Quoting rotating14 (Reply 45): If I reremember correctly the LR has the same engine as the 77W, sans the software upgrade that gives it the extra thrust boost. Could Boeing add the engine from the LR to the 77W so that carriers could have the added benefit of thrust plus the extra pax that the LR leaves behind?

777-300ER - Only available with the GE90-115B

777-200LR - Either the GE90-110B OR the -115B as an option.

I believe the current EK 77L have the 115B already?

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 18): Even if they use 777-200LRs to "open routes," the fleet at the moment isn't opening anything, other than MCO. If MCO needs 2 frames, and GIG-EZE needs 3, that is 5 they have flying short/medium haul routes. Based on that, EK can be in the "opening" phase of up to 3 routes at a time with their current fleet of 777-200LRs.

MCO is an airport where I could see them needing the 77L. They are scheduling it as a nearly 16 hour flight to MCO and 14 hour return to DXB which is probably pushing a 77W's limits, especially in the summer at EK's scheduled 1430 departure from MCO (100+ deg heat and humidity like only a Florida swamp can deliver). I also think they are anticipating high cargo demand on the route, seeing as Emirates Skycargo is piggybacking along and adding MCO as a destination and touting the "17 tonne" payload capacity of the 77L. Asking because I don't know - could a 77W lift that much on the route and make it off the ground in the middle of a Florida summer? Would it be able to do that and fill the extra seats it has over a 77L?

Quoting 77west (Reply 50): 777-200LR - Either the GE90-110B OR the -115B as an option.

The two engines are the same except for the rating plug.

Quoting 77west (Reply 50): I believe the current EK 77L have the 115B already?

   If there's one thing you can count on from EK, it's equipping aircraft with any high thrust option available.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 52): Quoting 77west (Reply 50):777-200LR - Either the GE90-110B OR the -115B as an option. The two engines are the same except for the rating plug.

Correct. You can change between them at will*, what I meant was that the 2LR has 2 rating options wheras the 3ER only has the 115B as an option.

*Provided you pay Boeing and or GE and or your engine lessor the required money.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 40): Had to chuckle at the following WSJ line though:

I would bet that the 777 program makes more profit than the 737 actually. I don't think they are far off but I think the 777 has the edge. I would take the aircraft that costs 4 times more and has very little competition over an aircraft that is quarter of the price and faces the stiffest of competition. Of course this will change in a couple years.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 41): Where else in Oceania? POM, NAN, GUM, PPT, HNL, SCL and for really way out WLG!!!

Its been a while since I had to look up an airport code but you made me do it with POM! I don't think NAN is that far fetched or PPT. I don't think SCL is Oceania but it is South America and I think that it is very well an option. I also proposed HNL so I agree there. I have zero nice things to say about GUM and POM so I will leave them but I think you have to be on to something.

I understand that the AKL flights are just because they can't let aircraft sit in SYD and maybe ALK is the only place they can really go. Maybe that can be re-though. Not sure. Thanks for the feedback.

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 51): They are scheduling it as a nearly 16 hour flight to MCO and 14 hour return to DXB which is probably pushing a 77W's limits

EK flew a 77W to LAX for years and that is 500nm further. I don't think it was a walk in the park and they may have had to take restrictions but I think a 77W could do MCO but I don't think they will rush into that.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 54): I don't think NAN is that far fetched or PPT

If they are not far fetched, neither is POM (although I have zero nice things to say about POM, its only plus is its the port of entry to a wonderful country). Haven't been to GUM, so can't comment.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 54): I don't think SCL is Oceania

We can argue that one for ever, but those of us in Oceania include the whole Pacific, south of the equator, in the term. HNL (Hawaii) is usually included because its part of Polynesia. SCL is so close I would include it if it makes sense, which it does in this case.

I want EK to WLG via SYD on a B77L! That would be so cool!

