Why Does AC Need The 772LR?

gilesdavies · Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:01 pm

I'm throwing myself a bit into the lions den here, by asking this question, so please be kind...

I noticed Air Canada use their 777-200LR almost exclusively on the HKG and YVR-SYD routes with the occassional routes to Europe...

Im just curious why the airline chose to purchase the LR version?

From my understanding UA (AKA CO) operate the 777-200ER EWR-HKG which is a slightly longer routing than HKG, and they operate this route without any major weight restrictions. Friend of mine, is an AC fan and usually travels HKG, but the route was a lot more expensive recently and to get his Star Alliance miles chose the UA option and said the flight was 100% full in both directions.

Would it not have made sense from an economic, planning and technical perspective for AC just to have a single fleet 777-300ER's, which would have the range to fly the above routes. As I know CX also fly the 777-300ER HKG-JFK.

Even if the 777-300ER was too big for some of these routes, the 777-200ER could fly the routes AC does, as demonstrated by UA.

Would I also be right in thinking a 772LR costs a similar price and has a similar weight to a 777-300ER?

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=yyz-yvr...hkg,+yyz-hkg,+ewr-hkg,+yyz-yvr-syd

[Edited 2012-06-24 10:07:14]

Stitch · Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:14 pm

Quoting gilesdavies (Thread starter):
I'm just curious why the airline chose to purchase the LR version?

While it has a higher list price than the 777-200ER, average sales prices for the 777-200LR are very close to the 777-200ER (quite possibly due to GE working deals on the engines since they are the exclusive provider). Also, the 777-200LR is a more efficient airframe than the 777-200ER on long-haul missions and it can carry a full load a fair bit farther than a 777-200ER.

Jean Leloup · Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:44 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Also, the 777-200LR is a more efficient airframe than the 777-200ER on long-haul missions and it can carry a full load a fair bit farther than a 777-200ER.

I guess the question is, then, are they making used of this extra capability? Are they actually lifting more (cargo+pax) to HKG than they could if they just had teh 777-200ER? If not, then it still seems like a waste. But given the fact that they previously operated the A340-500 on the route at a time when the 777-200ER was available, I'm thinking that there is indeed a heavy and profitable cargo load that takes advantage of the capability.

JL

lhcvg · Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:54 pm

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 2):
I guess the question is, then, are they making used of this extra capability? Are they actually lifting more (cargo+pax) to HKG than they could if they just had teh 777-200ER? If not, then it still seems like a waste. But given the fact that they previously operated the A340-500 on the route at a time when the 777-200ER was available, I'm thinking that there is indeed a heavy and profitable cargo load that takes advantage of the capability.

As Stitch pointed out, a good bit of 77L work is on routes where a 77E can make it, but with some restrictions. It would also give you insurance against a possible fuel stop for a route where unexpected headwinds would eat into fuel reserves on a 77E, like 757s on transatlantic flights. Also don't forget that by definition a 77L will have better hot and high performance if you do decide to take a payload hit on a given route.

XT6Wagon · Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:57 pm

You are also forgetting that the 772LR is in the same family as the 773ER, so it makes far more sense to pay a bit more upfront to get the 772LR over the 772ER if you are going to operate the 773ER.

yyz717 · Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:00 pm

There is commentary in a recent thread that AC is considering long term leases on additional 77L's from Air-India that the Indian carrier is planning to remove from service.

seabosdca · Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:11 pm

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 2):
Are they actually lifting more (cargo+pax) to HKG than they could if they just had teh 777-200ER?

Yes.

I have no idea whether it's making them a lot of money, but they are flying a whole lot of cargo with those 77Ls. YYZ-HKG on a 77E would allow for very little cargo.

Whiteguy · Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:52 pm

Quoting yyz717,
There is commentary in a recent thread that AC is considering long term leases on additional 77L's from Air-India that the Indian carrier is planning to remove from service.

reply=5:

I've also read somewhere the deal is done. AC will not be taking these aircraft.

