For all the attention the 777-200LR is getting I'm surprised to learn that so far it's not getting deployed on any actual ULR routes.

I think these are the 777-200LR contenders we've got so far:

BOM-JFK: 12,551 km
SYD-YVR: 12,484 km
KHI-NYC: 11,705 km
KHI-YYZ: 11,691 km

(747-400 range: 13,450 km)
(777-200LR range: 17,446 km)

I guess the operators buying the 777-200LR is primarily motivated by the operating efficiencies of the bird.

Conversely SQ's 340-500 still supports the longest routes by quite a margin.

SIN-LAX: 14,114 km
SIN-EWR: 15,345 km

So when's the 777-200LR being deployed on actual ULR routes? When will it beat the 340-500 distance wise?

In reality I suspect the ULR market really is very small...

Once DL receives 772LRs, it will start flying JFK-BOM-JFK with those birds, isn't it? AI also has similar plans if I am not mistaken.

If AI start their BLR-SFO nonstop flight as they state they will, it will certainly one of the longer -200LR flights at 14031 km..

What about SYD to LHR? And how far is the farthest route? and i think the LR is just going to become the standard -200 model, just like DL ordering it if they don't really need it it is nice to have just incase.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3): just like DL ordering it if they don't really need it it is nice to have just incase.

You talk like Boeing doesn't charge extra for extra features.
Customers have to PAY MORE for a more capable aircraft. That's one reason the 777-2LR is at a competitive disadvantage to the A345... it's a very expensive airplane.

To answer the original question:

I think you'll find the reason the 777-2LR is being used on more traditional routes is due to one of its primary strengths...
The 777-2LR can fly a longer distance with a FULL LOAD than the A345.
Singapore couldn't even DO SIN-EWR if they had a coach cabin on their aircraft.
The -2LR CAN do it, however, and will do it profitably.

The 777-2LR is a heavier, sturdier, longer-range, more capable airplane than the A340-500... but that comes at a cost.

Emirates Dubai-Houston will certainly be one of the longer 77L routes out there when it starts in December.

Brian

AI plans BLR-SFO (14,031km) in 2008 and there are also plans for a non-stop service to Texas (IAH or DFW) from BOM or DEL. BOM-DFW is 14153km!

How bout DL's ATL-JNB?

Hunter

Quoting Cricket (Reply 6): BOM-DFW is 14153km!

Good, but it still is 1,000+ km short of what SQ does with the A345 :

Quoting Hodja (Thread starter): SIN-EWR: 15,345 km

What we would need for the 77L is a flight of 16,000+ km, that would say a lot. For that to eventually happen, DL has to order the bird, and launch a JFK-SYD (16,013 km). Although it's the most probable thing for us to see a longer commercial flight than SIN-EWR, this is not gonna happen anytime soon...
I can even imaging this flight being flown first by QF with a 789ER, let's say in 2012.

Airbus really won the Award for the longest commercial flight by offering the A345 earlier to the market, it's at least something positive for this bird, that would remain in the aviation history books.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4): The 777-2LR is a heavier, sturdier, longer-range, more capable airplane than the A340-500... but that comes at a cost.

The A340-500 is heavier both at OEW and at MTOW than the 777-200LR.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4): Singapore couldn't even DO SIN-EWR if they had a coach cabin on their aircraft.

That isn't the "big deal." The A345 models SQ uses on SIN-EWR can't accommodate a standard economy *or* premium cabin, or hardly any revenue cargo for that matter. The lack of a strong premium product and cargo revenue is a bigger hit to profitability than having a low-density economy cabin.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4): Customers have to PAY MORE for a more capable aircraft. That's one reason the 777-2LR is at a competitive disadvantage to the A345... it's a very expensive airplane.

It's not like the A340-500 is cheap. The base list price for an A345 in 2006 was $198 million USD. That compares to $231 million USD for a 777-200LR. Keep in mind that the other popular 777 variants are also more expensive than the A340 by simmilar magnitude. The 773ER is about $32 million USD more expensive than the A340-600, and the 773ER is market preferred by a large margin.