Gemuser

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 39): Why is that amazing? US companies look out for their shareholders above all. As a Boeing shareholder I want them to make that deal and if I was a DL shareholder I would want them to raise hell against the ME3 if they think they can slow their growth. As a US consumer of long haul flights I hope the ME3 spread like wildfire. Not all conflicts are aligned with one set of politics or personal interests.

I'll cede the point.

The element of irony though can't be ignored.

Your point though is valid and illustrates the forces at play in the ongoing saga.

Rgds

Quoting gemuser (Reply 55): I want EK to WLG via SYD on a B77L! That would be so cool!

Thats probably about the only way EK would serve WLG, and they would have to drop another flight with the current bilateral, personally can't see it unless they are allowed more flights, EK cover the main SYD/MEL/BNE ex AKL daily which gives business people a nice choice covering all 3 if they are frequent flyers.

A non stop to AKL opens up 35 odd cities 1 stop to Europe ex AKL, generally catering to a different market than the current SYD/MEL/BNE flights.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 54): I understand that the AKL flights are just because they can't let aircraft sit in SYD and maybe ALK is the only place they can really go.

Its not cheap to park in SYD, particularly but EK are allowed 4 daily Tasman services currently, 3 to AKL all A380s and a SYD-CHC 77W service. There isn't to many other places to send them, SYD/MEL/BNE-NAN/PPT?

Quoting gemuser (Reply 36): BTW: CHC is a daily B77W via SYD. Would not be surprised to see it go A380 within a few years!

IMO it would only go A380 obviously if EK upgauge the DXB-BKK-SYD to an A380 or make it non stop, the 77W carries alot of freight and alot more than what an A380 carries.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 55): If they are not far fetched, neither is POM

Ok maybe my view is jaded. I just know about two dozen people from the States that have been to PPT and/or NAN but I know of zero people who have been to POM. The population there is less than 500k and not the most affluent. I would think they would have direct flights to China (mainland) or Thailand or India before they would get a flight to DXB but I guess anything can happen.

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 56):

Too often people around would just not respond or become combative. I recognize the irony but appreciate the comments more.

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 57): There isn't to many other places to send them

I hear you and launching a new direct flight to AKL doesn't exactly improve yields.

I am at a loss. Lots more opportunity in South America than Oceania if you ask me.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 32): I was referring to the 777-200LR not the 777-200F.

I know, but what I meant was that the 77L is the base for the 777F, so that the 77L, even with lack of orders, will still be built regularly but as 777F.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 23): A 747 can take off from MEX and reach Europe, so a high-powered plane like 77L should do a bit better than that ? No ?

Quads normally have better hot and high performance than twins.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 54): I would bet that the 777 program makes more profit than the 737 actually. I don't think they are far off but I think the 777 has the edge. I would take the aircraft that costs 4 times more and has very little competition over an aircraft that is quarter of the price and faces the stiffest of competition. Of course this will change in a couple years.

If they're anything like Auto sales, or construction equipment sales... then probably not.

Per unit? Of course a 777 will bring in a higher profit margin than a 737. In aggregate? I doubt it.

Sold just about everything in my time... and while aircraft aren't among them, I'd still be *BEYOND* shocked if the same concept didn't apply, on an overall basis.

Quoting The777Man (Reply 2): Perhaps new service to WLG or CHC and nonstop to AKL ?

Haha you sound as hopeful as guys in the NZ aviation thread  

Won't happen.. Not even sure if AKL would warrant a nonstop AKL-DXB. Especially WLG - it probably won't be able to depart with a full payload year round. Maybe in 60kt winds. I see EK choosing something like DXB-KUL/CGK/SIN/BKK-AKL before they launch a direct DXB-AKL. There were rumours a decade ago that EK wanted to turn AKL into a hub and start AKL-LAX haha. Just imagine that..

Quoting The777Man (Reply 42): Perhaps there's too much capacity to AKL and they will cut one of the 380s and add a nonstop instead ? That should make QF more to get back some Trans Tasman traffic.