Kermode · Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:07 pm

According to Boeing's and Air Canada's spec sheets::

777-200ER:

Fuel Capacity: 171, 170 L (45, 220 US gallons)
MTOW: 297,550 kg (656, 000 lbs)
Range: 14, 305 km (7, 725 nm)

777-200LR:

Fuel Capacity: 202, 570 L (53, 515 US gallons)
MTOW: 347, 450 kg (766, 000 lbs)
Range: 17, 446 km (9, 395 nm)

**Note Air Canada ordered their 777-200LR's with the 3 optional fuel tanks boosting fuel capacity from 181, 280 L (47, 903 US gallons) to 202, 570 L (53, 515 US gallons)

777-300ER

Fuel Capacity: 181, 280 L (47, 903 US gallons)
MTOW: 351, 530 kg (775, 000 lbs)
Range:14, 594 km (7, 930 nm)

Air Canada operate their 77L's on three major routes, and are rarely seen going to Frankfurt:

YYZ-HKG (12, 569 km)
YYZ-PVG (11, 438 km)
YYZ-YVR-SYD (12, 484 km) for YVR-SYD only

As you can see, all of the extended or long range 777's can fly every route that Air Canada currently uses their 77L's on. The closest they are pushed to their limits is YYZ-HKG and they can still fly another 4877 km. Perth, Australia is the only major city that they cannot theoretically operate too (ignoring headwinds, payload restrictions and going solely on max range). Also YYZ-YVR-SYD was operated with a 77W before they received their 77L:s and if I remember correctly there were some payload restrictions.

Therefore we're sort of left with one other option. There is major cargo uplift on all of these routes. I believe Air Canada made the right choice in choosing the 77L as it allows them to operate all their routes freely.

Also, Boeing sold these triple sevens to replace Air Canada's fleet of A340's. Perhaps the LR was offered quite cheap and they couldn't pass up the opportunity to have an aircraft with fantastic range and payload without the larger upfront cost?

Just my

Kermode

Viscount724 · Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:20 pm

As already mentioned, cargo has always been important for AC (they were the launch carrier and first operator of both the DC-8-50F combi and 747-200M combi).

While CX uses the 77W on YYZ-HKG, they also have a fleet of 747 freighters while AC has to carry all their cargo on passenger aircraft.

Kermode · Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:25 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):
AC has to carry all their cargo on passenger aircraft.

Precisely, and if I'm not mistaken AC had ordered 2 777F's before they cancelled them and took other passenger versions.

Could be wrong about what they took in return or if anything at all but I know they had ordered 2 freighter versions.

cat3dual · Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:47 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):

You are also forgetting that the 772LR is in the same family as the 773ER, so it makes far more sense to pay a bit more upfront to get the 772LR over the 772ER if you are going to operate the 773ER.

All 777s are in the same "family".

krisyyz · Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:47 pm

Quoting Kermode (Reply 10):

Precisely, and if I'm not mistaken AC had ordered 2 777F's before they cancelled them and took other passenger versions.

Could be wrong about what they took in return or if anything at all but I know they had ordered 2 freighter versions.

I think they became 77Ws but I could be wrong as well. I remember AC changed their 777 order breakdown a couple of times.

AC did operate some leased MD-11Fs for a bit as all cargo ops.

The difference between the GE90-94B (for the -200ER) and -110BL could have also played into this decision as well. From what I know about GE90s (which isn't a lot) , the difference between the -115 and -110 is purely software related, as the -94B may have some hardware differences.

KrisYYZ

ghifty · Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:00 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
You are also forgetting that the 772LR is in the same family as the 773ER, so it makes far more sense to pay a bit more upfront to get the 772LR over the 772ER if you are going to operate the 773ER.

This:

Quoting cat3dual (Reply 11):
All 777s are in the same "family".

Is it easier and/or more cost effective to train between the 77L and 77W because they have the same wing and (almost) engines, than say, the 77L and 77E (-200ER)?

Viscount724 · Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:04 pm

Quoting krisyyz (Reply 12):

AC did operate some leased MD-11Fs for a bit as all cargo ops.

Those were wet-leases. AC didn't operate the aircraft themselves.

seabosdca · Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:06 pm

Quoting Kermode (Reply 8):
**Note Air Canada ordered their 777-200LR's with the 3 optional fuel tanks boosting fuel capacity from 181, 280 L (47, 903 US gallons) to 202, 570 L (53, 515 US gallons)

Are you sure about this? I hadn't previously heard this, and it wouldn't make a lot of sense given their route network.

cat3dual · Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:11 pm

Quoting ghifty (Reply 13):
Is it easier and/or more cost effective to train between the 77L and 77W because they have the same wing and (almost) engines, than say, the 77L and 77E (-200ER)?