The real disadvantage the 777-200LR faces is the rapid depreciation of the A340-500. Many of the initial models produced (like the ones owned by SQ) lost resale value shockingly fast. If SQ were bidding the A345 and 772LR today, the 772LR would quickly justify its acquisition cost. But SQ can't fetch a reasonable price for their young A345 if they sold them on the open market. Not only would the 772LR have to justify it's higher acquisition cost, it would need to amortize the rapid depreciation of the A345. The combination of those two factors is asking too much over the period of time SQ wants to opperate the aircraft.

I wish that SK would take a pair of those SQ A345's cheap and start CPH-SYD.  

Will never happen but It would have a been nice route!

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4): Singapore couldn't even DO SIN-EWR if they had a coach cabin on their aircraft.

Yet another A.net myth. According to the Airbus data the A340-500 has a range with a full pax load of up to 9000nm.
SIN-EWR is 8285nm so well within the aircraft's capabilities. The reason SQ chose to outfit those airplanes with a premium economy cabin instead of normal Y, is because nobody would fly for 17 hours trapped in a 31" seat. That, and also save themselves from DVT related suits...

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 11): Yet another A.net myth. According to the Airbus data the A340-500 has a range with a full pax load of up to 9000nm.

Uh, that's the range for the higher MTOW variant, not the version SQ has which has a range of ~8600nm.

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 11): Yet another A.net myth. According to the Airbus data the A340-500 has a range with a full pax load of up to 9000nm. SIN-EWR is 8285nm so well within the aircraft's capabilities. The reason SQ chose to outfit those airplanes with a premium economy cabin instead of normal Y, is because nobody would fly for 17 hours trapped in a 31" seat. That, and also save themselves from DVT related suits...

...looking at the SQ's numbers, cargo is poor on SIN-EWR-SIN routes...Chew himself has stated their flights are basically breaking even....

Unlike the B772LR which is fuel volume limited, the A345 is weight limited..its a bit too heavy of a plane...

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4): To answer the original question: I think you'll find the reason the 777-2LR is being used on more traditional routes is due to one of its primary strengths... The 777-2LR can fly a longer distance with a FULL LOAD than the A345. Singapore couldn't even DO SIN-EWR if they had a coach cabin on their aircraft. The -2LR CAN do it, however, and will do it profitably. The 777-2LR is a heavier, sturdier, longer-range, more capable airplane than the A340-500... but that comes at a cost

I'm a bit confused here, namely as you stated "To answer the original question".
If I could respectfully point out the 'original question' of the topic was concerned with ULR routes with the B777-200LR, yet you have quite deliberately turned it into a battle/competition with the A340-500 and, indeed claiming a competitive disadvantage with regards to cost. (Of course, there always seemingly has to be a competitive disadvantage portrayed somewhere!). The topic/original question was nothing to do with the A340-500.......so why are you supplanting it into the post?
Of course, the fact that your information is wrong says a lot anyhow.

Quoting Hodja (Thread starter): For all the attention the 777-200LR is getting I'm surprised to learn that so far it's not getting deployed on any actual ULR routes.

Just because a plane has a particular range doesn't mean that all airlines will use it to that range. Keep in mind that, unlike the A340-500, the 777-200LR gets its extra range through more efficient engines. So, on flights longer 5,000nm, the 777-200LR's efficiency overcomes its extra cost, and is more cost effective to operate than the 777-200ER.


EDIT:

P.S. where does PIA use their 777-200LRs to? I thought I saw one at LHR back in January.

[Edited 2007-07-29 19:20:20]

IAH-DXB will be 13,144km...about 1,000nm closer than SIN-LAX, but still, an ultra long haul route to be certain....farther than JFK-BOM.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 15): So, on flights longer 5,000nm, the 777-200LR's efficiency overcomes its extra cost

As I understand it, that is putting a new-build 772ER against a new 772LR, and then ignoring their different purchase prices.

In reality, a typical 772ER may be cheaper -- but burn a touch more fuel -- for all journeys than the LR.