QF doesn't seem to want it - they're happy enough to change AKL from predominantly 763s to 738s. And they don't have any other suitable planes right now to serve the route (wouldn't expect them to have enough 330s for it).

Quoting The777Man (Reply 42): It's not so great going to/from Europe to New Zealand when you have to stop in Australia first.......

That's why you choose another airline if you don't want to have a quick stop in Australia   CX, SQ, MH, TG, NZ, KE  

Quoting hongkongflyer (Reply 46):

True, but the current flight schedule already provides ample downtime for such routine checks. 9.5 hours on the ground in GIG, 8 hours back home, each rotation. You can schedule a 6x week rotation every so often to perform a lengthier check, but honestly, a single spare would suffice for 3 such routes. So that's 7 aircraft for 3 routes. Not the dire situation it was painted as.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 41): Well if its AKL I would assume there would be a major realignment on the Tasman as EK via the QF/EK agreement is a major part of the Trans Tasman capacity, QF not regularly operating wide bodies to NZ, so if EK pull the SYD-AKL (for example) A380 that's a big hole to fill. Not saying it couldn't happen but it won't be simple. Also EK withdrawing capacity from the Tasman will effect the QF/EK approval, I think but don't remember the details that there is an QF/EK minimum capacity required. Where else in Oceania? POM, NAN, GUM, PPT, HNL, SCL and for really way out WLG!!! (Due runway issues) All pretty unlikely, I grant you [except SCL] but adding more capacity to AKL just seems silly, but who knows? I have officially given up trying to guess what Joyce, Clarke & Parker will do next!

Existing AKL routes are pretty full from my experience and serve more than just the DXB and beyond markets. They provide much needed capacity on the Tasman after years of dwindling competition on these routes, alongside much needed widebody freight capacity. They also provide connections to the Asian connections that EK serves via MEL, SYD and BNE.

I could definitely see a nonstop AKL service, targeting more premium or Europe bound pax. Perhaps EK could extend AKL as a through-station for LAX or South American services, providing a RTW option. I think they have the rights to do so (unlikely via Australia given the protectionist stance there - see SQ).

WLG - no chance (runway, tiny market).

CHC - at a stretch. But after AKL, I'd say.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 64): Perhaps EK could extend AKL as a through-station for LAX or South American services, providing a RTW option. I think they have the rights to do so (unlikely via Australia given the protectionist stance there - see SQ).

I hope not, TBH its just not their territory.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 64): alongside much needed widebody freight capacity. They also provide connections to the Asian connections that EK serves via MEL, SYD and BNE.

Thats key the widebody freight capacity, QF use a 763F 5x weekly SYD-AKL-CHC-SYD and a weekly SYD-AKL-CNS-HKG and a weekly 744 one way ORD-HNL-AKL-SYD-???. Other than that it is just the Jet connect 73H's for the QF group. NZ use several widebodies a day to take care of the freight capacity.

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 31): EK must be getting some good pricing on 777-200LR's for Boeing's bridge production to keep the 777 line moving till it's time to start producing the 777X.

The production gaps are a major issue for Boeing and I wouldn't be too surprised if Boeing didn't approach EK and others to offer a deal they couldn't refuse just to keep delivery numbers up before the 777X starts to take up space on the production line.

On the Oceania routes front, the three daily A380's into AKL would otherwise sit on the ground for hours at BNE, SYD and MEL, so can't see them stopping.

But what if there was a new route to AKL, and what if it was from DXB via GRU. What if EK gazumps QF, LA and NZ and provides the first non-stop route from Brazil to Australia/New Zealand?! Those three connecting A380 flights to BNE, SYD and MEL would certainly be very handy from AKL then for all the Brazillian on-traffic using AKL for transit.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 67): But what if there was a new route to AKL, and what if it was from DXB via GRU. What if EK gazumps QF, LA and NZ and provides the first non-stop route from Brazil to Australia/New Zealand?! Those three connecting A380 flights to BNE, SYD and MEL would certainly be very handy from AKL then for all the Brazillian on-traffic using AKL for transit.

