What is the longest 77W route? How many nm is the route?? and who is currently flying this route?? Are there any future plans of utilizing the 77W on say a 7500nm flight or longer??? Thanks

Top 5 777W Routes

#1
YYZ-HKG ala AC
7810 Miles

#2
JFK-DXB ala EK
6849 Miles

#3
LAX-TPE ala SQ, BR
6799 Miles

#4
SIN-CDG ala SQ
6667 Miles

#5
SIN-MXP ala SQ
6409 Miles

-JD

Some long ones via LHR:

LHR - BKK = 5958 mi (BR)
LHR - NRT = 5974 mi (JL/NH)

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 1): #1 YYZ-HKG ala AC 7810 Miles

I could be wrong, but I believe this route is being flown by the 77L, not the 77W. YVR-SYD could be a long one for the 77W, it flies the route early in the new year for a month or so, last I checked.

C-GAGN

Why not work in nm or km the two standards that are in general use.

When CX start using the type on the JFK-HKG route the ESAD Eastbound will be 7244nm and westbound, 7415nm.

The YYZ-HKG route will be about 7000 and 7166nm, respectively.

The SIN-CDG route is 5721 and 6257nm respectively.

Values except for YYZ-HKG Fair Use quotation from Aircraft Commerce magazine.

[Edited 2007-07-30 19:54:44]

[Edited 2007-07-30 19:57:24]

Thanks a.netters for the info. One question tho, while airline manufacturers claim a max range of x amount of miles, in this case Boeing claims 7880 nm for the 77W (which is close to 9,000 miles), what is the max range realistically and economically the 77W can fly while still making a profit??

YVR-SYD will be flown on a B773 before hte B772LR

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 4): When CX start using the type on the JFK-HKG route the ESAD Eastbound will be 7244nm and westbound, 7415nm.

Can the 77W really fly these year round non-stop with a decent load? I didn't think the 77W had such long legs.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 7): Can the 77W really fly these year round non-stop with a decent load? I didn't think the 77W had such long legs.

It is a affected by the passenger ready weight which can vary between 378K lb and 389K lb and the MTOW version that the carrier goes with.
Take a look at www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3392581/ and particularly reply 20 that helps cast some light on the subject.

From one of Widebodyphotogs tables it appears that the type assuming the highest MTOW available, can haul a max passenger load of 368 passengers , 7940 nm.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 4): Why not work in nm or km the two standards that are in general use. The YYZ-HKG route will be about 7000.

YYZ-HKG is 6787 naut. mi (great circle). Actual routings may of course often be further due ATC, weather, winds etc. YVR-SYD nonstop is just slightly shorter, 6741 naut. mi., when AC begins nonstop service on that route later this year.

Quoting Cgagn (Reply 3): Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 1): #1 YYZ-HKG AC I could be wrong, but I believe this route is being flown by the 77L, not the 77W.

AC is still using their 2 A340-500s on the YYZ-HKG-YYZ route.

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 1): Top 5 777W Routes #1 YYZ-HKG ala AC 7810 Miles #2 JFK-DXB ala EK 6849 Miles #3 LAX-TPE ala SQ, BR 6799 Miles #4 SIN-CDG ala SQ 6667 Miles #5 SIN-MXP ala SQ 6409 Miles -JD

I thought YYZ-HKG was still an A340-500 operated by AC...

But you omitted

IAD-NRT
6753 Miles (5868 nm GC 6022nm by airways)

JFK-NRT

6745 Miles (5861 nm GC 6015nm by airways)

Both operated by NH

On all segments available commercial payload is substantially above 45t all year round in both directions. To my recollection the only operator yet using the 775,000 lb MTOW option is AC. AC's ships also have the newest and best performing GE90-115BL2 engines as well. All other operators are using 769,000 lbs and some 759,600 lb MTOW. CX and AC are the only 777-300ER operators so far who have specified the GE90-115BL2's...


Another note, the 100th 777-300ER goes into service in September with AI, I think...

