Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

maukro_1990

In the real world: Is a Boeing 777-200LR really usefull? Isn´t the range of a -300ER more than enough?

Recommended Posts

Hi!

 

First of all: I just love the the PMDG 777-200LR! But i have a question: There are not so many airlines in the real world which operate the Boeing 777-200LR. The Boeing 777-300ER has a range of about 14500KM, which is really enormous. It seems that the 17000KM range of the -LR is not really required, because even the ultra long range route "Dubai-Los Angeles" is possible for with the -300ER. So, can you tell what is the big advantage of the Boeing 777-200LR? I mean the -300ER can carry much more passangers and the range of the Boeing 777-300ER is more that enough, right? Im a little bit confused because Emirates, for example, bought the -200LR for the route Dubai-Los Angeles and now they´re using 777-300ER´s for this route?! 

 

I hope that someone can explain me the big advantages of the 777-200LR... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

It's pretty much the reason why the LR isn't as popular. I can't wait for the 200ER expansion, rather than the 300ER, but then again, I can fly american airlines with the 300ER  :lol:

 

Sorry if this didn't answer your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi!

 

First of all: I just love the the PMDG 777-200LR! But i have a question: There are not so many airlines in the real world which operate the Boeing 777-200LR. The Boeing 777-300ER has a range of about 14500KM, which is really enormous. It seems that the 17000KM range of the -LR is not really required, because even the ultra long range route "Dubai-Los Angeles" is possible for with the -300ER. So, can you tell what is the big advantage of the Boeing 777-200LR? I mean the -300ER can carry much more passangers and the range of the Boeing 777-300ER is more that enough, right? Im a little bit confused because Emirates, for example, bought the -200LR for the route Dubai-Los Angeles and now they´re using 777-300ER´s for this route?! 

 

I hope that someone can explain me the big advantages of the 777-200LR... 

Could be the same reason you send a 737-700 on a route that a 737-800 or -900 can do. What I am saying is that it could be due to pax demand. A bigger and heavier plane burns more fuel but if you are not going to fill it up no need to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this works or if this is employed in the real world.  Working off ysfsim's philosophy, if one can expand the 200LR in terms of pax capability, I don't see why not fill it up more; given it's efficiency, it can burn the same amount of fuel for more eat positions sold per flight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know at some airlines they just don't have the demand to fill a 300ER on some of the ultra long hauls. Delta with the KATL-FOAR flight for instance - they like the LR for that because they wouldn't be able to fill a 300ER on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using an LR instead of 300ER also gives some more cargo possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qantas push A380's on KLAX - YSSY, and apparently close to MTOW type loads too quite often.

 

That said, United is soon to change their KLAX - YSSY flights from 747-400's to 777's.

 

If you have a big plane that burns a little more fuel that isn't flying full and a smaller plane that burns slightly less fuel but closer to capacity, the smaller plane makes more sense from an economic standpoint. Why burn more fuel to get the same amount of people the same distance? Might as well schedule the smaller aircraft and make more profit margin. Empty seats don't pay bills.

 

Then... if you are using the full range, stopping for a couple of hours while not picking up any new passengers is really bad for cost efficiency. And many international airlines are not allowed to carry domestic local passengers from a foreign market due to various competition agreements.

 

For instance, United fly KLAX - YSSY and then down to YMML and back to YSSY before returning to KLAX. that YSSY - YMML - YSSY portion flies half empty, because they aren't allowed to compete on the Australian Domestic market. Instead they fly to Sydney, offload most passengers and then continue to Melbourne half empty with the passengers flying on KLAX - YMML tickets. Those passengers have to get off though, because they can't be on the plane during refueling. So 2 hours on the ground getting passengers off and back on again, and no Australian domestic passengers being added.

 

Of course in this case you have a plane load of passengers embarking at KLAX heading to 2 destinations, so 1 plane, 2 destinations. Kinda makes sense. But if it was 'just' a fuel stop. It'd make no sense to operate like that, and a longer range aircraft would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles to Sydney (Delta) or Sydney to Vancouver (Air Canada), neither would be able to fill a 773.

In those routes across the pacific, the money maker is freight, and not the self loading kind.

 

This is why QF flies the big 4 holers and doesnt really have a big dedicated freight operation, also why they have not replaced the 747 for the 777. The 4 holers carry far more revenue under the floor for anyhing equivalent.

 

You wont see a QF 747 without at least two pallets at the front hold. Same with the A380.