Never thought of that only a possible LAX/EZE service from AKL. However again for me it's not EK's territory so I am against the idea.

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 68): However again for me it's not EK's territory so I am against the idea.

Since when was trans Tasman EK's territory? I don't see much of a difference. They can't expand too rapidly out of AKL anyway because there's no population to support masses of flights of EK's. I wouldn't mind them giving a EZE/GRU flight a go.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 69): Since when was trans Tasman EK's territory?

Trans Tasman is a natural extension and has been for ever with the likes of CI, EK and many before them, UA, BR, BI, MH, TG.

Who though would do AKL-GRU-DXB? whats that 14.5 hours x2 or so, more on the return probably 15.5 GRU-AKL.

I'm still thinking that Boeing will offer DL a deal they can't refuse for some more 777's.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter): This is an absolute shocker to me. I would have put money down that this was a dead aircraft. Just wow.

I thought the same. In particular as PIPs allow 77Ws to fly more 77L routes with improved payload.

Quoting dhr (Reply 66): The production gaps are a major issue for Boeing and I wouldn't be too surprised if Boeing didn't approach EK and others to offer a deal they couldn't refuse just to keep delivery numbers up before the 777X starts to take up space on the production line.

As the largest 777 operator, I'm sure EK is being talked to. Since there are rumors of a 777 line slowdown for 2016 777 production, it wouldn't be as if EK had to wait long. Suppliers are always the first to squel:
“Information is now availalble on the volume Japanese suppliers plan to provide to Boeing over the next 12 months,” Mori wrote in his note. “The output is likely to be cut from FY3/17 (April 1, 2015-March 31, 2016). “The (current) order backlog will be delivered by 2020, when the new 777X will be delivered…so annual production is unlikely to stay at 100 aircraft. Cuts in production will lead to lower profit.”

http://leehamnews.com/2015/05/26/boe...ppliers-see-rate-cut-in-2016-baml/

If you click on the image in the above link, Boeing is going to have to cut production of 777s to 60 per year unless they stir up more orders.

Note; I see Boeing maintained peak production for the require 3 years to avoid paying penalties to vendors. So this isn't a horrid impacts.


Lightsaber

Options for EK in this part of the world...:
* DXB-CNS (probably not daily though)
* Maybe DXB-CNS-NAN, leisure pax and VFR for the Fijian Indian population
* DXB-CBR
* DXB-AKL-PPT/LIM/SCL
* As previously mentioned, DXB-WLG or possibly DXB-BNE/MEL-WLG
* DXB-PER-CHC

There's so many possibilities for EK. They can pretty much literally go anywhere in the world and somehow it'd work.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 72): Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter): This is an absolute shocker to me. I would have put money down that this was a dead aircraft. Just wow. I thought the same. In particular as PIPs allow 77Ws to fly more 77L routes with improved payload.

I'm not shocked. Keep in mind EK is also the launch customer for the 778X. They consistently see value in the smaller frame with longer range.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 72): thought the same. In particular as PIPs allow 77Ws to fly more 77L routes with improved payload.

Then this brings me to a question.
Since the A350 is often talked as 777W competitor it should have similar or better range, PIP or not. But EK has discarded them and is ordering now 77L ! .So has the 359 (or the 35J) a range problem? Otherwise I would think that it would beat a 77L (or W that is ) hands down in economics. Or maybe not, aquisition costs can turn that upside down. Is it now Boeing turn to give away their products for free?

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 75): Then this brings me to a question.

The A350-900 has much lower trip fuel burn than the 777-200LR, but the 777-200LR can lift more payload (around 11,000kg at MZFW) and fly that payload a heck of a lot farther (with a 53,000kg payload, the 777-200LR can fly a fair bit over 2000nm farther than an A350-900).

[Edited 2015-06-10 08:05:00]

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 75): Since the A350 is often talked as 777W competitor it should have similar or better range, PIP or not.