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 5): Thanks a.netters for the info. One question tho, while airline manufacturers claim a max range of x amount of miles, in this case Boeing claims 7880 nm for the 77W (which is close to 9,000 miles), what is the max range realistically and economically the 77W can fly while still making a profit??

Actually the current public spec is 7,930, but in any case that figure from Boeing is on a lower spec weight aircraft... Please do not ask me why they do that. In service for international routes, a sustainable commercial payload for the 777-300ER is about 85,000 lbs (38.6t) depending on the route, cabin arrangement etc. For a 769Klb airplane this is an effective air distance of 6,700nm, and for a 775Klb airplane about 6,800nm. However it all really depends on cabin and hold yields.



widebodyphotog

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 10): I thought YYZ-HKG was still an A340-500 operated by AC...

AC is waiting until they get their 2nd 77L, which should be shortly, then YYZ-HKG will move to the 77L and the 345s will move to the YYZ-PVG route for now. The 77W will never fly the YYZ-HKG route for AC.

C-GAGN

Quoting Cgagn (Reply 11): The 77W will never fly the YYZ-HKG route for AC.

It could at some point, due to an equipment change or something. They'll have more 77W's than 77L so if necessary I'm sure they'd sub it in.

Quoting Acey (Reply 12): It could at some point, due to an equipment change or something. They'll have more 77W's than 77L so if necessary I'm sure they'd sub it in.

Good point. I meant it's not likely to be scheduled to fly YYZ-HKG, but it could end up flying the route a few times if need be.

C-GAGN

Quoting Cgagn (Reply 11): AC is waiting until they get their 2nd 77L, which should be shortly, then YYZ-HKG will move to the 77L and the 345s will move to the YYZ-PVG route for now. The 77W will never fly the YYZ-HKG route for AC. C-GAGN

That was my understanding

-widebodyphotog

I believe that the 777-300ER could easily fly the same long routes now flown by the 747-400. But very longer routes would be better-suited for the 777-200LR.

Quoting Cgagn (Reply 11): The 77W will never fly the YYZ-HKG route for AC.

Sorry to disappoint you, but see this:

1 AC 015 J9 C9 Y9 M9 U9 B9 H9 /YYZ 1 HKG 1010 1335+1E0/77W 15:25
V9 Q9 L9 A9 I0

( 05.Aug)


Never say never!  

It was reported that EK is looking at introducing a new daily nonstop DXB-BNE-DXB service with the 77W. Below are the distances in nautical miles and miles:

BNE-DXB
6467 nm or
7442 mi



Rgds

It's Nautical and statute miles for the sake of clarification.

Just saying 'miles' is meaningless !

As an earlier poster mentioned, the only worthwhile standard is Nautical miles.

Ek will start to operate the new B777-200LR on DXB-GRU as of 1st October 2007 and it will be more or less 7592 mi.
Then in December 2007 EK will start to operate to DXB-IAH aslo with the new B777-200LR and will be 8168 mi.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 18): Just saying 'miles' is meaningless !

I disagree. Unless you say specifically say nm or nautical miles, just saying 'miles' imply your statute miles. I know this is an assumption, but it's usually a good assumption in this industry. It's just like saying I'm flying Mach 0.83, you don't really have to say it's airspeed and not ground speed. The assumption is often valid.

Quoting OHLHD (Reply 16): Sorry to disappoint you, but see this: 1 AC 015 J9 C9 Y9 M9 U9 B9 H9 /YYZ 1 HKG 1010 1335+1E0/77W 15:25 V9 Q9 L9 A9 I0 ( 05.Aug) Never say never!

The 77L was planned to take over daily operations on August 4th. I would suspect delivery of the 2nd aircraft has been delayed, and thus the change.

As it stands....

Last A345 flight will be August 3rd.

First B77L flight will be August 4th.

Mix of 77W & 77L August 5th - 13th

Daily deployment of the 77L on August 14th.