No. Here at Delta, we have two 777 flight simulators. One -232ER, one -232LR. The pilots train between them. There is only difference training between the subtypes.

A 777 is a 777, training-wise. Load planning is an entirely different animal, but even that is all computerized anyway.

XT6Wagon · Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:19 pm

Quoting cat3dual (Reply 16):
A 777 is a 777, training-wise. Load planning is an entirely different animal, but even that is all computerized anyway.

Not for MX. The 777LR family is quite a bit different than its 777ER brothers. While its closer than a completely differing plane, its still enough to keep many airlines that COULD use a 772LR on some routes from buying said frames and mixing them into thier 772ER fleets.

ghifty · Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:23 pm

Quoting cat3dual (Reply 16):
No. Here at Delta, we have two 777 flight simulators. One -232ER, one -232LR. The pilots train between them. There is only difference training between the subtypes.

A 777 is a 777, training-wise. Load planning is an entirely different animal, but even that is all computerized anyway.

Thanks for the info!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17):
Not for MX. The 777LR family is quite a bit different than its 777ER brothers. While its closer than a completely differing plane, its still enough to keep many airlines that COULD use a 772LR on some routes from buying said frames and mixing them into thier 772ER fleets.

I don't mean to change the topic.. but what else is "quite a bit different" between the LR's and ER's aside from the engines? Fuel lines..?

Kermode · Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:24 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 15):
Are you sure about this? I hadn't previously heard this, and it wouldn't make a lot of sense given their route network.

I just made a deduction based on info from Air Canada and Boeing. Air Canada's website ( http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/77L.html ) has fuel capacity listed as 202,570L and according to Boeing ( http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.html ) three additional fuel tanks provide 202,570L. Which led me to that conclusion. You are right that they don't need the extra fuel for range wise. As even without it could still easily fly their longest routes and then some, according to Boeing the three extra fuel tanks add 600 nautical miles.

It still comes down to the ability to uplift more cargo on these ultra-long haul routes. Also paired with Boeing's discounts at the time as they we're switching AC off their A340's onto 777's, making them an almost all Boeing long haul operator.

[Edited 2012-06-24 16:30:31]

[Edited 2012-06-24 16:30:51]

DarkSnowyNight · Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:51 pm

Quoting Kermode (Reply 19):

The AC Link has been out of date since 2007 (it appears), and based on some of the other items listed, it does sort of look as though it was cut/pasted from Boeing, which would hinder accuracy in this matter. My guess is that this is either the case or AC did order them with supplementals, and then altered the plan. It would not be the 1st time they've (or many other airlines for that matter) have changed the configuration of a given order.

I say this because as far as I am aware, there are no PAX 777s with the extra tankage in existence anywhere. Which would of course rule out AC having any. I do have the ability to check on this for sure at work tomorrow (since I admit I'm now less than totally sure), and I'll let you know what I see there.

Stitch · Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:51 pm

I don't believe any 777-200LR operator has chosen to install additional fuel tanks.

longhauler · Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:53 pm

Quoting Kermode (Reply 19):

I just made a deduction based on info from Air Canada and Boeing. Air Canada's website ( http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/77L.html ) has fuel capacity listed as 202,570L and according to Boeing ( http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.html ) three additional fuel tanks provide 202,570L. Which led me to that conclusion.

That makes perfect sense, and I can see how you came to that conclusion.

But looking at the AOM's for our Triples show a fuel capacity of 181,270L in three tanks for both the -233 and the -333.

Kermode · Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:17 am

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 20):
it does sort of look as though it was cut/pasted from Boeing

Very much a possibility, that's why I don't like relying solely on airline websites for specs. But there do seem to be some subtle differences on the two sites. Most likely as Boeing updates their's while Air Canada has no real reason to do so.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
I don't believe any 777-200LR operator has chosen to install additional fuel tanks.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 22):
But looking at the AOM's for our Triples show a fuel capacity of 181,270L in three tanks for both the -233 and the -333.

Well that about says it! Seems as though I was wrong and it's great to be informed more about it

Sorta too bad, It would be awesome if they really had that amount of range in them. I was reading while I researched this that Boeing was considering 6 extra tanks! Just so it could do LHR-SYD. Guess if no one needs 3, no one needs 6!

However this thread seems to contradict that: Delta Wants More Range From Boeing 777-200LR (by ClassicLover Mar 17 2008 in Civil Aviation)

pnwtraveler · Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:19 am

When AC saw first hand how much cargo the bellies of the 77L and 77W held, they realized they didn't need the extra lift of the 77F and so cancelled or converted them. For a while they wet leased two cargo aircraft, and when all the 777's were in the fleet there was no need to extend the leases. Since then the economy has been softer as well. You can see where the cargo is going by where the 777's are deployed. Lower volume routes get the 763 or 333. None of the 777 routes test the distance capabilities of the 777 but the LR is able to fly the YYZ-YVR-SYD route full without a significant weight penalty. FRA gets the 77W not 77L. Odd substitutions are possible.

Whiteguy · Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:12 am

Quoting Kermode (Reply 8):
Also YYZ-YVR-SYD was operated with a 77W before they received their 77L:s and if I remember correctly there were some payload restrictions.

The restrictions on this flight were intentional when operated with the 77W. It was restricted to the same seating capacity as the 77L. By doing this the extra seats weren't sold so weight restrictions were never an issue.

jfk777 · Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:37 am

Air Canada may have ordered the 777-200 LR to have a fleet of 2 777 sizes that are the same plane as the 77W and the LR are the same. Having -200ER is similar but NOT the same as a 77W.

sunrisevalley · Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:46 pm

When you compare the 77W and 77L on ~ 15 hr flight sectors ( YYZ-HKG or YVR-SYD ) the max payload of the 77w ~43t which with in AC's case a max passenger load of 349-passengers leaves ~ 10t for freight.
On the same sectors the 77L is good for 59t . At 270 max passenger load it is volume limited to ~ 22t of freight. As you can see for an airline with significant freight volume the 77L is very attractive and fits in well with the 77W.
EK make great use of the 77W 77L combination in DXB-LAX . The 77W carries only limited freight on that route. By using the 77L as the second flight most days allows them to maintain their freight business on the city pair.

seabosdca · Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:55 pm

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 24):
Lower volume routes get the 763 or 333.

The 333 has exactly the same useful hold volume as the 77L, and should be able to use all of it on YYZ transatlantic routes.

LuisKMIA · Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:13 pm

Boeing was hoping to attact a direct LHR-SYD with the extra fuel tanks with a stop on the return due to winds for the -200LR. But at the end of the day, cargo seems to be more of an interest to airlines. I also noticed some are replacing older -200ERs with -300ERs (more pax and cargo plus similar operating costs).

Has anyone heard about Delta's feelings/analysis on having a mixed -200ER/-200LR fleet?

I really like the -200LR and -300ER and I think Boeing is going to offer some pretty impressive spect with the 777 upgrade that is still in the works.

[Edited 2012-06-25 08:28:37]

flight152 · Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:23 pm

Quoting LuisKMIA (Reply 29):
I really like the -200LR and -300LR

Hm? There is no -300LR

lhcvg · Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:28 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17):
Not for MX. The 777LR family is quite a bit different than its 777ER brothers. While its closer than a completely differing plane, its still enough to keep many airlines that COULD use a 772LR on some routes from buying said frames and mixing them into thier 772ER fleets.

OTOH, is the 77L pretty similar to the 77W for mx? I'm curious to know if having all those 77W parts offers significant mx commonality.

LuisKMIA · Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:29 pm

Thanks, I fixed the typo

135mech · Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:42 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 28):
The 333 has exactly the same useful hold volume as the 77L, and should be able to use all of it on YYZ transatlantic routes.

However the 333 has a siginificantly less amount of range:

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamili...engeraircraft/a330family/a330-300/

"This jetliner has a range of up to 5,450 nautical miles while carrying 300 passengers in a typical two-cabin arrangement, seating 36 in first or business class at a 60-inch seat pitch, and 264 in coach at 32-inch pitch. "

Stitch · Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:05 pm

Quoting 135mech (Reply 33):
However the 333 has a siginificantly less amount of range:

With a 45t payload, range is ~3900nm for an A330-300E (per the Airbus ACAP), which puts much of Western Europe within range of Top

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net