, and you are right it is important to research before making assertions here..otherwise people will find a way to take what you say to an extreme just to make a point to prove you wrong.

which is why I wanted to add that the reason I decided to post and give my opinion was because while the 777lr is my favourite Boeing plane and indeed its economics are better than the A340 500, it seemed to me that in general, The RANGE of the 777 is just 4.4 % longer than the A340 500 ...which seems like not much....thats all and in addition, while I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND that soon the 777 will most likely take over the A340 500's market....it has not done so yet..may be in orders as posted.... but not yet in operation

Is it my impression, or are some people here just waiting for one slip..and then begin to make a huge deal about an honest simple opinion?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
RIHNOSAUR's assertion is based on deliveries, not orders, so it's "most popular in service".

So once the 772LR has one more active delivery then the A345, it will be the "most popular in service".

thank you Stitch for being tolerant...making the effort to understand rather than argue negatively.

cheers
particles and waves are the same thing, but who knows what that thing is...
 
sebring
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:29 am

In all likelihood, the 777-200LRF will pass the 777-200LR in orders before the end of 2007. The freighter is two years away from service and already has over 25 ordered. Given that the freight market isn't getting a 777-300F, or an A340-600F and that the 747-8 and A-380F are very large planes, it seems as if the 777-200LRF and A-330 freighters will duke it out for a potentially significant long-range twin engine market replacing DC-10Fs and ultimately MD-11Fs.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:27 am

Quoting Sebring (Reply 73):
it seems as if the 777-200LRF and A-330 freighters will duke it out for a potentially significant long-range twin engine market replacing DC-10Fs and ultimately MD-11Fs.

I don't think they'll duke it out very much. The payload of the 777F is 50% larger than the A330F, so they are not in the same class. The 777F is a replacement for the MD-11F while the A330F replaces the A306F.

Plus the A330F is still waiting to be launched.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 73):
In all likelihood, the 777-200LRF will pass the 777-200LR in orders before the end of 2007.

This is quite probable.

[Edited 2006-10-21 21:36:17]
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:32 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 65):
The PIA stop in MAN is due to political/security reasons, not airplane performance.

100% correct. The PIA situation has nothing to do with the performance of the aircraft. They are in a security/regulatory bind that has the non-stop flight in limbo for now...

Quoting Sebring (Reply 61):
My guess is that AC simply decided that it can keep the 340-500s until 2012, too, and perhaps order a couple more 787-9s or 787-10s in that timeframe. in my view, however, the decisive factor probably was the resale value of the 777-200LR and AC's own analysis that it didn't need a large fleet of ULH aircraft. It paid less for the 345s, so even if it writes them off, at some point, the value writedown is less.

Again, good reasoning but I continue to be frustrated with Boeing on the 787-10. They need to [email protected]%t or get of the pot with it if you ask me. And not do the anemic 7,500nm capable version either. The airplane needs to have 8,000-8,500nm range to survive the competition. It's a tough choice for Boeing as it will eat the bottom out of future 777-200LR sales, but at some point they have to engage the market with a highly efficient, very long range 300 seater...

For AC I don't know why they did not go for the 787-9 already. Even on their longest routes the 787-9 has great payload, dramatically lower trip cost than 777-200LR with more revenue generating cargo volume to boot. 5-15% lower passenger capacity may have been somewhat off-putting but the operating economics are much better for their route structure.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
sebring
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:00 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 75):

For AC I don't know why they did not go for the 787-9 already. Even on their longest routes the 787-9 has great payload, dramatically lower trip cost than 777-200LR with more revenue generating cargo volume to boot. 5-15% lower passenger capacity may have been somewhat off-putting but the operating economics are much better for their route structure.

AC has gone for the 787-9. They see it as the replacement for the 330s. The initial 787 deliveries they get will be placements for the oldest 763s, but the plan as discussed at the time is to be an early user of the 787-9 as well. They do see the advantages, and with so many 777-300ERs and some 777-200LRs, they can afford the small dropoff in payload. In the Canadian overseas context, it will be a very utilitarian aircraft
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:51 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 65):

The PIA stop in MAN is due to political/security reasons, not airplane performance.



Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 75):

100% correct. The PIA situation has nothing to do with the performance of the aircraft. They are in a security/regulatory bind that has the non-stop flight in limbo for now...

To top it off....PK serve Pakistan-YYZ-Pakistan nonstop anyway with the -200LR...
"Up the Irons!"
 
jdevora
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:41 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:37 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 62):
For an equivalent range airplane (9000 nm), the 772LR OEW is 28.7 tonne less than the A345HGW. By itself, this OEW difference will give the 772LR a 12% fuel burn advantage

Is the A345HGW flying already?? I didn't know that.
The last that I read about it was at the end of
http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre...s/06_04_14_certifies_a3400600.html

"Certification of the new variant of the ultra long-range A340-500 is due to take place in the beginning of 2007."