(subject to change)

Didn't think the 77W had the range for YYZ-HKG. Any payload restrictions, or necessary tech-stop in YVR??

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 10): a sustainable commercial payload for the 777-300ER is about 85,000 lbs (38.6t) depending on the route, cabin arrangement etc. For a 769Klb airplane this is an effective air distance of 6,700nm, and for a 775Klb airplane about 6,800nm

Plotting this data on the Load/Range chart for the 77W and assuming a middle of the range passenger ready weight of 383K lb. would suggest a payload of about 75K lb YYZ- HKG assuming a ESAD of about 7200nm and a little less, YVR-SYD assuming a ESAD of about 7300nm.
Full passenger load for AC would be in the range of 72K.lb based on their seating arrangement of 349.
see reply 4 for the source of the ESAD data.
Useful to note that Virgin-Australia will be operating their 77W's , westbound LAX-SYD , just beyond the upper end of the effective air distance provided by Widebodyphotog above.

Quoting FLYACYYZ (Reply 21): Mix of 77W & 77L August 5th - 13th

Interesting...

Quoting FLYACYYZ (Reply 21): Didn't think the 77W had the range for YYZ-HKG. Any payload restrictions, or necessary tech-stop in YVR??

Range is there and there is enough excess payload to deal with most any weather/ETOPS planning contingency. At full passenger load there would only be payload for about 5-6t of cargo though, but at 349 seats there is a lot of revenue on board for such a long flight. The best ETOPS track distance for YYZ-HKG is 6,905nm and an effective air distance of about 7,200nm. I believe this would be the second longest route operated by a 777, CO's EWR-HKG being the longest albeit with more than 60 fewer seats...

However in the Fall/Winter season available payload on the 777-300ER may fall below what would be practical to sustain regular operations. In Spring and Summer the airplane should be able to reliably pull off the route without restricting passenger loads.



-widebodyphotog

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 10): In service for international routes, a sustainable commercial payload for the 777-300ER is about 85,000 lbs (38.6t) depending on the route, cabin arrangement etc. For a 769Klb airplane this is an effective air distance of 6,700nm, and for a 775Klb airplane about 6,800nm.

Do you have a similar "rule of thumb" for the 747-400?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 18): Just saying 'miles' is meaningless ! As an earlier poster mentioned, the only worthwhile standard is Nautical miles.

However, when "miles" are referred to in various other airline-related connotations they mean "statute miles", e.g. miles earned in frequent flyer programs. Statute miles have also always been used in mileage system fare calculations. To be clear, it's probably best to refer to the units used if there's any possibility of confusion.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 24): Do you have a similar "rule of thumb" for the 747-400?

Very hard to do for the 747 for real airplanes because there are something like 20 different engine/weight variants each with their own incremental characteristics. With that said a 5,000lb takeoff weight is pretty negligible in terms of a practical operation. Less than 100nm... If you are that close to the edge in required performance may the operator should be doing something else with the airplane...

The edge that the highest MTOW option gives you is payload. The difference in payload carried over the same distance from 769 to 775klb is nearly 2t which can make a difference in your bottom line over time. I can't count the times I wish I had an extra two ton on an airplane to avoid having to offload 5 or even 10t! It is a very meaningful difference.

YYZ-HKG with 777-300ER is intriguing though even if it is not contiuously operated. It's a real chance for the folks at AC do do some analysis on revenue/payload. Nobody has ever flown the airplane at that cabin density over that distance. On a passenger only basis, because you won't have practical cargo ACL Westbound, specific costs should be the lowest of any ULH route out there.



-widebodyphotog

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 26): YYZ-HKG with 777-300ER is intriguing though even if it is not contiuously operated. It's a real chance for the folks at AC do do some analysis on revenue/payload.

YVR-SYD might be better; they will operate it daily with the -300ER from about Dec. 15th. to Jan 26th. The schedule is showing a westbound flight time of 15hrs 5 min and eastbound 14hrs 5 min.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 27): YVR-SYD might be better; they will operate it daily with the -300ER from about Dec. 15th. to Jan 26th. The schedule is showing a westbound flight time of 15hrs 5 min and eastbound 14hrs 5 min.