The A350 that's competing with the 77W isn't the -900, it's the -1000. It has similar or a bit better range at full passenger payload, but as with all new-generation aircraft the payload/range curve is shallower and it has a bit less range at MZFW.

The 77L is a different beast, and it has more range than any A350 is currently planned to. To create an A350 with the range of the 77L, Airbus would have to put the wings, gear, and engines from the A350-1000 onto the A350-900. They envisioned this early in the program as the "A350-900R" but there has been no motion on it since. I think by launching the 777-8X Boeing probably took away any chance of an A350-900R being built. The market is very small.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 62): That's why you choose another airline if you don't want to have a quick stop in Australia   CX, SQ, MH, TG, NZ, KE

So what cities/routes in Oceania and South America do you see EK use these 77Ls to ?

The DXB-AKL route seems like a good candidate. DXB-PPT ? DXB-NAN ??

The777Man

I don´t know if it has already be mentioned, but could it be that the B777LR are the substitutes for their B772(ER)? According to http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Emirates.htm they currently have 17 active B772s. So the numbers match quite well.

Perhaps there are some routes were EK don´t need B77Ws.

Quoting dhr (Reply 66): The production gaps are a major issue for Boeing

They have 2015 and 2016 slots filled and have 60/100 of 2017 filled. So they would need to find homes for ~40 2017 birds which sounds like ~8 customers to me. I think they could probably land 2-3 this year but I do expect a rate cut in 2017.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 67): What if EK gazumps QF, LA and NZ and provides the first non-stop route from Brazil to Australia/New Zealand?!

Interesting idea. There is definitely opportunity for that route. I would have more confidence if the Brazilian economy was trending better.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 72): If you click on the image in the above link, Boeing is going to have to cut production of 777s to 60 per year unless they stir up more orders.

I personally do not see it going that low until 2019/2020 in terms of the current 777. They have sold 25 this year so on track for ~50 and if they do that again next year then I think 2017 will be ~85 deliveries and 2018 would drop ~72.

I do think 2016 will be the last year at the ~100 delivery rate.

262 unfilled orders for the current 777 is still a heck of a lot of aircraft. Could you imagine the 747-200/400 having that many unfilled orders while having already launched a replacement? We are in nutty times.

Quoting BNEFlyer (Reply 73): DXB-CBR

I could see it but I don't think they need the 77L range for it. I think this order will push the range envelope a little more.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 74): I'm not shocked. Keep in mind EK is also the launch customer for the 778X.

All the more reason to be surprised: how many years will they have these 77Ls before the 778 lands in their fleet 3 years? Hardly anything should surprise us when it comes to EK, I just would have expected more 77Ws before 77Ls.

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 75): So has the 359 (or the 35J) a range problem?

No. It has been speculated that the A350 order was to replace A330s and A340s on their smaller - regional missions. For a number of speculated reasons they canceled it and now are re-considering it vs the 787-10. That is a separate order for a separate mission than these 77Ls are being considered.

Quoting GianiDC (Reply 79): I don´t know if it has already be mentioned, but could it be that the B777LR are the substitutes for their B772(ER)? According to http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Emirates.htm they currently have 17 active B772s.

The article specifically says for routes to South America and Oceania so I don't believe its to replace 772s. The 772s can't fly those routes. The 777x is due to replace the 772s suplemented by the A350/787-10 RFP that is currently being considered.

tortugamon

Quoting BNEFlyer (Reply 73): * As previously mentioned, DXB-WLG or possibly DXB-BNE/MEL-WLG * DXB-PER-CHC

The return leg of WLG-DXB is not possible due to WLG runway limitations, the CHC-PER leg competes with NZ and going via MEL/SYD/BNE would compete with QF/VA/NZ whereas a BXB-PER-WLG-PER-DXB has no direct competition.

