EK have chosen a low MTOW for their B777-200ER's and the engines they use are the Trent 892 because EK ordered their B777's to provide extra capacity routes ranging from short-haul to long-haul and not ultra-long haul routes.
I am guessing that if QR would choose the B772ER they will probably get a high MTOW option and high thrust engines for the 772ER's and QR will have less seats and hence less weight than EK since QR give more space for their passengers than EK. I am not saying that the B772ER's will fly with 21t of Cargo to JFK but their payload restrictions will be less than EK experience.
Previously QR have shown that they are not willing to tolerate payload restrictions. For example they were interested in the A321 but the range (with max payload) was considered to be to small (according to Tony Saville). I guess in some special cases such as CMN and maybe JFK they might think that they are willing to bleed cash just so they don't let a competitor entrench themselves in an important market.
EK for example [will] fly a max of 12-15t (over 21t for Euro and Asia) of cargo to PER and KIX, imagine how much more payload they will lose if they decide to use their B7772ER's to JFK.
Anyway no confirmation has come that QR has chosen the B772ER and from reading Riscy's post the 777LR is considered so no sense in me defending a possible choice for the B772ER.
[Thank you UTRF for correcting my spelling] - MTQatar
Last edited by MTQatar; 22nd Sep 2002 at 17:13.