YYZ-HKG is actually a few dozen nautical miles longer as the crow flies, but winds on the westbound YVR-SYD would certainly be of more consequence than on YYZ-HKG hence the longer blocked time.

In 2009, PR will be flying the 7305 mi (Great Circle Mapper) MNL-LAX route using the 77W. But with all the boxes, the westbound return flight would be specially challenging.  

Quoting Acey (Reply 28): YYZ-HKG is actually a few dozen nautical miles longer as the crow flies, but winds on the westbound YVR-SYD would certainly be of more consequence than on YYZ-HKG hence the longer blocked time.

Actually that time of the year it will not be so bad regularly. The headwind component is small even if the prevailing wind velocity is relatively high. The track distance can be up to +200nm longer than the GC but since the headwind component relative to the track direction is low the effective air distance may be a bit less than YYZ-HKG. The prevailing winds may be -40kts or so but I would be surprised if the headwind component rose above -15kts. The benefits of traveling in a more South-SouthWesterly direction during winter. In summer the Equatorial jet stream may extend flight times beyond what would would be feasible for the airplane to do.

Another issue would be initial cruise altitude which for these routes and their high required takeoff weights should be FL280-FL320 depending on the temps and conditions. This should actually help by keeping the aircraft out of the strongest winds for the first several hours of the flight and allowing normal cruise speeds without substantial headwinds. One trades altitude for speed and fuel burn in this case but time is the factor and flight times much beyond 15h cut too deep into available payload and can lower revenue generating potential. It's a good trade...

Doing YVR-SYD with this aircraft in winter is a good idea as you stay out of the strongest winds near the Equator and may actually pick up some tailwinds crossing hemispheres. Additionally the temps are low enough getting out of YVR to allow reliable takeoff and initial cruise performance departing the 11,500ft runway.

It's actually pretty exciting to see that this airplane will be the pioneer for ULH ETOPS on the South Pacific! In service reliability has been rock solid with 99 ships in service and well over 1 million hours on GE90-115Bs. The 777-300ER has really proved itself to be a great value to its operators.



-widebodyphotog

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 30): It's actually pretty exciting to see that this airplane will be the pioneer for ULH ETOPS on the South Pacific! In service reliability has been rock solid with 99 ships in service and well over 1 million hours on GE90-115Bs. The 777-300ER has really proved itself to be a great value to its operators.

And poor Dixon is now scrambling to justify QF ignoring the plane as "not suitable" for their operations. Other carriers are profiting from this plane (or soon will be), replacing ailing and aging 747s and even older A340s with a higher yield, more cargo capable aircraft, but Dixon is stuck on the outside looking in, while his older 747s have more and more problems and weight restrictions and his A380s are still not in the stable.

Notice how EK and SQ aren't saying anything bad about the 77W. It just goes to show how CEO's operate. They dismiss products that are alternatives to the products they fly or chose, to make their decisions look better. SQ and QF did it with the 748, and QF is doing it with the 77W.

I have yet to fly in a 77W, but hope to fly SQ at some point, trying to get on the A380 in one direction and a 77W in the return direction. Next year...  

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 23): However in the Fall/Winter season available payload on the 777-300ER may fall below what would be practical to sustain regular operations. In Spring and Summer the airplane should be able to reliably pull off the route without restricting passenger loads.

Isn't CX planning to fly the 77W on YYZ-HKG after it gets enough fins? If so, they will have to hope that it is practical for regular operations because they don't have a 77L. Westbound cargo yields are pretty weak, so I presume they won't care much about losing cargo capacity, but if they end up in winter with an ANC tech stop, even on an irregular basis, it won't do much for the credibility of the service going up against AC's 77L. AC's nonstop ability with the 345 has been a significant competitive advantage over CX's 343 with its westbound tech stop.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 32): Isn't CX planning to fly the 77W on YYZ-HKG after it gets enough fins? If so, they will have to hope that it is practical for regular operations because they don't have a 77L. Westbound cargo yields are pretty weak, so I presume they won't care much about losing cargo capacity, but if they end up in winter with an ANC tech stop, even on an irregular basis, it won't do much for the credibility of the service going up against AC's 77L. AC's nonstop ability with the 345 has been a significant competitive advantage over CX's 343 with its westbound tech stop.

