Boeing 777-200LR - flim-flam?

[Xeque]

What exactly is Boeing trying to peddle with their recently announced 777-200LR?

OK. The thing can fly non-stop for 9,420 NM at Mach .84. London to Sydney etc etc but that is only one way. Sydney to London will require a fuel stop because of the adverse upper atmosphere winds. So if it only works one way, is it worth it?

Flight time London to Sydney will be 19 hours plus. Unless there is a dramatic redesign of economy class accommodation then forget it! My (personal) single sector maximum in ‘Cattle Class’ is 12 hours and even then it takes me at least two days to recover.

I don’t think that the distance thing is a valid argument.

It is supposed to be 20% more fuel-efficient. It’s the same shape as the rest of the 777 family although the ER and LR aircraft are shorter in length. So why aren’t the rest of the 777’s similarly fuel-efficient? Also, it was never explained fully but the extra distance is (it seems) achieved by filling three additional fuel tanks. What does this do to passenger numbers? Can the 200LR still carry 301 passengers (the same as the ER) or does the 20% increase in efficiency relate to reduced passenger load? Or does it mean no freight?

I live in Thailand and travel to London averagely three times a year. If I can get a direct flight both ways that fits in with my 12 hour maximum then I will take it. If there is an interim stop (because of the aforementioned adverse winds) then it’s a non-starter. Phuket Air could be an airline of choice but they stop at Dubai northbound. Forget it!

There are several airlines that offer a non-stop service both ways but I suspect that they achieve this with reduced passenger loads because their fares are much higher.

So what are we to really make of the 777-200LR?

I think it’s flim-flam. There’s nothing new about the 200LR. It’s just another variant. Boeing, desperate to regain the media initiative after Airbus’ continuing successes, has dreamed this up to try and grab attention. And the ‘Dreamliner’? Forget that too. I suspect that, when 'push comes to shove', for ‘Dreamliner’ read ‘777-200LR’

For real people more than 12 hours non-stop in 32-inch seat pitch is absolutely and totally unacceptable. It’s not the fault of the plane makers. All they have to do is build an aircraft with maximum operating efficiency against maximum payload.

The real culprits are the airlines who try to pack in as many passengers as they can regardless of sector flight times and until passengers themselves have the guts to stand up and say ‘enough is enough’ the airlines will continue to get away with murder – and I think that death through airline induced deep vein thrombosis should be classed as murder!

[BoeingMEL]

Any city to any city says Boeing (and incidentally I AM a Boeing fan!) but...... say Sydney- LAX or SF? The clue here is: if one noise generator fails, how many remain? Answer one.... for hours over the Pacific? Not for me thanks..........bm

[aviate1138]

BoeingMEL said.......

"It just doesn't add up...

Any city to any city says Boeing (and incidentally I AM a Boeing fan!) but...... say Sydney- LAX or SF? The clue here is: if one noise generator fails, how many remain? Answer one.... for hours over the Pacific? Not for me thanks"

Aviate1138 says...

Apart from the disappointment of not seeing 747FOCAL bombard us with Boeing propaganda, I wonder what on earth Boeing Top Brass are up to?
What else do they have to offer? The Dreamliner seems to be attracting interest but the only possibility is adding to the 747, [a 60's design] in desperation it seems, to take some of the wind out of AirBus sales, which won't happen anyway. Frankly if I were on a major journey across the Pacific I would want to see 2 engines out of my window not 1 [DC-11 not included]
If those sort of sector lengths are going to be common I for one would not only want greater leg room but also a much lower altitude in the cabin. One of Concordes greatest assets was the much lower cabin altitude which contributed greatly to passenger well being. I know, smaller windows, warm skin at cruise, but I can dream can't I?

Aviate1138

[barry lloyd]

Interesting that it managed to get two minute's worth of news on the BBC the other night, when there were other more important happenings around the world. It's hardly a roll-out, it's just an upgrade, and not normally newsworthy. Methinks Boeing must have considerable influence at certain levels in the UK...

[NWSRG]

Because of the A380, new airplanes are topical at the moment. So after Airbus bringing out the largest passenger plane in the world, the launch by Boeing of the longest range aircraft is naturally going to bring media attention. The fact that it is a derivative will not generally dilute that interest, at least not in the eyes of the general public.

As for the 200LR, it is a why-not aircraft. The 300ER is selling well, so justifying itself, and the 200LR becomes cheap and easy to do once the 300ER is in place. So why not do it, even if sales are small.