Is this possible with the runway length of WLG?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 80): Quoting Revelation (Reply 74): I'm not shocked. Keep in mind EK is also the launch customer for the 778X. All the more reason to be surprised: how many years will they have these 77Ls before the 778 lands in their fleet 3 years? Hardly anything should surprise us when it comes to EK, I just would have expected more 77Ws before 77Ls.

Not a tremendously long time, but 778x rolls out after 779x (I thought the delta was 2 years but I could be wrong) and the rampup isn't going to be very swift on either and the older 772Ls will be retired off before this batch. Also of course, EK is EK, it continuously pushes the envelope.

While EK might consider the 77L, why not the A350XWB-900R, or better yet, the Boeing 777-8X, which shares a common type rating with the 777-9X EK ordered? The 778 would certainly be able to fly most of EK's longest projected routes like DXB-LAX and DXB-AKL on a full pax/cargo load.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 83): While EK might consider the 77L, why not the A350XWB-900R, or better yet, the Boeing 777-8X, which shares a common type rating with the 777-9X EK ordered? The 778 would certainly be able to fly most of EK's longest projected routes like DXB-LAX and DXB-AKL on a full pax/cargo load.

They have 35 778's on order.

I'm of the opinion that they want to start ULH flights in the interim with the LR's they might order and then when the 778's come on line, it'll be a natural transition from one to the other. Granted the LR has 9300 nm range but if they made it with a smaller configuration with more premium seats, it could work.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 82): Not a tremendously long time, but 778x rolls out after 779x (I thought the delta was 2 years but I could be wrong)

18 months I believe so EIS is about 6 years from today.  

Quoting Revelation (Reply 82): Also of course, EK is EK, it continuously pushes the envelope.

They sure are unique. I just looked at the wiki article for the longest flights and it is amazing how dominated it is by ME3 operators. Nearly 20 16 hour flights and just look at how many 77W flights are pushing its capability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stop_flight#Longest_flights

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 83): While EK might consider the 77L, why not the A350XWB-900R

The A359R doesn't exist yet. It has not been launched. The 77L could be had in 2017 so that is a lot of time to make hay as they say.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 83): or better yet, the Boeing 777-8X

They have 35 of them on order as is but they wont start coming for 6 years and as Revelation says EK has 10 77Ls that will need replacing first.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 83): The 778 would certainly be able to fly most of EK's longest projected routes

Its projected to be the longest range commercial jet liner ever produced, so yeah it could do those routes.

tortugamon

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 33): If anything, MEX-DXB seems like it would've been the perfect route for those ridiculous A345s while EK had them, but apparently EK didn't think they'd fit the bill either.

Apparently they were not good enough either. Why do you call them ridiculous though? It is a really fine aircraft.

MEX nonstop from DXB will probably have to wait until the 778X or the A380NEO. That said, MEX is not A380-compliant, but MEX 2.0 will be... whenever it is completed.

I would have to agree with those who say that a triangle route involving CUN would be the only feasible way for EK to launch MEX for the time being.

I also think that DXB-LIM and DXB-SCL would be good candidates for possible new 77L order. Perhaps BOG also but with a stop on the return due to the high altitude.

I think POM would be way too small to be serviced by EK. Perhaps DRW ? Isn't the runway very short in CBR which would make a nonstop flight to DXB difficult. Not so many cities/routes left in Oceania other than cities in New Zealand. EK already serves PER, SYD, MEL, ADL and BNE from DXB.

The777Man

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 57): they would have to drop another flight with the current bilateral, personally can't see it unless they are allowed more flights

Which bilateral is this? The UAE/NZ or UAE/Australia?

Gemuser

So to summarize what most people think as likely its the following:

Oceania: (AKL, HNL, NAN, PPT)
Latin America: (EZE, SCL, CUN/MEX, LIM)

In the meantime some of the 77Ls that are being used to open new long haul routes can be re-tasked as well to these ULH routes and/or some of the others mentioned as longer shots. Also, speculation that maybe some Oceania to South America routes could be opened as well under 5th freedoms.