[Edited 2006-10-22 02:44:37]
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 1:44 pm

Quoting Jdevora (Reply 78):
Is the A345HGW flying already?? I didn't know that.
The last that I read about it was at the end of
http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre...s/06_04_14_certifies_a3400600.html

"Certification of the new variant of the ultra long-range A340-500 is due to take place in the beginning of 2007."

It doesn't need to fly to do a performance estimate. The A380 and 787 customer performance guarantees have been provided the purchasing airlines well in advance of first flight.

Besides, fuel mileage data is not Part 25 certification data.

[Edited 2006-10-22 06:50:31]
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2542
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:10 pm

Quoting Jdevora (Reply 78):
Is the A345HGW flying already?? I didn't know that.

Has anyone bought it yet? Did any of the current A340-500 customers switch some orders, because I don't believe anyone has ordered the -500 since the -500HGW became available (w/ the exception of Kingfisher, who has yet to firm their order).

Regards,

Hamlet69
All gave some. Some gave all.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:41 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 65):
Please see the Airbus website for the A345HGW OEW. You'll see I've used their number. Your value of 160.9t is not listed as a A345 OEW.

The number I quoted IS the manufactures OEW for the AC configuration currently flying, not some aircraft that has not left the factory.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 65):
And when it does happen, does route distance increase by 13%-14%?

When the quad/tri goes, and a twin is grounded or has to make a tech stop, rare, but does happen. Route distance does not need to increase by 13-14% in a non-polar route when doing a crossing to burn more fuel in a 777, a Jetstream can take care of the nicely.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 69):
One thing is certain: So far, airlines ordering either the 345 or 772LR just dip their toe in the water, and some candidate carriers like SQ, QF and CX aren't rushing into the ULH concept as witnessed by the fact only one, SQ, flies a handful of 345s and has not ordered the 772LR. For most carriers, the 773ER with its range enhancements seem to make more sense most of the time.

All those airlines fly ULH now, anything over 14-15 hrs in my book is ULH. Two trips like that a month wipes me out.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:50 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 81):
Please see the Airbus website for the A345HGW OEW. You'll see I've used their number. Your value of 160.9t is not listed as a A345 OEW.

The number I quoted IS the manufactures OEW for the AC configuration currently flying, not some aircraft that has not left the factory.

Please provide an Airbus source for 160.9t. It doesn't appear in the data on their website.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 81):
When the quad/tri goes, and a twin is grounded or has to make a tech stop, rare, but does happen. Route distance does not need to increase by 13-14% in a non-polar route when doing a crossing to burn more fuel in a 777, a Jetstream can take care of the nicely.

The probability of your scenarios are getting into the statistically insignificant. No airline would make a purchasing decision based such a low probability event. Diversions due to medical emergencies (and the resultant higher trip fuel) are more likely.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:28 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 82):
Please provide an Airbus source for 160.9t.

DWG.NO. : 340-25-12081, I never suggested it is on the website or publicly available, I stated it is the manufacturers OEW for that configuration.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 82):
The probability of your scenarios are getting into the statistically insignificant

The probability of an airline choosing an aircraft based on fuel burn alone is also statistically insignificant, we would all be flying about in C150s.

It was your statistically insignificant question that I replied to.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
trex8
Posts: 5677
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:38 pm

why has Kingfisher ordered A345s????
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:52 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 83):
I never suggested it is on the website or publicly available, I stated it is the manufacturers OEW for that configuration.

There's no such thing as "manufacturer's OEW". OEW is manufacturer's empty weight (MEW or MWE) plus all the stuff specific to the configuration (mostly interior) as selected by an airline. A3456 OEW can vary by about 20t depending on airline.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27609
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:54 am

Quoting Jdevora (Reply 78):
Is the A345HGW flying already?? I didn't know that.

EY just recently took delivery of an A345. Perhaps that was an HGW model?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 81):
The number I quoted IS the manufactures OEW for the AC configuration currently flying...

Do you happen to know what the 772LR will OEW in AC's configuration? That way, we at least can compare Fuji apples to Golden Delicious apples.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 84):
Why has Kingfisher ordered A345s?

Probably a combination of price, availability, desire to stay with an all-Airbus fleet, and with four engines, their maintenance practices do not need to be as strict as if they were going to do ETOPS with a 777 so they can probably start service sooner since they won't have to certify themselves as an ETOPS operator prior to launching service.

[Edited 2006-10-22 17:56:24]
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 21):
They updated the 773ERs range by 60nms when it improved

No, they updated the range 4 times by hundreds of nm total.

The 772LR range has already been updated once.