Also, and I'm guessing here as I don't know the sums, but would a 200LR not give certain airlines capability on routes from limited runways that they haven't had before? One example may be Aer Lingus out of Dublin to long-haul destinations? So range may not be the real benefit, but MTOW off shorter runways will?

[Tallbloke]

I think it got airtime because it is the longest range airliner in the world. Just the same as the A380 is the largest. The fact that the aircraft is a derivative is irrelevant, I doubt if most journalists do much more than read the briefings the airframers produce before they go to press / Tx.

[typhoonpilot]

One thing you have all missed so far is that the 777-200LR is the platform for the 777 freighter. This was anounced a few weeks back. The 777 freighter will be a big success, just wait and watch.


TP

[swh]

typhoonpilot ,

SQ are not interested in the 777-200LR, plan to make their 777 fleet just 777-300, not interested in converting existing 200's into freighters. Will be converting their 744 fleet into freighters.

They recon the 777-200LR is a lame duck, and a 777 friegher is very expensive compared to a converted 744 that you have already paid off.

:rolleyes:

[typhoonpilot]

Who said anything about SQ ? :hmm: There are other airlines in the world you know.

When I say to wait, I'm talking over the next ten to fifteen years. The airplane will be a good seller, but only time will prove me right.

TP

[6100]

xeque

I agree with you about long sectors in economy, I certainly wouldn't entertain 19 hrs in economy, but I'm afraid that you are missing the point.

These rediculously long sectors are already being flown, by SQ for one (SIN-JFK 18hrs). The -200LR will do the same thing more efficiently. i.e more pax and cargo for less money.

Purchase price is another matter. I agree that the beancounters are only looking at this years bottom line, not the next ten. So Airbus may well win out in the end.

[Dogs_ears_up]

Xeque - Airlines clearly don't "murder" their passengers: To suggest that they do may make you feel better, but makes your position look more advised by emotion than fact.

My understanding is that DVT is unrelated to seat pitch i.e. the potential exists whatever the seat pitch may be. It is the fact that passengers remain seated and static for a long period of time that increases the risk. Remaining seated and static in an armchair in your own sitting room would also increase the risk. In short, there is nothing airlines can do (in terms of seat pitch - or "packing them in" as you say) that substantially affects DVT probability. In the light of this, your decision not to travel on sectors over 12 hours seems sensible and good practise. This aircraft however, permits you, and others to have a choice as to how you wish to travel over a long distance. Your decision may be right for you, but inappropriate for others.

Although Boeing are a large and wealthy company, I doubt that they have sufficient funds to design, build and produce and aircraft variant simply in order to headline steal from Airbus. The aircraft exists because Boeing have identified a market niche for it, and because they expect/hope to sell sufficient aircraft of that type to make a profit. As mentioned by trimotor, there are performance benefits that make it attractive to airlines (and freight operators as typhoonpilot mentioned)

As an airline customer, your views are important, precisely because you are that - a customer. As an observer of the industry, I'm afraid that I'd suggest your understanding is less informed. I stand to be corrected.

[Omark44]

With the 777-200LR Boeing are simply extending an existing line, just as they did, (and may continue to do so), with the B747 and filling the niche markets where they appear from the same production lines.

Airbus have built the A380 in the hope that it will become a world market leader, insofar as it is the largest pax aircraft they are not wrong. Most of the major airlines have a need for a small number of VLA which they will operate over a few routes.

Boeing recognised the limited market very early on and when their offer to Airbus to form an exploratory consortium was rebuffed they pulled out of any competition, Boeing had examined the market, spoken to their customers and made a commercial decision to continue with the 777, 787 and 747.

As of today airlines continue to order the A380 in penny numbers whilst using the Boeing family as it's backbone.

If the A380 ever breaks even it will have done well, particularly considering the current budget over-run requires many more aircraft to be sold in order to achieve it, a profit is, unfortunately, highly unlikely.

[Xeque]

6100:

SQ don't offer standard economy on the SIN/LAX and SIN/JFK nonstops. This is from their website:

(quote)

The Airline will be setting another marker with the premium configuration of the A345LeaderShip. The aircraft will feature just 181 seats in a spacious two-class configuration comprising Raffles (business) Class and a new Executive Economy Class.