I would think that based on their long haul seating arrangements that the 777-300ERs operated by CX would have substantially lower cabin density than what AC is using, giving an additional payload margin of 6t or so and enabling reliable year-round non-stop operation. Right about Westbound yields being in the tank but Eastbound out of HKG the yields are not so spectacular either due to big time over capacity, but belly cargo operations have much lower costs than freighters so every bit in the holds counts for something.



-widebodyphotog

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 31): I have yet to fly in a 77W, but hope to fly SQ at some point

If you're gonna fly on one, SQ's is a good choice and check out the wing-flex on takeoff. AWESOME!   

AC's second 77L arrives next week, by the way.

The fifth 77W was doing training yesterday and then went out last night full to LHR, and will be turned to YYC today to handle that route for a few weeks, IIRC.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 35): turned to YYC today to handle that route for a few weeks, IIRC.

It was supposed to arrive a minute ago as AC 851, but is showing late and will get in close to 3 local time. I'm here in YYC waiting to see it! I guess they want to go head-to-head with BA's 777 on the route, but I have a feeling there's just going to be too many daily seats between YYC and LHR/LGW for the next few weeks.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 32): AC's nonstop ability with the 345 has been a significant competitive advantage over CX's 343 with its westbound tech stop.

According to current schedules, CX stops in ANC in both directions on the HKG-YYZ-HKG route. Perhaps they skip the eastbound stop occasionally when load/winds permit.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 33): I would think that based on their long haul seating arrangements that the 777-300ERs operated by CX would have substantially lower cabin density than what AC is using,

From CX To Start 3rd Daily JFK / +1 Weekly PER (by YLWbased Jul 30 2007 in Civil Aviation) the seating will apparently be F6, C57,Y238

Being in SYD, I am first looking forward to the AC 777's and secondly the take off runs the 77W's especially will have.

While we have a nearly 14000 ft runway, I would expect great tracks of concrete to be used when these beasts start, especially when it is not unheard of to get 35 to 40 degree celsius days during the time of year they will be operating. The LAX and SFO flights with 744's will often use 12000 ft of runway and I would expect these aircraft to do similar.

RL

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 38): From CX To Start 3rd Daily JFK / +1 Weekly PER (by YLWbased Jul 30 2007 in Civil Aviation) the seating will apparently be F6, C57,Y238

A 48 seat difference so about 10,000lbs of people and their stuff plus the difference in cabin fitting weight. A good buffer against poor conditions. Should work well with stops needed only in the rarest of ocassions.


-widebodyphotog

Quoting Jupiter2 (Reply 39): While we have a nearly 14000 ft runway, I would expect great tracks of concrete to be used when these beasts start, especially when it is not unheard of to get 35 to 40 degree celsius days during the time of year they will be operating. The LAX and SFO flights with 744's will often use 12000 ft of runway and I would expect these aircraft to do similar.

Maybe, but keep in mind the 77W has a much better thrust-to-weight ratio than the 744.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 41): Maybe, but keep in mind the 77W has a much better thrust-to-weight ratio than the 744.

Yes it does but due to the higher wing loading takeoff performance is about the same as the 747-400 up to about 32deg C. After that field length requirements are beyond what would be safe for a 13,000ft runway at the 777-300ER highest MTOW. On a 13,000ft runway you may be talking takeoff weight reductions of nearly 5,000lbs of TOW per deg C at temperatures above 32 deg C. This is a critical point. However, for the Eastbound trip the aircraft should normally be well enough below certificated MTOW to allow good margins for adverse temp and navigation conditions, protect full revenue passenger payloads, and allow for half decent cargo loads.