Boeing has been on a lightening program to tweak range on the 772LR, but WBP, who has access to data, has said the current numbers reflect 9700nm, and I have no reason to doubt him based on all the other data he has provided over the years.

Quoting Molykote (Reply 25):
So if I bought a McLaren F1 in the late 1990s and (capable of ~230mph) it's not the fastest production sports car in the world unless I personally achieved 230+ mph????

As long as someone besides McLaren drives it that fast, it's the fastest. Until that time, it's the fastest manufacturer demo of a production car in the world. Seriously.

The 345 is the longest range aircraft based on the route of ANY commercial airline. Until ANY airline puts the 772LR into service on a longer route, Airbus is not technically lying, just misleading a bit.

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 54):
I take it this was for the publicity flight, or was it for PK first revenue flight. You haven't been clear on this occassion

You are being obtuse.

You didn't need to make any assumptions nor could you possibly be confused, as this was the only flight anyone has flown at that distance, ever.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:41 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 82):
Please provide an Airbus source for 160.9t. It doesn't appear in the data on their website.

Currently Airbus has 5 different base spec A340-500:

WV000 OEW 168.5 MTOW 368.0 TRENT 553
WV001 OEW 175.1 MTOW 372.0* TRENT 553
WV002 OEW 175.4 MTOW 372.0* TRENT 553
WV101 OEW 170.4 MTOW 380.0* TRENT 556
WV102 OEW 174.9 MTOW 380.0* TRENT 556

*OEW varies with installed structural fuel tank option RCT 5 or 7 frames

777-200LR OEW Options

777-200LR 3 ACT OEW 144.5 MTOW 347.5 GE90-115B1
777-200LR 0 ACT OEW 140.9 MTOW 340.2 GE90-110B1L
777-200LR 0 ACT OEW 140.9 MTOW 347.5 GE90-115B1

weights in metric tons

Quoting Stitch (Reply 86):
Do you happen to know what the 772LR will OEW in AC's configuration? That way, we at least can compare Fuji apples to Golden Delicious apples.

An AC-like config, as there is yet no seating config for an AC 777-200LR, would offer an in service OEW of approx 151-152t. Based on their seating in a 270 seat layout.

The reality is that with service ready airline configs Boeings usually come out heavier than the generic OEW's and Airbus aircraft come out just over or a bit under depending on the airline. The spread of currently in service A345 OEW varies over a range of about 10t from highest to lowest. I'm sorry as I am not at liberty to list the specific weights by airline.


-widebodyphotog

[Edited 2006-10-22 20:43:05]
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:47 am

Quoting Dangould2000 (Reply 7):
so true, IMHO, they'll be gone soon, (when i say they, i mean Airbus Embarrassment )

ahem, do your parents know you're at the computer??

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 11):
The question is who will fly from Sydney to LHR nonstop first ? 772LR or the 787.

Neither, it was a QF 747-400, with a handful of pax and a special fuel mix. I can't remember when, but my memory says mid 90's.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:25 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 87):
The 345 is the longest range aircraft based on the route of ANY commercial airline. Until ANY airline puts the 772LR into service on a longer route, Airbus is not technically lying, just misleading a bit.

Airbus is technically lying..as the longest commercial flight in the world belongs to BA's 777-200ER...yes..it wasn't a full pax loaded flight, but nonetheless, if one wants to get technical, then Airbus is incorrect on that end too.. Wink

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 89):
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 11):
The question is who will fly from Sydney to LHR nonstop first ? 772LR or the 787.

Neither, it was a QF 747-400, with a handful of pax and a special fuel mix. I can't remember when, but my memory says mid 90's.

Incorrect, it was BA's 777-200ER...

fair use excerpt:

"UK flag carrier British Airways set a new record for the longest non-stop commercial flight late last month, when it flew 17,157km (9,274nm) from Brussels international airport to Melbourne."

"The flight, captained by Capt Rod Mitchell, took 18h 45min to reach Melbourne, during which three hot meals were served. It has not been released how many passengers were onboard the 305-seat aircraft, although the prime minister usually travels with around 40 members of entourage and is followed by a further 20 journalists. To comply with crew flight time limitations, 20 crew were onboard, of which two were captains, two were senior first officers and 12 were cabin crew. An engineer, a security manager and a catering manager were also part of the personnel.

In June last year Boeing flew the 777-200LR variant 21,601km in 22h 42mins without refuelling from Hong Kong to London, setting a new record for a commercial airliner. However the 24 March London to Melbourne flight is the longest flight with paying passengers under civil transport rules."**

**-source: Flightinternational.com

Cheers..
"Up the Irons!"
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:03 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 90):
Quoting Hb88 (Reply 89):
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 11):
The question is who will fly from Sydney to LHR nonstop first ? 772LR or the 787.