A345LeaderShip Executive Economy Class

This new SIA class of travel will offer 117 Executive Economy Class seats in a 2-3-2 configuration, with a seat pitch of 37” and a seat-back recline of 8”. It will also feature a seat width of 20”, a leather adjustable headrest, an innovative leg rest and foot rest, and a 9” personal video monitor for in-flight entertainment. In addition, SIA has introduced AC power supply outlets in the Executive Economy cabin.

(unquote)

At least there is recognition that people are more than just cattle (or the derogatory 'SLF' as used in these forums) and have made a real attempt to address the issue.

The A34x is better setup for long distance flights anyway. The cabin width means 2-4-2 in Economy as opposed to 2-5-2 or 3-3-3 that B777 cabin width decrees.

OK. I know SQ is offering premium economy as are a number of other airlines. And, yes, that will be more expensive. But if every airline did it and made it the standard for economy then market forces would bring the seat cost down anyway.

I still think that separate and smaller aircraft should be used for those who can afford (or whose employers pay for) First or Business Class travel. Such aircraft and all the support infrastructure that goes with them should be made separate cost centres (bean counter speak). Then, dedicated, one class, aircraft should be deployed for the rest of us (normal) passengers.

An A332 with one class at 40" seat pitch (2-4-2) will carry 290 passengers. That would mean full flights of happy and comfortable passengers with room to move and stretch and recline their seats without incurring the wrath of the poor sod sitting in the seat behind.

I get return fares, Bangkok/London with breaks at Bahrain both ways for around GBP 375. 290 seats at 375 quid each is an awful lot of revenue and I fail to see why the airlines cannot make a profit from that level of income, unless some of it is being hived off to subsidise First and Business Class.

[Rainboe]

I would have thought one problem with the 777-200LR is that being a twin, and having such a long range, efficient use of great circle tracks will often go beyond ETOPS considerations and result in inefficient deviations from optimum route. Europe-SYD will be over Asia then near the Far East islands, but it precludes over the Poles tracks and many other routes.

[JetDriverWannabe]

Its all about the 200LRF. It offers a new dimension of performance for freight operators.

The 200LRF can cross the Pacific with full load (~100 tons) non-stop across the pacific from the PRC to USA.
PVG => LAX
PEK => LAX

A B744F can't. 4600NM range with max payload.
A MD-11F can't. 3800NM range with 200,000lb payload.

[LMD]

Xeque,

did you ask the same questions regarding the A350?

was the A350 a "flim-flam"?

the reason that i ask is that the 777-200LR is the boeing answer to the A350.

just so you know, the 777-200LR caries more pax and freight over a longer distance and at a lower seat/mile than the -500.

so if the new 777 is a flim-flam, what the hell is the A350??


thanx in advance

[Xeque]

LMD

This from the Airbus website:

(quote)

The Airbus A350 (Airbus response to the Boeing 787) is based on the A330, but with substantial improvements to boost range. It offers a maximum of operational commonality with the current A330/A340 line - including Common Type Rating with the A330.

(unquote)

So it was put up against the 'Dreamliner' and not the 777.

The 330/340/350 cabin width offers passengers a more convenient seating arrangement (i.e. 2-4-2 as opposed to 2-5-2 or 3-3-3 in the 777) so the 350 would be preferable over the 777 on very long distance routes.

If Boeing are offering the new 777 varient as a freighter then why didn't they say so in the first place?

[CaptJ]

Hey, I'm a passenger and I much prefer the A330/340.

because -

Significantly quieter than any 777 variant.
Better seating arrangement in cattle class.
4 engines for long haul.

Sorry if I've offended any Americans, Boeing enthusiasts, and those aviation experts who can argue that 2 engines are safer than 4, etc, etc.

[Omark44]

I wouldn't believe too much of what Airbus put out in their promotional 'blurb' if I were you.
I can remember one of their highly placed gentlemen explaining how the A340 was perfect for the job and, "by virtue of its cruise speed of .82 Mach it dovetailed nicely into all the other aircraft at altitude flying long haul routes" - total nonsense! As one who frequently had to climb/descend/re-route to avoid it I can assure you that Mach .82 has not been the average cruise speed for long haul for a very long time, not to mention the fact that on many trips to the FD of an A340 I never saw it doing more than Mach .81. Compare that to the majority of aircraft then flying long haul who would normally choose to cruise between .845 and .86 Mach.