I bet SQ really wishes they got the newer A345 HGW for their EWR-SIN mission. They are really at the edge (in fact beyond the rated range of their aircraft if I recall).

I also think the ULR market is pretty small. But it will grow, primarily thanks to the Indian Ocean region and its remoteness from the USA. Nonstops to India and Pakistan are just getting started, relatively speaking.

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 7): How bout DL's ATL-JNB?

That segment was flown scheduled-nonstop with A346s and heavily-restricted 744s for years. The return required stops in CPT/SID/FLL however.

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 11): Yet another A.net myth. According to the Airbus data the A340-500 has a range with a full pax load of up to 9000nm. SIN-EWR is 8285nm so well within the aircraft's capabilitie

First off, as stated, you're looking at the stats for a variant that SQ doesn't operate. Secondly, you seem to be forgetting about the still air (which granted, SQ attempts to route their aircraft to minimize, but still exerts significant effect on its ULH operations).

Isn't Air Canada planning some long ones with their new 777-200LRs in the future (YYZ-HKG replacing the A345s, YVR-SYD eliminating the fuel stop in HNL, that sort of thing)?


CanadianNorth

Quoting Flighty (Reply 17): As I understand it, that is putting a new-build 772ER against a new 772LR, and then ignoring their different purchase prices. In reality, a typical 772ER may be cheaper -- but burn a touch more fuel -- for all journeys than the LR.

You did not read what I wrote.

The 777-200LR is more efficient than the 777-200ER, but it costs more that the 777-200ER. On flights longer than 5,000nm, the fuel you save with the 777-200LR is worth more than the added cost of the aircraft per flight.

So, to sum up, the 777-200LR is more cost effective to operate than the 777-200ER on flights 5,000nm or more. (taking into consideration the added purchase price)

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 11): The reason SQ chose to outfit those airplanes with a premium economy cabin instead of normal Y, is because nobody would fly for 17 hours trapped in a 31" seat. That, and also save themselves from DVT related suits...

THat's so true, you can't fly such a long flight in a normal Y cabin. You would've had a qouple of deaths for sure since operations started. Also don't forget there is no F on this plane as tickets would be too much expensive I gues. But offering a Business and premum Y product is good enough to achieve good yields.

Quoting CanadianNorth (Reply 19): Isn't Air Canada planning some long ones with their new 777-200LRs in the future (YYZ-HKG replacing the A345s, YVR-SYD eliminating the fuel stop in HNL, that sort of thing)?

It will definetly replace YYZ - HKG and I think YVR - SYD by this fall? They also planed to fly to SYD from LAX from 2008 but I don't know if they will or got the rights for it

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 20): So, to sum up, the 777-200LR is more cost effective to operate than the 777-200ER on flights 5,000nm or more. (taking into consideration the added purchase price)

I see, sorry for misunderstanding.

Quoting LXA340 (Reply 21): lso don't forget there is no F on this plane as tickets would be too much expensive

No, because the A345 couldn't handle the weight and make the distance.

SQ themselves lamented some of their customer's frustration at the lack of F.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 23): SQ themselves lamented some of their customer's frustration at the lack of F.

So if this is the reason why didn't they offer 2 rows of F and instead take away 3 rows or so from C would it still be to heavy?

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 20): The 777-200LR is more efficient than the 777-200ER, but it costs more that the 777-200ER. On flights longer than 5,000nm, the fuel you save with the 777-200LR is worth more than the added cost of the aircraft per flight.

Personally, I don't buy that one. On a demanding route for the 772ER the LR will inevitably come out on top, but from what i can see in many situations the LR only offers 7-10 more tons of deadweight and an unnecessary amount of thrust. It would be interesting to see the cut off point.

Quoting LXA340 (Reply 21): It will definetly replace YYZ - HKG and I think YVR - SYD by this fall?

YYZ-HKG A345>772 on August 4th

YYZ-YVR-SYD mid December.