 

Years ago, a large Asian airline would not load passengers baggage in LD3s on their 747, but in the bulk hold. Anything that didnt fit was put on another flight. The front and rear holds of the 747s were full of pallets. Revenue was tremendous.

 

Sent from my Mobile thing

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know at some airlines they just don't have the demand to fill a 300ER on some of the ultra long hauls. Delta with the KATL-FOAR flight for instance - they like the LR for that because they wouldn't be able to fill a 300ER on it.

Ok, maybe this is the reason! But i think that airlines could buy some Boeing 777-200ER instead of the -300ER, if they can´t find enough people to fill this airplane. The -200ER is cheaper as the -LR. I really can´t see the advantage of the 777-200LR. Okay, this aircraft can fly about 17000km but that´s all???? Again: I really love the PMDG 777-200LR and this is my favourite aircraft, but it´s a pity that there are only a few operators. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, maybe this is the reason! But i think that airlines could buy some Boeing 777-200ER instead of the -300ER, if they can´t find enough people to fill this airplane. The -200ER is cheaper as the -LR. I really can´t see the advantage of the 777-200LR. Okay, this aircraft can fly about 17000km but that´s all???? Again: I really love the PMDG 777-200LR and this is my favourite aircraft, but it´s a pity that there are only a few operators. 

 

And if you want to actually fly that kind of distance? What are you gonna do. Land in some country that is neither the origin or destination, refuel (which in most places requires passengers to be off the aircraft), and take off again with the same people on board (due to competition laws preventing you from competing with the local national airline on the sector) several hours later, after having paid gate handling, ATC, and fuel fees plus the Airport Noise tax, international airline levy, GST on the fuel, Customs for processing your passengers off and back on the same plane. Not to mention the odd political problems in some parts of the world which may be a risk factor to the airline, or specific nationalities of persons flying on your airline.

 

The engines are more powerful, so you can uplift a larger load off a smaller runway, or higher runway (altitude) than the other plane can. A full 777-200LR is going to be more efficient than a half-empty 777-200ER that had to leave cargo behind because it can't depart from, oh I dunno, anywhere high and surrounded by mountains... with full ZFW.

 

Fuel burn, the engines on the LR are different, bigger, and output more power than the ER options. How's the cruise burn?

 

Finally, time.

10 years ago isn't now, isn't 10 years in the future. How long will the 777-200ER even be available to buy? You can't buy a new plane when they don't sell that model anymore.

 

 

This is why QF flies the big 4 holers and doesnt really have a big dedicated freight operation, also why they have not replaced the 747 for the 777. The 4 holers carry far more revenue under the floor for anyhing equivalent.

 

 

Bit hard to put a 777 on a 747 route when you don't own any 777's. However that KLAX-YSSY leg is almost exclusivley A380's now. QF didn't downgrade the service to something smaller, but went for an even bigger jet on that route. By all accounts they're departing close to Max ZFW too. When "that engine problem" with the fuel leaks on the RR's was happening, they were forced to reduce payload on the route to introduce derates on takeoff. QF A380's actually have a higher rating than the other RR engines on other airlines' A380's, and they were using all that power and the extra bit, on their KLAX takeoffs as a matter of routine.

 

Why QF didn't purchase the 777 is a story for another day, but has something to do with the A380 purchases, and some A330's that were related to those purchases.

 

As for the 747-400 vs the 777-300ER... 41 seats, 12% tonnes an hour fuel burn. That's the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the -200LR is a very pricey aircraft designed for one mission - Ultra Long haul flights. It's similar to the A340-500/600, but with 2 fewer engines and lower fuel burn. However if the range is not too limiting then the -300ER will do a better job, and second hand -200ERs are always available at more affordable prices. The A340-500/600 basically died because of high fuel prices and the relatively unexpected (from Airbus' POV) extension of ETOPS to 180/207 minutes, making ULH polar routes viable for twins like the 777.

 

As for the Qantas 747s, remember the QF ones are the 747-400ERs with better payload capability (i.e. no bumped-off pax) over transpacific routes, and they need 4 engines + extra oxygen for the Kangaroo run between London and Australia via the Himalayas (e.g. L888 over Tibet) because MSA around that area is ~23000ft, and that makes it mighty interesting for a twin like a 777 doing a single engine driftdown. Right now the 747s are on their last legs because the A380 is simply more capable with the high fuel prices, and the airlines are not really happy about the 747-8's performance shortfalls. Singapore airlines got rid of theirs a while ago, and so did the Japanese. I heard that Cathay Pacific is trying very hard to dispose of theirs as well. Finally Lufthansa's recent commitment to the 777-9X pretty much killed off the 747-8i's prospects.