Neither, it was a QF 747-400, with a handful of pax and a special fuel mix. I can't remember when, but my memory says mid 90's.

Incorrect, it was BA's 777-200ER...

fair use excerpt:

"UK flag carrier British Airways set a new record for the longest non-stop commercial flight late last month, when it flew 17,157km (9,274nm) from Brussels international airport to Melbourne."

"The flight, captained by Capt Rod Mitchell, took 18h 45min to reach Melbourne, during which three hot meals were served. It has not been released how many passengers were onboard the 305-seat aircraft, although the prime minister usually travels with around 40 members of entourage and is followed by a further 20 journalists. To comply with crew flight time limitations, 20 crew were onboard, of which two were captains, two were senior first officers and 12 were cabin crew. An engineer, a security manager and a catering manager were also part of the personnel.

In June last year Boeing flew the 777-200LR variant 21,601km in 22h 42mins without refuelling from Hong Kong to London, setting a new record for a commercial airliner. However the 24 March London to Melbourne flight is the longest flight with paying passengers under civil transport rules."**

**-source: Flightinternational.com

Interesting. That flight you related was Brussells - Melbourne, not LHR-SYD. I'm not sure of the difference in distance. The QF 747 definitely did the LHR/SYD flight as I attended a presentation by a tech guy covering fuel issues. Perhaps it wasn't counted as it had only a few pax and wasn't a "standard" flight, but the flight definitely occurred. I'll dig out a reference and post it.
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:07 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 87):
You are being obtuse.

You didn't need to make any assumptions nor could you possibly be confused, as this was the only flight anyone has flown at that distance, ever.

Of course as ever you are right
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27609
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:46 am

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 91):
The QF 747 definitely did the LHR/SYD flight as I attended a presentation by a tech guy covering fuel issues.

I remember seeing it in the news, as well.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:14 am

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 91):
Interesting. That flight you related was Brussells - Melbourne, not LHR-SYD. I'm not sure of the difference in distance.

Technically, LHR-SYD is actually 50-60nm longer than LHR-MEL..of course, that doesn't take flight path into consideration, so the BA flight might have flown further, even though its "technically" a shorter route...

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 91):
The QF 747 definitely did the LHR/SYD flight as I attended a presentation by a tech guy covering fuel issues. Perhaps it wasn't counted as it had only a few pax and wasn't a "standard" flight, but the flight definitely occurred. I'll dig out a reference and post it.

I remember that too..but I don't recall too much of the specifics about it...

Cheers..
"Up the Irons!"
 
trex8
Posts: 5677
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:19 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 90):
Airbus is technically lying..as the longest commercial flight in the world belongs to BA's 777-200ER...yes..it wasn't a full pax loaded flight, but nonetheless, if one wants to get technical, then Airbus is incorrect on that end too.. 

is a one off government charter technically a commercial flight in the usual sense? its certainly not a regular scheduled flight
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:42 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 95):
is a one off government charter technically a commercial flight in the usual sense? its certainly not a regular scheduled flight

You answered your own question..its not a "regular scheduled flight", yet it is stil a "commercial flight"... Smile

So I guess Airbus could say "our planes fly the longest regular scheduled flights in the world"..... Wink

A little semantics go a long way (in this case, veeeery long).. yes 
"Up the Irons!"
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:52 am

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 89):
Neither, it was a QF 747-400, with a handful of pax and a special fuel mix. I can't remember when, but my memory says mid 90's.

The poster asked who will fly SYD-LHR, not LHR-SYD, as SYD-LHR is the sector that makes the service unworkable.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 90):
Incorrect, it was BA's 777-200ER...

The 772 never flew LHR-SYD non-stop, nor SYD-LHR nonstop, so how is the guy wrong for saying the 744 flew LHR-SYD?  Wink
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:54 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 97):
The 772 never flew LHR-SYD non-stop, nor SYD-LHR nonstop, so how is the guy wrong for saying the 744 flew LHR-SYD?  Wink

c'mon Ikramerica..you know what I meant... Wink
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:12 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 88):
Currently Airbus has 5 different base spec A340-500:

WV000 OEW 168.5 MTOW 368.0 TRENT 553
WV001 OEW 175.1 MTOW 372.0* TRENT 553
WV002 OEW 175.4 MTOW 372.0* TRENT 553
WV101 OEW 170.4 MTOW 380.0* TRENT 556
WV102 OEW 174.9 MTOW 380.0* TRENT 556

None of those numbers match the AC configuration I stated, none of those numbers are for the (0 FC + 31 JC + 265 YC) version at AC, it has a manufacturers empty weight of 156.1t, and manufacturers OEW of 160.9t.

I was very specific in what I posted, I did not post some paper spec, this is the actual aircraft spec in use.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949

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