robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
May be just may be AA is taking a page out of DL play book and could get the 777LR for a cheaper price and operate them from points in USA to Africa and Asia just my 2 cents
AA and the 777-200LR
- Thread starter mstrmoe
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #17
perhaps Boeing will offer steep discounts and if they do that is great... but there is no reason to think they will discount it any more than the 773ER since both are produced on the same line.
it still won't change the LR's economics do not compare as favorably as other aircraft that AA will have in the near future and which are fully capable of operating other routes.
The LR would be acquired solely to fly to JNB and every other use would be simply a means to justify its use at the cost of a better plane that AA could already have.
I have no problem if AA can make JNB work and using the LR is the way to do it..... the case is a lot weaker for AA than it was for DL who has had the LR in service for years and actually operates more 777LRs than ERs.
Further, it still takes Boeing about 18 months to produce a new widebody.
and I just don't see AA buying a couple used LRs, if they can find any that are in decent enough condition and are available .
it still won't change the LR's economics do not compare as favorably as other aircraft that AA will have in the near future and which are fully capable of operating other routes.
The LR would be acquired solely to fly to JNB and every other use would be simply a means to justify its use at the cost of a better plane that AA could already have.
I have no problem if AA can make JNB work and using the LR is the way to do it..... the case is a lot weaker for AA than it was for DL who has had the LR in service for years and actually operates more 777LRs than ERs.
Further, it still takes Boeing about 18 months to produce a new widebody.
and I just don't see AA buying a couple used LRs, if they can find any that are in decent enough condition and are available .
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #19
I get that.
I haven't said anything about fleet complexity.
I have repeatedly said that the 772 whether as the ER or LR is not a CASM competitive aircraft with newer generation aircraft such as the 789 or 350.
AA isn't ordering those two aircraft just to replace the 767s and grow.
If AA wants to order an aircraft that will be 10 years old for other operators by the time AA puts it into service and will come into the fleet AFTER the 789 and probably the 350 enters service, don't let me stop them.
I simply don't believe they are going to order an aircraft to fly one route - and JNB is the only route for which the 777LR is capable of doing what newer aircraft cannot.
but I can't ever predict what AA may or may not do since I work on logic and rationality.
I haven't said anything about fleet complexity.
I have repeatedly said that the 772 whether as the ER or LR is not a CASM competitive aircraft with newer generation aircraft such as the 789 or 350.
AA isn't ordering those two aircraft just to replace the 767s and grow.
If AA wants to order an aircraft that will be 10 years old for other operators by the time AA puts it into service and will come into the fleet AFTER the 789 and probably the 350 enters service, don't let me stop them.
I simply don't believe they are going to order an aircraft to fly one route - and JNB is the only route for which the 777LR is capable of doing what newer aircraft cannot.
but I can't ever predict what AA may or may not do since I work on logic and rationality.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
what exactly is the difference btwn the lr and er models if theres any difference
Robbed see here:robbedagain said:
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/specs.page?
Josh
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #22
MAH's summary is fairly accurate.
The LR's operating costs are fairly similar to the ER's. slightly better than the ER because of the wingtips and the improved GE engines. AA and DL use the same engine on their 772ERs, thus the comparison of what the ER does relative to the ER is valid for both airlines.
The LR's engines are slightly derated over the 300ERs but the LR still has enormous cargo lifting capacity as well as performance.
Just to give you a comparison of the difference between the 200ER and the LR, a couple years ago, BOM did runway construction and closed 2000 feet of the runway, leaving the runway with just 9000 feet.
CO operated their BOM-EWR flight with the 200ER with GE engines. DL, which flew to JFK at the time, operated with the LR and added the LR right before the runway construction began.
DL operated the route with no weight restrictions while CO had to block significant numbers of seats and/or make enroute fuel stops to cover the 8000 miles to NYC.
DL also used the LR on DTW-HKG while UA/CO used the ER on EWR-HKG and at times ORD-HKG. DL carried about 25K more cargo per DOT stats than EWR or ORD carried
DL and UA also operate the LR vs ER on LAX-SYD. DOT data is not available since UA made the conversion but Virgin Australia is one of the highest cargo carriers per flight with the 300ER while DL is up there with the LR. UA carried very little cargo on the 744 and is not expected to be able to carry much on the 777-200ERs that they use.
The LR is an enormous performance machine.. but it is not cost competitive with next generation aircraft on routes where those aircraft can operate.
AC and EK both use both the LR and 300ER and prefer the 300ER when they can use it based on more favorable economics.
The LR's operating costs are fairly similar to the ER's. slightly better than the ER because of the wingtips and the improved GE engines. AA and DL use the same engine on their 772ERs, thus the comparison of what the ER does relative to the ER is valid for both airlines.
The LR's engines are slightly derated over the 300ERs but the LR still has enormous cargo lifting capacity as well as performance.
Just to give you a comparison of the difference between the 200ER and the LR, a couple years ago, BOM did runway construction and closed 2000 feet of the runway, leaving the runway with just 9000 feet.
CO operated their BOM-EWR flight with the 200ER with GE engines. DL, which flew to JFK at the time, operated with the LR and added the LR right before the runway construction began.
DL operated the route with no weight restrictions while CO had to block significant numbers of seats and/or make enroute fuel stops to cover the 8000 miles to NYC.
DL also used the LR on DTW-HKG while UA/CO used the ER on EWR-HKG and at times ORD-HKG. DL carried about 25K more cargo per DOT stats than EWR or ORD carried
DL and UA also operate the LR vs ER on LAX-SYD. DOT data is not available since UA made the conversion but Virgin Australia is one of the highest cargo carriers per flight with the 300ER while DL is up there with the LR. UA carried very little cargo on the 744 and is not expected to be able to carry much on the 777-200ERs that they use.
The LR is an enormous performance machine.. but it is not cost competitive with next generation aircraft on routes where those aircraft can operate.
AC and EK both use both the LR and 300ER and prefer the 300ER when they can use it based on more favorable economics.
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_rc_newyork.page?robbedagain said:
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_rc_losangeles.page?
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_rc_london.page?
777-200ER 7,725 nautical miles
777-200LR 9,395 nautical miles
777-300ER 7,825 nautical miles
Miami to Johannesburg is approx. 7,012 nautical miles (12,986 km).
Approximate flight duration time from Miami, Florida to Johannesburg, South Africa is: 15 hrs, 47 mins
The 777-300ER can make the leg as long as there is no route deviation from weather or strong headwinds. Then you have minimum fuel landing requirements to meet on every flight.
Source: http://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/mia-to-jnb/
metopower
Veteran
- Nov 28, 2006
- 932
- 313
Field elevation for jnb is 5500ft. Temps and weather is similar to den. DL's 777LR s have thrust bump which increase thrust 5000 lbs above max thrust .I don't know if the 300er has that feature. It gets used often along with wind additives and weight restrictions
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #25
thanks for that info, meto. So DL's LRs actually are able to use the higher thrust of the 300ER in certain circumstances? Is it used at any other airport?