Quoting LXA340 (Reply 21): Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 11): The reason SQ chose to outfit those airplanes with a premium economy cabin instead of normal Y, is because nobody would fly for 17 hours trapped in a 31" seat. That, and also save themselves from DVT related suits... That's so true, you can't fly such a long flight in a normal Y cabin. You would've had a qouple of deaths for sure since operations started.

And SQ is prepared. Their A340-500s have a special "corpse closet" for a passenger who may expire en route. I think it's refrigerated.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 15): the 777-200LR gets its extra range through more efficient engines

and 3 more fuel tanks and about 100K lb in add'l take off weight.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 18): Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 7): How bout DL's ATL-JNB? That segment was flown scheduled-nonstop with A346s and heavily-restricted 744s for years. The return required stops in CPT/SID/FLL however.

The issue with JNB is not aircraft range but JNB's high altitude which degrades aircraft performance. ATL-JNB could be done with a 772ER but the return cannot be nonstop because of JNB's altitude.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 20): So, to sum up, the 777-200LR is more cost effective to operate than the 777-200ER on flights 5,000nm or more. (taking into consideration the added purchase price)

It sure would be great to get some stats on the 772LR vs. 772ER performance. These threads have statements, but no real information. I'm just skeptical.

The 772ER performs routes like EWR-TLV routinely, but you're saying that it would be more efficient with at 772LR, even factoring in the extra purchase price.

Those ranked wingtips must really be great to carry an additional 16,000 pounds of aircraft with less fuel burn. In fact, since 16,000 lbs. is more than 5% of the total fuel weight in the tanks of the 772ER, then the ranked wingtips on the 772LR must save more than 5% of fuel burn.

Let's see, CO and lots of other airlines are adding winglets to get 3% or so better fuel consumption with 737 and 757 aircraft. You'd think 772ER operators would be looking like crazy for a retrofit of those ranked wingtips on the 772LR.

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 7): How bout DL's ATL-JNB?

When did Delta Air Lines announce a nonstop Atlanta-Jo'burg?

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 2): If AI start their BLR-SFO nonstop flight as they state they will, it will certainly one of the longer -200LR flights at 14031 km..

At this point it is more of a when, not an if..

That will be one comfortable 16.5 hour flight!

-JD

Quoting Flighty (Reply 17): I bet SQ really wishes they got the newer A345 HGW for their EWR-SIN mission. They are really at the edge (in fact beyond the rated range of their aircraft if I recall).

The HGW versions of the A340NG are terrible. HUGE wieght increases for the level of MTOW growth. Sure it goes a bit farther, but it costs you alot more to do it.

Quoting LXA340 (Reply 21): It will definetly replace YYZ - HKG and I think YVR - SYD by this fall? They also planed to fly to SYD from LAX from 2008 but I don't know if they will or got the rights for it

YYZ-LAX-SYD isn't happening. YYZ-HKG and YVR-SYD, both of them less than 7,000 nm, will not push the 77L. In fact, the 77W will operate YVR-SYD before AC gets the 77L on the route. It will be a while before any AC route pushes the limit of this mighty aircraft. YYZ-SYD, at about 8,400 nm, would be interesting...

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 23): No, because the A345 couldn't handle the weight and make the distance.

Even though I have no data to prove otherwise, I doubt that 8 F seats would have such an impact, especially considering the very "comfortable" cabin layout.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 31): The HGW versions of the A340NG are terrible. HUGE wieght increases for the level of MTOW growth. Sure it goes a bit farther, but it costs you alot more to do it.

For the A345 basic version is 372t and HGW is 380t. The empty weight increase is half that, 4t. Calling it huge is a bit of an overstatement.

Back to the 77L now. Could the reason behind the SQ cabin layout be why airlines don't use the 777 for such routes. Would it be a waste of cabin space to outfit such an airplane with ~200 seats and reduced cargo capacity (because of the aux tanks), when it's much more efficient and profitable on slightly shorter routes with full pax and cargo?

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3): What about SYD to LHR?

Unless the aircraft gets a drastic range increase or the headwinds disappear, it ain't gonna happen, neither on an A345 or a 77L.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 34): Unless the aircraft gets a drastic range increase or the headwinds disappear, it ain't gonna happen, neither on an A345 or a 77L.

