787-9 vs 772ER

[Denny_787]

Hi Folks, question to those Gents that fly with Trent 1000 and Trent 892/95.
On the same routes and conditions, has the 777 a higher consumption in the range of 30% or close to 50%?

Thanks
Safe travels
D

[hunterboy]

In my limited experience of Caribbean back to London briefing next to a 787 crew going to the same destination with similar payload, the 787 burnt carried around 2/3 of the fuel we did in a 777-200

[Denny_787]

In my limited experience of Caribbean back to London briefing next to a 787 crew going to the same destination with similar payload, the 787 burnt carried around 2/3 of the fuel we did in a 777-200

Thank you hunterboy!

[Jetjock330]

I fly both, B777 and B787. To be exact, B777-300ER, B777-LR, B777-F, and Boeing 787-9 and now the B787-10, and I have flown the B787-8 during the training period 5 years ago.

The fuel on a standard trip from middle east to say Washington IAD was compared. B777-200LR was 125 tons whilst a standard load on the was 81 tons, burning 76 of those tons to reach IAD and the rest, 5 tons is alternate fuel and reserves. The B787-9 flies the route 40 min faster for the ULR flight time of a 14 hour flight than the B777-200LR. Mach 0.86 against M0.835/.84. Our B777-200LR carried 240 pax in 3 class whilst the B787-9 has 235 in 3 class, or 299 in 2 class and the B787-10 has 336 in 2 class.

This is the range limit of the B787-9 to take off at max 250836kg and fly 14 hours with a full load of pax, whilst the B777-200LR can uplift more fuel and still carry on another 4-5 hours of flight time on a trip like this.

The point is, the B777-200LR was not made to to fly short trip like this, but rather those 18 hour trips over the pole, with a load, whilst the B787-9 would fly far on full tanks of 109 tons fuel, but without much load. Its really difficult to compare these two types as they have different jobs by design.

[Denny_787]

I fly both, B777 and B787. To be exact, B777-300ER, B777-LR, B777-F, and Boeing 787-9 and now the B787-10, and I have flown the B787-8 during the training period 5 years ago.

The fuel on a standard trip from middle east to say Washington IAD was compared. B777-200LR was 125 tons whilst a standard load on the was 81 tons, burning 76 of those tons to reach IAD and the rest, 5 tons is alternate fuel and reserves. The B787-9 flies the route 40 min faster for the ULR flight time of a 14 hour flight than the B777-200LR. Mach 0.86 against M0.835/.84. Our B777-200LR carried 240 pax in 3 class whilst the B787-9 has 235 in 3 class, or 299 in 2 class and the B787-10 has 336 in 2 class.

This is the range limit of the B787-9 to take off at max 250836kg and fly 14 hours with a full load of pax, whilst the B777-200LR can uplift more fuel and still carry on another 4-5 hours of flight time on a trip like this.

The point is, the B777-200LR was not made to to fly short trip like this, but rather those 18 hour trips over the pole, with a load, whilst the B787-9 would fly far on full tanks of 109 tons fuel, but without much load. Its really difficult to compare these two types as they have different jobs by design.

Many thanks for posting your experience.
You don't mention it but I'm assuming all of them RR powered...?
Fully agree that these are different assets for different jobs, but, with the RR issues if you have high density 787-9, the only asset out there that can do the very same job carrying a similar LOPA is the 777.

[Sidestick_n_Rudder]

Fully agree that these are different assets for different jobs, but, with the RR issues if you have high density 787-9, the only asset out there that can do the very same job carrying a similar LOPA is the 777.

... Or the A333, unless you need to go very far...

[Denny_787]

... Or the A333, unless you need to go very far...

Sorry, meant within the Boeing family.

[tdracer]

Many thanks for posting your experience.
You don't mention it but I'm assuming all of them RR powered...?
Fully agree that these are different assets for different jobs, but, with the RR issues if you have high density 787-9, the only asset out there that can do the very same job carrying a similar LOPA is the 777.

The only engine available on the 777-200LR is the GE90-115B (also on the 777F and 777-300ER).

[Denny_787]

The only engine available on the 777-200LR is the GE90-115B (also on the 777F and 777-300ER).
Right, like I said I'm looking at RR powered options, GE is slightly more efficient but it's not one of those options.

[ProPax]

Right, like I said I'm looking at RR powered options, GE is slightly more efficient but it's not one of those options.

If I may offer an advice, I would correct your first post to clearly state that you only mean the Rolls-Royce-powered 777-200ER, not the -200LR. I would also include the non-ER -200. It's much lighter and may have comparable fuel burn (not sure). The range is incompatible, though.

Otherwise it'll cause more confusion.

Just a thought. :)

[Jetjock330]

No, all the Boeing 777 and 787 I have flown are all GE.

For what it’s worth, the B777-200LR has a max landing weight similar to the B777-300ER, so the landing fees are similar. This means for the 200LR you divide the landing fees by 240 pax and the B777-300ER divided by 408 pax, and you will soon see how much more the B777-200LR is to operate on short flights. Hence we no longer have anymore B777-200LR’s.

Therefore, beside the fuel burn, the B787-9/10 is much cheaper to operate than a B777-200LR.

Your question was about B777-200ER, I have not flown.