It will be interesting if EK gives these a go.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 61): I'd still be *BEYOND* shocked if the same concept didn't apply, on an overall basis.

Ok, I did some digging. 100 777s without competition vs ~485 in stiff competition at about a quarter the price. I admit that I think it is close but I do still maintain it is the 777.

Here are some sources:

"On top of this feat, Boeing also said it took orders for three units of its most profitable airplane, the 777"
http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...for-its-most-profitable-plane.aspx

"Paul Nisbet, an aerospace analyst with JSA Research, estimates the 777 may account for $400 million in Boeing's pretax earnings this year, assuming the company has fully recouped the plane's development costs. That's $50 million more than Nisbet's estimate for the 747, the most profitable of the six Boeing family models in production."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...rchive/?date=20000604&slug=4024775

"The company said in an April 9 statement it is cutting output of the 777, its most profitable model, to five planes a month from seven and delaying plans to boost production of the 767 and 747-8 jumbo jet."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...conews&tkr=COL:US&sid=abe2A4L8NeNA

These quotes aren't perfect and a couple are dated but I think it paints a picture. I had previously read other articles that mentioned (like the second quote) how much the 777 contributes to pre-tax earnings but that was the best I could find this time. You be the judge!  

tortugamon

Quoting gemuser (Reply 55): I want EK to WLG via SYD on a B77L! That would be so cool!

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 81): Is this possible with the runway length of WLG?

WLG-PER-DXB would work for the 77L out of WLG with a WLG-PER payload of ~ 44t which would bring it close to MZFW. Assuming a 7 hr. flight time TOW would be ~270t somewhat less than the 283t allowed for the 77L off 6300ft. on a standard day (15C) at sea level.

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 75): So has the 359 (or the 35J) a range problem?

The A359 has less payload at range.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 85): The 77L could be had in 2017 so that is a lot of time to make hay as they say.

Possible. I'm still shocked it is the 77L and not a long range 77W. But if EK can acquire the seats, they should be able to grab a 2016 example...

Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 91): they should be able to grab a 2016 example...

Randy mentioned this a couple days ago: "...production slots for 2016 are sold out, while slots in 2017 are filled by nearly 60 percent. "

But you could be right. I am sure the customer provided equipment would not be an issue. http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/06/...for-new-aircraft-ahead-of-pas2015/

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 91): 'm still shocked it is the 77L and not a long range 77W.

Thats what makes me think they will really need the range on these routes and so I only selected routes that were outside of even 77W range.

A map of the proposed routes:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dxb-nan...dxb%0D%0A8250nm%40dxb&MS=wls&DU=nm

I had to drop PPT as that is not reachable. Neither is BOG due to altitude. So down to 7 routes and which sounds like ~15 aircraft to me.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): Neither is BOG due to altitude.

Perhaps EK could do a circle trip ? DXB-BOG-CCS-DXB. I know Venezuela has a lot of issues currently but there may still be some oil traffic to/from the gulf.

The777Man

Quoting The777Man (Reply 87): I think POM would be way too small to be serviced by EK.n

Agreed to the most extent, but it's primarily on the passenger side where it would be most difficult. A service with no stops enroute DXB-POM and vv would struggle big time as Papua New Guinea doesn't have anywhe near the best reputation for safety and security, particularly in Port Moresby itself, and in a few regional centres like Mount Hagen, Lae and Bouganville. We often see heightened security alerts for the Bouganville region here in Australia as it all comes down to tensions between villages and tribes.

Passenger numbers from DXB would be very limited due to the rather small inbound tourist market and potential but it can only grow if Papua New Guinea and the locals actively do something to improve the image of the country and grow the tourist potential. The largest inbound tourist market is well and truly from Australia as we have a strong connection with having fought wih PNG in WW2 and the Kokoda trail - PX have multi daily flights from BNE and CNS and a few flights each week to SYD, QF is multi daily from CNS and VA is 6x weekly from BNE. This well and truly covers the market for Australian tourists and PNG expats living, working and holidaying in Australia.