And just to clarify, the 77L currently has the range but cannot operate the route economically, that is, there would be payload restrictions.

Just curious, but how long (in terms of time) is the SQ EWR-SIN route? I am interested in flying it, and am just wondering how long the actual flight is. I know the LAX-SIN route is about 18+ hours.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 25): Personally, I don't buy that one. On a demanding route for the 772ER the LR will inevitably come out on top, but from what i can see in many situations the LR only offers 7-10 more tons of deadweight and an unnecessary amount of thrust. It would be interesting to see the cut off point.

The weight is partly for a structure that improves performance, and the engines are signficantly more fuel efficient.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 29): Let's see, CO and lots of other airlines are adding winglets to get 3% or so better fuel consumption with 737 and 757 aircraft. You'd think 772ER operators would be looking like crazy for a retrofit of those ranked wingtips on the 772LR.

I don't know if raked wingtips can be retrofitted.

There is a wingtip program under development for the 772ER but not for the 777LR since it has raked wingtips. In the same vein, the 767 winglets can be put on the 763ER but not the 764ER because the 764 has factory raked wingtips.

As for SQ, remember that the 345 came out a couple years before the 777LR. SQ could have opted for the 777LR had it been available at the time.

But SQ has said they are not sure there are a whole lot of 18+ hour routes in the world that are necessary or economical. You haul alot more fuel and need a bigger aircraft to fly 2-3 hours farther and you (as an airline) might not necessarily get much more revenue than if you flew the route from a gateway that does not require the ULH aircraft.

India will likely be a major operator of the 777LR because even the closest North American cities to India are pushing the limits of any non-ULH aircraft on a nonstop basis. As for carriers, DL is interested in the 777LR because ATL is further from Asia than most other US gateways and DL intends to use the LR to develop ATL to Asia, along with other markets. Given Canada's heavy population base in the east, it also makes sense for AC to operate the LR in order to penetrate deep into Asia.

But again, the 777LR will provide these airlines to carry full passenger loads in all weather plus carry cargo which is what is necessary from Asia. They may not necessarily use the plane to the full limit of its range.

Quoting Iboam (Reply 36): Just curious, but how long (in terms of time) is the SQ EWR-SIN route? I am interested in flying it, and am just wondering how long the actual flight is. I know the LAX-SIN route is about 18+ hours.

It is the SIN - EWR that is 18+ hours.
SIN-EWR is scheduled 19 hours and EWR-SIN 18h40m.

SIN-LAX is scheduled 16h20m and LAX-SIN 17h20m.

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 33): For the A345 basic version is 372t and HGW is 380t. The empty weight increase is half that, 4t. Calling it huge is a bit of an overstatement.

On most airplanes, an 8t MTOW increase would require a 1t or less OEW increase. The A345IGW OEW increase does seem to be a bit excessive.

In comparison, the 772LR is close to being in that range as 110,000 increase in TOW takes 15,700 in extra EOW. That's a factor of slightly under the 8 to 1 figure. 8 to 1 relationship equals a 12.5% increase in EOW and the 772LR is 14.3%.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 37): The weight is partly for a structure that improves performance, and the engines are signficantly more fuel efficient.

Weight that improves fuel efficiency is often only effective after a certain distance though, e.g. winglets vs no winglets, RR Trent 895 vs GE90-95. Also, the GE90-115 will no doubt be more efficient, but under what circumstances? Per ton when both are at MTOW?

Quoting Acey (Reply 32): YYZ-SYD, at about 8,400 nm, would be interesting...

Westbound the ESAD is about 9000nm. That makes it even more interesting!

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 29): t sure would be great to get some stats on the 772LR vs. 772ER performance. These threads have statements, but no real information. I'm just skeptical.

To help you and others who need to have their minds refreshed on this topic. Go to:
AC Re-confirms 777, 787 Order (by Sebring Nov 9 2005 in Civil Aviation)

look at reply 56 and the table that is linked at the end.