[Xeque]

Earlier Dog_Ears_Up made some interesting points about DVT and whether it really was a problem for long haul Economy Class.

I just picked this up from the Expat version of the London Daily Telegraph.

(Quote)

Scientists split over new DVT 'preventive'
By Charles Starmer-Smith and Dr Richard Dawood
(Filed: 19/02/2005)

The effectiveness of a new natural food supplement designed to reduce the risk of DVT in passengers on long-haul flights has been questioned by scientists in North America.

Zinopin, which contains high doses of pine bark and ginger, has become widely available at pharmacies in Britain and is believed to be the first natural product marketed solely to reduce the risk of deep-vein thrombosis, a condition caused when potentially fatal blood clots form in the legs.

Dr John Scurr, a leading vascular surgeon whose recently published research disclosed that as many as one in 10 passengers travelling in economy class suffers from the condition, helped to develop Zinopin. The ginger and pine-bark extracts, he says, are shown to be effective in "reducing capillary permeability, promoting blood flow and reducing the blood's ability to clot".

Scientists in North America are less certain about its efficacy. "There is absolutely no data to support the pine-bark and ginger claim for preventing thrombosis," said William Geerts, director of the thromboembolism programme at Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, an amalgamation of three of Canada's largest healthcare organisations.

However, a study published in October in the Clinical Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis journal corroborates Scurr's preliminary findings, showing that pycnogenol, a natural extract of French marine pine bark, improves circulation, prevents oedema and ultimately protects against DVT.

Dr Richard Stein, director of medicine at Beth Israel Medical Centre in New York, said the study was "impressive" but added that it still needed to be followed up by a larger trial.

Ten Zinopin capsules cost £14.99, and are available in stores nationwide.

What is Zinopin?
Zinopin is a combination of two natural products - marine pine-bark extract (pycnogenol) and ginger, writes Dr Richard Dawood. Both have been shown to reduce blood clotting, and pycnogenol reduces capillary fluid leakage, thereby reducing ankle swelling and improving blood flow. Ginger speeds up the breakdown of clots, and has long been used as a travel-sickness remedy.

How effective is it?
There are many theoretical benefits, and early results from a study of 200 air travellers suggest a reduction in ankle swelling, with no cases of thrombosis in those using the supplement, but further tests are needed.

Is aspirin an alternative?
Low-dose aspirin can help reduce the risk of blood clotting in arteries, and is often recommended to people at risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the evidence of a protective effect against DVT is less convincing.

What are the chances of contracting DVT and who is most at risk?
The exact risk is difficult to measure, but research by Dr Scurr suggests that as many as 10 per cent of long-haul travellers develop small, symptomless clots. The risk needs to be taken seriously. People at moderate risk include those on the Pill or HRT, smokers, people who are overweight, have varicose veins, previous or current leg swelling, are pregnant, or have a history of cancer or vascular disease. Such travellers should wear compression stockings.

People at greatest risk are those who have had a previous DVT, a known clotting tendency, recent major surgery or a stroke, who have malignant disease or who are undergoing chemotherapy. Use compression stockings and discuss with your doctor the possibility of an anti-coagulant injection.

What other measures should travellers take on flights?
Keep well hydrated, keep mobile, wear comfortable, non-restrictive clothing, avoid sleeping pills and excessive alcohol, and travel business class if you can.

Dr Richard Dawood is a specialist in travel medicine at the Fleet Street Clinic (020 7353 5678).

(unquote)

I think I'm right in taking the problem seriously particularly given the amount of long haul travel I do.

Oh and by the way

Omark44:

Yes. Many people in these forums have remarked about A340 performance.

However, I am not aware that this is a problem with the 330. I have no experience of the 350 (has anyone?) so I cannot comment.

I always thought that airways separation, flight levels etc took into account the speeds of the various aircraft en route. How many times did you have to climb/descend to avoid a slow moving 340 ahead of you?

[Fly3]

I would take issue with the statement by omark44 that the cruise speed of most aircrcaft is in the range M.845 to M.86. The only aircraft flying at M.86 is the B744 normally and there are fewer of them around now. Most operators are cruising at M.82 to M.84 in my experience and I have frequently had to slow for B767's and the like doing M.80.

[Omark44]

Not sure of your area of operation Fly3 but airlines currently operating the B744 from Australia and the Far East are: QF, SQ, MAS, TH, EVA, CA, CX, BA, KLM and LH, that adds up to quite a few.
Fortunately the A340 has been taken off many of these routes by their operators, in some cases in favour of the B777, (Air France).