EK could look at a stop in Asia and open a new route into POM from say ICN as PX would be a formidable opponent on their current monopoly routes to SIN, HKG, DPS and NRT - PNG locals are very loyal to their own airline, PX, and EK might struggle to gain traction with POM originating pax so they would need to chase pax originating in Nth America, Europe and Asia. Then comes the issue of security for their crew, so overnighting would not be ideal - same day in and out like what VA, QFlink and the future services by PR do would be most appropriate. Any inbound freight would have the biggest potential as the PNG is well and truly a developing market and need the inbound freight as the local market won't be able to supply all of what is needed in the coming years. As for the outbound freight - fresh fruit and vegetables, coffee and other natural resources able be shipped by air could be looked at. A stopover in POM via an Australian stopover for a freighter service would have the best chance of success - I know the PNG market and the like better than most due to my connections still there in PNG.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 90): WLG-PER-DXB would work for the 77L out of WLG with a WLG-PER payload of ~ 44t which would bring it close to MZFW. Assuming a 7 hr. flight time TOW would be ~270t somewhat less than the 283t allowed for the 77L off 6300ft. on a standard day (15C) at sea level.

Hugh, with the same payload how far could a B77L get out of WLG's 6300ft with the extra 13t of fuel, DRW? SIN? JKT?

Gemuser

Quoting The777Man (Reply 93): Perhaps EK could do a circle trip ? DXB-BOG-CCS-DXB. I know Venezuela has a lot of issues currently but there may still be some oil traffic to/from the gulf.

Personally I cannot see a new route to CCS right now. With the government holding on to all the cash its hard to envision them inserting themselves into that mess. 5+ years ago sure. Not now in my opinion.

Anywhere else they can link BOG with? EOH tag-on would have the demand but that only gets you down to 4,900 ft and the runway is too short as well. Tough area; UIO would have some good demand too but they can't get to DXB from there either.

PTY is my next guess. Lots of connecting flights from there where they can combine BOG, EOH, UIO traffic plus Central America if they can get the right partners.

Quoting Bluebird191 (Reply 94): EK could look at a stop in Asia and open a new route into POM

But neither direct or with a stop would require a 77L so I am not sure it fits with this rumor.

tortugamon

Quoting The777Man (Reply 78): So what cities/routes in Oceania and South America do you see EK use these 77Ls to ? The DXB-AKL route seems like a good candidate. DXB-PPT ? DXB-NAN ??

Well when you're left with those alternatives, AKL would seem ok. But that's not saying too much. They'll need to make a different config as they won't sell many F seats DXB-NAN. HNL and the South American destinations not yet served (thinner routes) would be my pick.

CBR should be doable with a 77L. The inaugural EK A345 DXB-SYD landed in CBR.

I also recall that the 77L is more efficient than the 77E on sectors longer than 6 hours. So maybe there are 77E routes which could be replaced with the 77L.. And others to open up routes where the 77W might be too big (PEN?).

Quoting UsAir737 (Reply 71): I'm still thinking that Boeing will offer DL a deal they can't refuse for some more 777's.

They already did and DL said "Thanks, but no thanks."

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 97): CBR should be doable with a 77L. The inaugural EK A345 DXB-SYD landed in CBR.

I think CBR is okay to land at; problem may be to take off with a full load to DXB. CBR is an alternate for UA's SYD flights and they have landed there on rare occasion.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 97): And others to open up routes where the 77W might be too big (PEN?).

PEN is a great suggestion but the article specifically mentioned using the 77L on routes to "Oceania and South America".

I think that EK could start to compete with the likes of CX, TG, MH, SQ etc if they had a nonstop AKL-DXB flight. I do think they could perhaps cut one of the 380 flights otherwise it would too much capacity to AKL.

We'll see. First they have to place the order for the additional 77Ls....which may or may not happen.

The777Man