-widebodyphotog

lets see where NZ deploy there 77w on then the likes of AKL to JFK,YYZ ,ORD are on the radar. would go for a re-start of chc-lax but push it for a chc-sfo would be nice too.

Quoting Zkojh (Reply 43): lets see where NZ deploy there 77w on then the likes of AKL to JFK,YYZ ,ORD are on the radar. would go for a re-start of chc-lax but push it for a chc-sfo would be nice too.

YYZ? Not nonstop they won't/can't. Can' even do AKL-YYZ with a 77L unless one goes for the optional tanks and even then it is a stretch.

Are there load balance considerations on the 77W that might affect payload when the MTOW is close to max. ?

Quoting Zkojh (Reply 43): ets see where NZ deploy there 77w on then the likes of AKL to JFK,YYZ ,ORD are on the radar.

I have a question on the possible payloads that NZ can achieve with the 77W as compared to the 747-400 and I want to refer to Reply 57 by Widebodyphotog in the following link... www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3392581/
Is it conceivable that NZ will be able to haul as much or more payload on the 77W than on the -400 ?
AKL-LAX is pretty much the same as SIN-CDG in distance.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 45): Are there load balance considerations on the 77W that might affect payload when the MTOW is close to max. ?

That really only applies to situations where there are both high payloads and high takeoff weights. High payload conditions really won't apply to the ULH routes mentioned here. With relatively low loads in the belly and relatively high density cabins situations where the loads cause trouble with the smaller CG limits should be very very rare.

On the shorter routes such as AKL-LAX where higher payloads allowed you basically get to the opposite extreme. Allowable payloads are going to be high so high that reaching them would be a rare occurrence. Therefore you are not going to be above 769klb often so you have a nice CG range to work with. Additionally even at TOW arbitrarily close to the highest certificated MTOW there are so many available ULD positions and configurations that the combination of heavy loads and high takeoff weights will basically never get you into trouble. lastly on these shorter routes center tank fuel loads are relatively low and that goes a long way to keeping CG well within limits.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 46): I have a question on the possible payloads that NZ can achieve with the 77W as compared to the 747-400 and I want to refer to Reply 57 by Widebodyphotog in the following link... www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3392581/ Is it conceivable that NZ will be able to haul as much or more payload on the 77W than on the -400 ? AKL-LAX is pretty much the same as SIN-CDG in distance.

The short answer is yes and it should be quite a bit more and in terms of usable excess payload it would be close to double so the cargo guys need to get cracking! For example, their 747-400's should be currently operating with payloads in the 105-110,000lb range for the Eastbound trips. This should allow gross cargo payloads of about 12t at 100% passenger load factor. A 777-300ER fitted out to NZ cabin spec's would be able to manage 125-130,000lb payloads allowing more than 25t gross cargo loads with an estimated 340 passenger load. As I mentioned before temperature is a factor and AKL's 12,000ft long runway could be an issue when it gets hotter. It does not look like 775,000lbs would not be available above 31 deg C (however I don't think NZ has opted for the highest MTOW), but again not a problem as you have 50,000lb+ payload buffer before you would have to worry about offloading passengers from a full ship so the operation should have very comfortable margins.



-widebodyphotog

Has NZ ordered 77Ws? When? How many?


raggi

Quoting Raggi (Reply 48): Has NZ ordered 77Ws? When? How many?

Lets put this in context.... look for " New Zealand Aviation Thread #8" and posting 135.
This is from NZ insider, I believe that it is authorative.
This fellows information to date cannot be faulted. Earlier speculation was for 8-frames. Historically NZ has purchased one half and leased one-half from ILFC. At this time ILFC has only one announced undelivered order on for the 77W. But GECAS has 6. But who knows how many of these 7 have been placed. Did I read some where recently that Fyfe was complaining about the cost of additional capacity!! Sounds to me that he cannot have has cake and eat it !