 

 

 

Years ago, a large Asian airline would not load passengers baggage in LD3s on their 747, but in the bulk hold. Anything that didnt fit was put on another flight. The front and rear holds of the 747s were full of pallets. Revenue was tremendous.

 

Yes, freight was tremendously profitable because of informal cartel price-fixing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit hard to put a 777 on a 747 route when you don't own any 777's. However that KLAX-YSSY leg is almost exclusivley A380's now. QF didn't downgrade the service to something smaller, but went for an even bigger jet on that route. By all accounts they're departing close to Max ZFW too. When "that engine problem" with the fuel leaks on the RR's was happening, they were forced to reduce payload on the route to introduce derates on takeoff. QF A380's actually have a higher rating than the other RR engines on other airlines' A380's, and they were using all that power and the extra bit, on their KLAX takeoffs as a matter of routine.

 

 

 

Why QF didn't purchase the 777 is a story for another day, but has something to do with the A380 purchases, and some A330's that were related to those purchases.

 

 

 

As for the 747-400 vs the 777-300ER... 41 seats, 12% tonnes an hour fuel burn. That's the difference.

The cargo hold on a 777-300er and 747 are about the same in size. The 777's hold 5 is large though. The t7 was somewhat developed from the 747 minus two engines, a hump and more efficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when I worked for Continental Express we asked Gordon Bethune why we were getting EMB135s when we already had EMB145s which could carry more people. He told us most airports base their landing fees on the aircraft maximum landing weight and that cost was not insignificant. He could save money with a smaller plane on lean routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when I worked for Continental Express we asked Gordon Bethune why we were getting EMB135s when we already had EMB145s which could carry more people. He told us most airports base their landing fees on the aircraft maximum landing weight and that cost was not insignificant. He could save money with a smaller plane on lean routes.

Good point. That could explain why Delta mostly flies CRJs to Toronto. Our fees are way too high. Even so, when Air Canada flies its 777-200LR from YVR to SYD it is no heavier than the average 777-200 on landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why QF flies the big 4 holers and doesnt really have a big dedicated freight operation

 

A bigger dedicated freight operation than all the American passenger airlines combined

 

Qantas needed their 747 range for American cities because they are the farthest away compared to other Qantas routes that stop in Asia or the Middle East before continuing on to Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

due to various anti-competition agreements.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a major carrier like Singapore Air has second thoughts about the recent end of the direct WSSS-KLAX and WSSS-KEWR, the -200LR would be a viable option, especially since the A345 they are retiring is "4-holer".  Those flights are usually a near polar route well within ETOPS-207 rules.  And back in 2005 QANTAS mulled the -200LR for LHR-SYD direct, but a fuel stop would be required from SYD to LHR because of winds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now the 747s are on their last legs because the A380 is simply more capable with the high fuel prices, and the airlines are not really happy about the 747-8's performance shortfalls. Singapore airlines got rid of theirs a while ago, and so did the Japanese. I heard that Cathay Pacific is trying very hard to dispose of theirs as well. Finally Lufthansa's recent commitment to the 777-9X pretty much killed off the 747-8i's prospects.

 

So the 747-8 is a failure? And if so, is this the end of the road for the 747?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the 747-8 is a failure? And if so, is this the end of the road for the 747?

It's hardly a failure, although it's getting stiff competition from below by the A350/777 and from above by the A380. One could surmise though that it was designed to prevent the A380 from completely dominating the VLA market, although that is quite a Pyrrhic victory.

 

I doubt we'll ever see another iteration of the 747 in the future though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. That could explain why Delta mostly flies CRJs to Toronto. Our fees are way too high. Even so, when Air Canada flies its 777-200LR from YVR to SYD it is no heavier than the average 777-200 on landing.

To be clear the fees are not based on actual landing weight of each individual flight but the maximum certified landing weight for the aircraft being used. Back when I was a 727 engineer they told us our 727s had the max landing weight they did because of this landing fee system and that weight was what the company thought they would need when the bought the planes. They actually could have gone to Boeing and bought different numbers and with no actual structural change we would have had new max landing weights for our planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear the fees are not based on actual landing weight of each individual flight but the maximum certified landing weight for the aircraft being used. Back when I was a 727 engineer they told us our 727s had the max landing weight they did because of this landing fee system and that weight was what the company thought they would need when the bought the planes. They actually could have gone to Boeing and bought different numbers and with no actual structural change we would have had new max landing weights for our planes.

So airlines can't catch a break huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites