This question has been bugging me lately, why do airlines not use the 777-200LR? It can do everything the 200 and 200ER can, but better. It can hold the exact same amount of passengers, fly at the exact same cruise altitude and cruise speed, but it can fly up to 2000NM further, and take off up to 2000 feet faster. All I see are plusses to the LR, I can't see any reason why airlines wouldn't use it over the 200 or the 200ER. With the LR airlines can fly the same routes as the 200 and 200ER, but it burns less fuel, so that is basically just money savings and more economicaly friendly for the envoirnment. So can anyone explain why airlines dont use the LR very much?

A lot of airlines don't need that sort of range at the moment, so why buy LR's when they've already got ER's or can get used ones easily. If they want to go for a new build, they'll go for the -300ER as they can pack in more self loading cargo and have more than enough range.

Don't quote me on this as I'm going off memory. <br /><br />However...I believe that the cost savings of the LR only come with ultra long haul, so if you have the same load on the same flight (say 3500nm) then the ER and LR will be equal and the ER might even be more economical then. <br /><br />And even though the LR can carry more cargo, if you can't fill up the cargo capacity that's just lost money - on shorter flights I think the ER is more economical fuel wise- so there's no point in having the extra capacity. <br /><br />Then you can start getting into things like CASM etc. <br /><br />Basically the LR is a very good economic plane for a very specialized mission, and if you don't fly that mission then you don't need that plane. <br /><br />Hope that's clearer <br /><br />Lee

Many airlines dont need the range plus many don't want to get rid of a perfectly good ER for a very expensive brand new LR. Plus many airlines op for the 300 due to its higher pax capacity.

Yeah if you want a new 777 you'll either get a 300ER or settle for the 200LR but not utilize its range. <br /><br />Or get an older 200ER.<br /><br />Sorry about the formatting I shouldn't be using tapatalk I guess

Thanks to the OP for starting this thread. Something learned in the replies.

Keep in mind the 200 and 200ER have been available for much longer (nearly 10 years) than the 200LR. There are around 500 -200 (ER and non) vs approx 130 200LR and F variants. The gap isn't as big as I though it was for such a niche aircraft.

Don't quote me on this as I'm going off memory. <br /><br />However...I believe that the cost savings of the LR only come with ultra long haul, so if you have the same load on the same flight (say 3500nm) then the ER and LR will be equal and the ER might even be more economical then. <br /><br />And even though the LR can carry more cargo, if you can't fill up the cargo capacity that's just lost money - on shorter flights I think the ER is more economical fuel wise- so there's no point in having the extra capacity. <br /><br />Then you can start getting into things like CASM etc. <br /><br />Basically the LR is a very good economic plane for a very specialized mission, and if you don't fly that mission then you don't need that plane. <br /><br />Hope that's clearer <br /><br />Lee

That makes a lot of sense, thanks

Hi. I'm Airline manager from 1998. I'd like a 777-200LR please.

 

Oh they don't exist yet?

 

 

Airlines can't buy non-existing products to fly in their fleets. If they need a 777 now, then they're gonna have to buy one that exists.

 

The 777-200 was first available in 1995.

The 777-200LR was first available from about 2006.

 

so why are there less -200LR's in airline fleets?

 

because 11 years.

 

This question has been bugging me lately, why do airlines not use the 777-200LR?

 

Actually airlines do use the LR though not as much.

 

I flew on one from Melbourne to Doha to Melbourne September and October last year with QATAR airlines..and very nice it was too.

 

I think I have seen a few in Emirates livery around Dubai as well.

 

Those legs are 15 hours plus

Some airlines are a bit tight on money lol! Their first priority when buying a new plane is of course.......... money.

A 200LR costs 291.2 where as a 200ER cost 258.8 ( all in $millions). You can save 32.4 million by buying the 200ER.

 

There are around 500 -200 (ER and non) vs approx 130 200LR and F variants. The gap isn't as big as I though it was for such a niche aircraft.

There are 510 -200/-200ERs ordered or delivered versus 58 -200LRs.  There isn't much of an order backlog for the -200LR (3).  The versions in greater demand at the moment are the -300ER and -200F.

 

Based on current orders and deliveries the 777-300ER/200LR/200F family form the majority of all 777s.  But the -200LR is very much a niche aeroplane, designed for extreme payload/range, which is why relatively few have been ordered.  Very long direct routes are all very well, but well located en-route stops make economic sense for airlines.  You really don't need those big GE90-115s and the beefed up structure for less extreme ranges.

There are 510 -200/-200ERs ordered or delivered versus 58 -200LRs. There isn't much of an order backlog for the -200LR (3). The versions in greater demand at the moment are the -300ER and -200F.

I simply included the numbers for the 200F in my estimate of 200LRs as the F is a modified LR with alot less range.

Very interesting fact, always wondered, thanks to the OP.

 

Last year when flying from OMDB-VOMM, there was a delay and so we ended up on a 200LR for the short flight. I remember thinking to myself, what a criminal waste of range

There are 510 -200/-200ERs ordered or delivered versus 58 -200LRs. There isn't much of an order backlog for the -200LR (3). The versions in greater demand at the moment are the -300ER and -200F.I simply included the numbers for the 200F in my estimate of 200LRs as the F is a modified LR with alot less range.

But the 200F is not a 200LR. The question asked by the thread is why don't airlines fly the LR.