|Quoting rotating14 (Reply 1):|
My opinion is that when the fox can't reach the berry, he'll say its sour. If you have to sell your wares to look for some kind of profit, it not the machine that faulty, its the operator. They knew what they were buying and furthermore its a 777-LR. Lets see what kind of efficiency they would have gotten from a A340-500 or -600?!?
A bad tradesman blames his tools, and that is precisely what AI
|Quoting na (Reply 5):|
The 777LR isnt exactly a fuel saver. And time moves on. The efficient aircraft of yesterday are the gas guzzlers of today, and the 787 surely beats the 777.
The 777-200LR uses less fuel and carries more payload than the A340-500, and flies further to boot. It is
the most fuel efficient ULH aircraft that money can buy today. The 787 doesn't quite have the range of the 777.
That said, for India - JFK
, the 787 can make the route fairly easily.
The problem with AI
's 777-200LRs is that they cannot make best use of it. It's not the aircraft's fault that the airline is mismanaged. The article says that the 777-200LRs have too much capacity for the route. Perhaps they would've been better off buying A343s or A332s and fly them weight restricted to JFK
. It's not the aircraft's fault that they bought the wrong plane for the job.
|Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 20):|
I thought the 77W burns less fuel as compared to the A330.
Per seat, yes. Per trip, no.
|Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 24):|
I am calling pure BS on this one. IF DL and AC can make it work, then there is no reason that AI can not.
|Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 25):|
The 77L's seat costs are astronomical compared to the 787, which is replacing it.
That may be, but the 77L has more capacity and more range than any 787. The fact that AI
don't need that extra capacity and range is hardly the 777's fault. It's AI
's for buying the wrong plane in the first place.
Incidentally, what are the cargo loads like on routes to JFK
? The 777-200LR can fly about 7600nm still air range without payload penalties, so it should be able to make DEL
(6359nm great circle) without any weight restrictions. The 77L isn't a one trick pony; it can be used quite profitably on non-ULH routes if there is a strong cargo demand.
|Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 25):|
The people saying that the 787 is the lifeline aren't the same people who are delaying the 787 or trying to sell the 777.
Sounds to me like AI
can't make up their minds.
|Quoting art (Reply 27):|
Sounds like Air India has insufficient demand to warrant a 777 on the New York route. That's not the aircraft's fault. It's Air India's fault if the aircraft is the wrong size for the route.
You have to ask how Air India managed to lose money at a rate of $200+ million a year on one route yet not do something to correct the situation earlier.
|Quoting garpd (Reply 31):|
And there we have the crux of the matter. They are using a large, powerful jet on routings which are no where near what it was designed for. If a 787 is to replace it on the same routes and is expected to be far more efficient on them, then those routes were never ideal for the 772LR
A bad cook always blames his ingredients.
AI fouled up and they're out to pin the blame on anyone but themselves. Small children do that. Not Airlines.
|Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):|
I notice Boeing doesn't even bother to mention the fuel load with auxiliary tanks for the 777-200LR in the ACAP, I imagine because no customer has ordered them.
In the August 2009 ACAP, it's in 5.4.4. Three auxiliary tanks give an extra 21,000L / 5,550 gallons, which gives 202,283L in total. If my maths is correct, then that works out to be 162,397kg, or about 17t more than the standard 777-200LR without auxiliary tanks.
[Edited 2012-08-22 02:27:55]