As you know asking a heavy 744 to reduce to .80 or less to stay behind an A340 is unrealistic whereas reducing to .83 to stay behind a B777 is not impossible.

Xeque - when there were still plenty of them operating Far East to Europe and return - more times than I care to remember!

[Xeque]

See what I mean? It can be done and note the bit about seat price.
www.ozjet.com.au (http://)

[ironbutt57]

jealous froggies.....:*

[speed freek]

This is a juicy topic, lets begin...... :E

Xeque:

The 777-200LR and 300ER achieve better fuel efficiency through new engines (new technology) and the raked wingtips Boeing are now fitting as standard. As for your PAX against fuel question, the MTOW of both variants have been increased to allow a full load plus a hell of a lot of fuel, but the TOFL has been kept the same (or within a samll percentage) by the levered main gear which 'pushes' against the ground and helps get the aircraft into the air. The 777 is also the only twin with a cruise mach that keeps up with the 747s and the like. Don't know about you but I find a 777 doing 0.85 and an A340-500/600 doing 0.82 rather impressive (and embarrassing for the frogs!)

In response to your one-class aircraft, I agree that it all sounds very good if 40" pitch seats were installed......IF!! What makes you think that the bean counters wil allow 40" seats? Someone will have the bright idea of "well if we make all the seats 30", then we can cram another 150 people on board!!". Then you'll be stuck exactly where you are now, probably worse - no chance for an upgrade.

Swh:

Singapore airlines isn't the only 777 operator. Others may be interested in the freighter variant, Emirates for example, who has a rather large fleet of 777s, which is still expanding. Emirates is also expanding its cargo division, so instead of buying a 747 freighter, it would make just a tad more sence to go for a 777 freighter in this case

BoeingMEL:

During testing and certification the 777-300ER went for 5 and a bit hours on one engine. The engines are reliable (even if the ones fitted to the 200LR are a variant in themselves - approx. each are 5000 lbs less powerfull than the GEs fitted to the 300ER). I'm personally quite comfortable going across the pacific on two engines. The biggest problem now facing the regulatory authorities, manufacturers and airlines are cargo fires.

Fly 3:

There are many aircraft who fly the higher end of the Mach range. For example:
L-1011 - 0.86
747 - 0.84-0.86
747SP - 0.88
777 - 0.84-0.86 (BA operate they'res at 0.86, and Boeing had the tripples cruising at 0.88 at one point, but they weren't certified as the bean counters didn't like the higher fuel burn).
VC-10 - 0.88
etc.

Its only the older twins and Airbus who hang around 0.80 to 0.82.

That's my bit.

Cheers.

[Xeque]

Speed Freek gave us:
(quote)
the levered main gear which 'pushes' against the ground and helps get the aircraft into the air
(unquote)

Sort of like Zebedee (boing!)

The same engines are on offer to Airbus as well. 'Raked wingtips'? - bolt-ons like Jean-Pierre Luni go-faster stripes.

I admitted that the A340 was slow but what about the 330? It didn't seem that slow last time I flew (pax) on one to London.

[speed freek]

Maxed out the 330 gives Emirates bout 0.82. Talk to the drivers quite often. They've seen that bout a grand total of once. ie. Virtually empty and a jetstream pushing the daylights out of them. 0.80 is the norm. Doesn't matter how you cut it the new A340s are the fastest, and for four engines I'm still rather unimpressed.

By the way, which 'bus is being offered the GE90-110/115B? The A340-500/600 are on Trent 500s (RR), the A330s have an option of all 3 engine manufacturers, but they're thrust requirement is 70000lbs a side, not 110000 to 115000 lbs a side. The classic A340s are on GEs, and there's no point going into the A320 family. The A350 is being offered the GenX/Trent 1000 and the A380 is being offered the Trent 900 or GP7200. Ok, bit sad I know all this (that's what you get for having a Father who's been in the business for over 40 years) but just proving a point - the GE 90s are purely for the 777s.

Cheers.

[Packsonflight]

Correct me if I am wrong. the 777LR has bin delayd for 2 or 3 years bacause of no buyers. the only customer today are the Pakis, and because of politics, they dont have a real choice between Boeing and Airbus (like Israel)
PS the development cost for the LR is around $1.5bn!!!