Why do airlines like AC and EK have both the A345 and the LR ??

Cheers,


J  

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 31): Quoting Flighty (Reply 17): I bet SQ really wishes they got the newer A345 HGW for their EWR-SIN mission. They are really at the edge (in fact beyond the rated range of their aircraft if I recall). The HGW versions of the A340NG are terrible. HUGE wieght increases for the level of MTOW growth. Sure it goes a bit farther, but it costs you alot more to do it.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 40): On most airplanes, an 8t MTOW increase would require a 1t or less OEW increase. The A345IGW OEW increase does seem to be a bit excessive.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 13): the A345 is weight limited..its a bit too heavy of a plane...

...been saying it for a while.... 

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 38): As for SQ, remember that the 345 came out a couple years before the 777LR. SQ could have opted for the 777LR had it been available at the time.

..  ....IIRC, even Chew himself stated this recently....and the reason why they aren't going with the -200LR now is because acquisition costs aren't worth it, especially with the B787 and A350's coming out in a few years....we'll see if SQ use the any of the two aforementioned planes on any either EWR or LAX routes...

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 14): I'm a bit confused here, namely as you stated "To answer the original question". If I could respectfully point out the 'original question' of the topic was concerned with ULR routes with the B777-200LR, yet you have quite deliberately turned it into a battle/competition with the A340-500 and, indeed claiming a competitive disadvantage with regards to cost. (Of course, there always seemingly has to be a competitive disadvantage portrayed somewhere!). The topic/original question was nothing to do with the A340-500.......so why are you supplanting it into the post? Of course, the fact that your information is wrong says a lot anyhow.

Quite right. Ultra long haul is defined differently by different people. Many of the candidate routes being mentionned by people are more like very long haul that can be flown by a 777-200ER or 777-300ER or the newest A346. Air Canada, for example, defines Ultra Long Haul as 16 hours or more, and it has no plans to do any flying of that nature because there aren't any markets to Canada which would justify the use. Sure, it could put extra tanks on its -200LRs and fly Toronto-Sydney nonstop (a brutal 18 hours) but there just isn't a PROFITABLE market yet for such a flight. Moreover, AC and its pilots would have to agree to ULH staffing, which they haven't (and neither side, IMO, is in a hurry to do so). AC will use the 772LR on routes like YYZ-HKG and YVR-SYD where they both meet load/demand requirements and do so more optimally than using a 773ER. Beyond that, we might see a 772LR launch a YYZ-BOM route, but AC doesn't have a big taste for experimentation and prefers the tried and true. The current management has a lot going on its fare structure and isn't much interested in sexy new routes where it would fill the plane and still not make money because yields are poor. With 37 787s on order, the betting is AC will wait until it can use that plane and its smaller capacity and much lower seat mile cost as a developmental stocking horse for long-range routes. The one exception might be a YYZ-JNB route, but right now Canada and South Africa do not have a bilateral air agreement, and while Canada wants one, SA does not want one now because its flag carrier is not in the soundest shape.

In the meantime, AC's 772 will take over Toronto-Asia routes either on a seasonal basis or in the case of a developmental situation like YYZ-PVG, probably year round.

Quoting BHXDTW (Reply 45): Why do airlines like AC and EK have both the A345 and the LR ??

I would not say in AC's case that it will remain so. AC would like to get rid of the 345s, and because it paid a highly discounted price, I would expect it to either sell or lease out those two planes this year or next.

Quoting BHXDTW (Reply 45): Why do airlines like AC and EK have both the A345 and the LR ??

AC's likely to rid themselves of those things in the near future, and EK.... doesn't exactly conform to typical norms so far as fleet acquisition et al  

Quoting Sebring (Reply 47): I would expect it to either sell or lease out those two planes this year or next.

I thought JJ was planning on picking up AC's 345's. I obviously (looking at my user-name) love the 77L, but I'm also a huge fan of the 345, (my favorite Airbus jet) and would like to see the 345 with US and some other carriers too. Is US still going to acquire 345's??? or will they opt for the 343   ???