There are tons of rumors about longer routes but that's all they are. All the currently planned flying can be done by the -300. Heck I think it can all be done by the -200ER. So far the -300s are just doing the high yield stuff the -200 were doing. Of course we only have about four of them so far.

 

Exactly, so unless they are planning routes like KEWR-VHHH then why do they need the LR's?

aha. I have alot of admiration for Emirates, they have probably the newest fleet, they are always expanding and looking for new options and they give alot of money to Boeing. I love the fact that they buy new aircraft so often, and have hundreds on order at almost any point in time. I sometimes wonder where all that money comes from....777's ain't cheap!

 

Do you have a bunch of savings sitting in the bank doing nothing? Then you too could invest in a brand new T7 and lease it to Emirates today!

Do you have a bunch of savings sitting in the bank doing nothing? Then you too could invest in a brand new T7 and lease it to Emirates today!

 

I wish I did.

There's a lot more to operating costs than fuel burn. And there's a lot more to the relative dearth of LRs vs. ERs in various fleets than the simple fact that the ER has been in service longer (just look at the order backlogs and recent order summaries).

 

For starters, the LR costs tens of millions of dollars more per unit than an ER with a similar load capacity. Suppose the LR does have a slight advantage in fuel burn...but how many operating cycles (through fuel savings) will it take to recover that $30M difference in purchase price? You'd have to save a lot of fuel--it could take decades! There are also maintenance considerations: if you already have a large fleet of ERs, technicians don't need to be retrained and it's easier and more economical to store and supply parts (especially power plant parts) for each additional unit; the LR does not have complete parts commonality.

 

Do not underestimate the cost of maintenance--man hours (for skilled technicians) and parts are very expensive, and an aircraft down for maintenance can't generate revenue--so anything you can do to reduce those costs in a scalable way will pay dividends later. For example: airlines perform reduced thrust takeoffs to reduce wear and tear on the power plants, not to save fuel (the reduction in climb performance can actually increase overall fuel burn in some cases).

 

In the sim world, none of these things matter to us, so the LR is a better choice in part BECAUSE it can do precisely what the ER can and more--and the fact that, with a comparatively limited selection of engines and system configurations, it's also easier for the developers to model it in accurate detail.

Man this is one of the most satisfying threads I've read since the update from Pmdg, thanks for all the info guys.

I remember reading Delta is happy with the -200LRs because they can take off with a higher GW than the -200ER, but as many of you have said, more airlines want the -300ER because it carries more pax and cargo thatn the -200ER for the same cost.  Also, i do not think any airline has opted for teh additional fule tanks that make LHR-SYD possible (but SYD-LHR would still require a stop for fuel because of winds).

Man this is one of the most satisfying threads I've read since the update from Pmdg, thanks for all the info guys.

 Haha +1.

 

 

 

There's a lot more to operating costs than fuel burn. And there's a lot more to the relative dearth of LRs vs. ERs in various fleets than the simple fact that the ER has been in service longer (just look at the order backlogs and recent order summaries).

 

For starters, the LR costs tens of millions of dollars more per unit than an ER with a similar load capacity. Suppose the LR does have a slight advantage in fuel burn...but how many operating cycles (through fuel savings) will it take to recover that $30M difference in purchase price? You'd have to save a lot of fuel--it could take decades! There are also maintenance considerations: if you already have a large fleet of ERs, technicians don't need to be retrained and it's easier and more economical to store and supply parts (especially power plant parts) for each additional unit; the LR does not have complete parts commonality.

 

Do not underestimate the cost of maintenance--man hours (for skilled technicians) and parts are very expensive, and an aircraft down for maintenance can't generate revenue--so anything you can do to reduce those costs in a scalable way will pay dividends later. For example: airlines perform reduced thrust takeoffs to reduce wear and tear on the power plants, not to save fuel (the reduction in climb performance can actually increase overall fuel burn in some cases).

 

In the sim world, none of these things matter to us, so the LR is a better choice in part BECAUSE it can do precisely what the ER can and more--and the fact that, with a comparatively limited selection of engines and system configurations, it's also easier for the developers to model it in accurate detail.

s 

I agree with all this especially your part about us simmers. I bet if we were real world pilots we would like the ER better. It will be nice to see the real differences when PMDG's comes out...

I think it boils down to 3 reasons in the end: 

 

 - The LR is more expensive an initial purchase (added fuel tanks, raked wingtips)

 - The LR is costlier in maintenance because of the fuel tanks in the cargo bay (like the BBJs!). And ask a mechanic, fuel tanks suck. They take time. Time = Money.

 - There's fuel tanks in the cargo bays. Somewhere along the line this could be problematic if you need to ship a bunch of packing peanuts. Three added fuel tanks in a cargo bay eat up 2 LD3's of cargo space. 

 

(added) #4: the LR is heavier. Heavier, for no reason, is costlier, for no reason. 

(added) #5: Wider wingspan. What with gates for the A380 kick around, not as much of a problem. but heck, 5 extra meters of apron space per plane adds up if you stock only LRs

What are the perks? - For most airlines, not too much (to warrant the cost). Air Canada flies a CYVR-YSSY route with them. That's the bonus of having one, you can connect everything with them, subject to ETOPS. Not everyone needs that. and let's face it. Go for 2 less LR's and take regular 772's instead and you get a bonus 737NG for the cost savings.

 

'Tis but a business descision. 

 

Hope we can put an end to this one

@@remymerm

Arabs have millions of cubic kilometers of oil.of course the money comes from it

@@remymermArabs have millions of cubic kilometers of oil.of course the money comes from it

I don't doubt that.Remy Mermelstein777-300 FS Pilot

Nice to meet you remy!

 

MohamadReza Farhadi

IranAir A320 ZFTT simulator captain

Nice to meet you remy!MohamadReza FarhadiIranAir A320 ZFTT simulator captain

Nice to meet you too!Remy Mermelstein777-300 FS Pilot

 

Also, i do not think any airline has opted for teh additional fule tanks that make LHR-SYD possible (but SYD-LHR would still require a stop for fuel because of winds).

 

Is there even a point? Not many people would like to be sat in an airplane for that long. Hell, even with one stop it is too much for me, I would go for 2 or even 3 stops.

I did LHR-SYD with a stop in SIN and back on a BA 744 in 2003.  But I had enough frequent flyer miles to get 1st class. :lol:   It was extremely comfortable, but there is no way I could do that in economy.  It was 13 hours from LHR to SIN, 90 minute fuel stop and new pax, and another 7 hours to SYD.

Allright, First class? No problem, Suites? Please go round the longer way. 
Business? I'll manage.

But really how many people can afford those? Majority of the plane would prolly be Y/Y+... no way I am sitting in that seat for 18+ hours.