777LR Orders?

Profile picture for user TJC

Member for

15 years 11 months

Posts: 111

Just lookling for a small bit of info. 1. How many orders has Boeing so far for the 777LR and 777-300ER? 2. Who are the orders for? Thanks for any info.
Original post

Member for

16 years 5 months

Posts: 12,842

Emirates has just ordered 30 777-300ER's
Profile picture for user rdc1000

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 1,342

772LR has 5 orders from Eva Air and PIA 773ER has 108 Orders from all sorts of operators. Source: http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm
I've said it before, and here I go again....the orders for the 200LR are pretty feable. Funnily enough all of the big operators of the 777 baseline versions that would have been likely candidates for the LR version are Trent operators, and most of these expressed that they wanted Trent engines on future models...so what did Boeing give them? GE!! Maybe it is coincidence, but most Trent operators went for the A340 for longer range needs (SIA, Thai, Malaysia, even Cathay I guess by opting for the A340-600 and not the 777-300ER). The only real exception to this rule is emirates. But if you notice they went for the A340-500 and not 777-200LR, despite the greater operating range of the latter.
Profile picture for user Bmused55

Member for

16 years

Posts: 10,625

I've said it before, and here I go again....the orders for the 200LR are pretty feable. Funnily enough all of the big operators of the 777 baseline versions that would have been likely candidates for the LR version are Trent operators, and most of these expressed that they wanted Trent engines on future models...so what did Boeing give them? GE!! Maybe it is coincidence, but most Trent operators went for the A340 for longer range needs (SIA, Thai, Malaysia, even Cathay I guess by opting for the A340-600 and not the 777-300ER). The only real exception to this rule is emirates. But if you notice they went for the A340-500 and not 777-200LR, despite the greater operating range of the latter.
And what you seem to neglect is the fact the A340-500 was available much sooner than the 772LR. Thats why Emirates went for it, it was the only aircraft available. Boeing knows the 200LR will be a niche plane. It will not sell in huge ammount. They state that 90 airframes would be a generous figure to achieve. Those 5 orders it had will most likely cover any development costs for the 200LR. I'm sure once its flown and either meets its performance targets or staying true to Boeings current form, exceeds them more orders will come. With EK its not a matter of if, but when they will order.
Profile picture for user rdc1000

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 1,342

Indeed it was available much sooner. But we have seen plenty of examples of airlines that have been willing to wait for the product they want. As I pointed out in my comments Emirates is only one example. I will concede that Emirates has already stated that it is loking at ordering the 200LR. I think the point still stands with the remainder though, and I have seen it speculated that some of those airlines actually wrote to Boeing stating that they wanted RR engines. Everything I can find about the matter suggest Boeing is hoping for sales of around 300 200LRs over the next 20 year (I'm just trawling ATI now to see what Boeing have to say...but it is full of the usual masses of articles to sift through)
Profile picture for user Bmused55

Member for

16 years

Posts: 10,625

I too have seen that 300 figure. I'm not sure that is likely. However...saying that, Airbus realy have nothing to offer that matches or outdoes the 772LR. Yes, they've eeked more range out of the A340-500 recently, but as far as I am aware, that comes at a penalty of even further reduced payload. (They basicaly stuck extra fuel tanks in the belly). As it is Airbus it well sell regardless. They can sell Icecream to eskimos. :) So far the 772LR is projected to be able to carry more pax and more cargo than the A345 and further to with better fuel economy. If flight test prove this, the A345 is effectively obosolete. I'd say that once the 772LR is in service and proven some orders will pick up.
Profile picture for user rdc1000

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 1,342

Yeh, I would want to agree, but what worries me for this type is that the airlines likely to most benefit from it are those flying transpacific, and many of those have already gone for the A340-500 (Thai, Malaysia, SIA, Air Canada). I have seen that Air Canada have not ruled out the 200LR. In theory United would be well placed, but they don't have any money, and there is still a chance they will sell all of their transpacific rights (anyone smell Pan Am again???). I think that part of the reason that Boeing has moved so fast with the 777F variant is because they have spent time and money developing this new variant, and they need to make money on it somehow.
Profile picture for user Bmused55

Member for

16 years

Posts: 10,625

[QUOTE=Matthew Murray][QUOTE=Bmused55] Yes, they've eeked more range out of the A340-500 recently, but as far as I am aware, that comes at a penalty of even further reduced payload. (They basicaly stuck extra fuel tanks in the belly).
And what did Boeing doing with the B772LR? They stuck extra fuel tanks in the belly-hold, moved a few vortex-generators around, beefed-up the gear - and some more smaller, structural changes. Range, is only a small part of the equation. I severely doubt that operators will use the full 9,000+nm range of the B772LR.
Ah yes, but!!! The 772LR can still carry more payload, pax OR cargo OR both than the A340-500 period. Boeing have not sacrificed payload for range.... a la Airbus :p
Profile picture for user Bmused55

Member for

16 years

Posts: 10,625

Yeh, I would want to agree, but what worries me for this type is that the airlines likely to most benefit from it are those flying transpacific, and many of those have already gone for the A340-500 (Thai, Malaysia, SIA, Air Canada). I have seen that Air Canada have not ruled out the 200LR. In theory United would be well placed, but they don't have any money, and there is still a chance they will sell all of their transpacific rights (anyone smell Pan Am again???). I think that part of the reason that Boeing has moved so fast with the 777F variant is because they have spent time and money developing this new variant, and they need to make money on it somehow.
Again, the A340-500 was chosen simply because it was the only choice until now. The Sales comparisons for 772LR and A340-500 are not fair. There is just too many years between them to make a fair comparison. Had the 772LR and A345 been available then yes we can make this comparison. Yes some operate the a345 already, but that does not make them unable to add a 772LR to their fleet. Malaysia and SIA both operate 777, adding the 200LR to those existing fleets is fairly simple. So just because they have the A345, it does not mean they're not interested in the longer range, higher payload 772LR.
Profile picture for user Bmused55

Member for

16 years

Posts: 10,625

Payload? Is this a passenger aircraft or a Cargo aircraft? :D I will agree that the B772LR has the performance edge over the A345, but what does that really mean to it's operators?
Are you turning into a naive no brainer or something?! ;) Joking aside, it means more profit. More seats and cargo per flight means more revenue per flight compared with an A345. To recap: More seats + More cargo = More Profit
Profile picture for user Grey Area

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 10,160

Ah, but it has to be the right aircraft for the operator, Sandy. As you know, there's no such thing as a "standard" airline operation. Even similar requirements vary in detail from company to company. Accordingly, so do the solutions to those requirements. For some, the solution certainly will be the B777LR, and for others it will be another type. This is not foolishness, nor is it naivety or even heresy. ;) It is diversity.
Profile picture for user Bmused55

Member for

16 years

Posts: 10,625

Ah, but it has to be the right aircraft for the operator, Sandy. As you know, there's no such thing as a "standard" airline operation. Even similar requirements vary in detail from company to company. Accordingly, so do the solutions to those requirements. For some, the solution certainly will be the B777LR, and for others it will be another type. This is not foolishness, nor is it naivety or even heresy. ;) It is diversity.
and I'm not arguing with any of that. I'm arguing what rdc1000 is saying. He makes it sound like the 772LR is a non starter and the A340-500 is the all singing all dancing wonderplane. At least thats the way I'm reading it. The 772LR has its merits. That is my point
Profile picture for user Grey Area

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 10,160

Hmmm - that's not how I read it. I think even Airbus would admit that the A340-500 is every bit as much a "niche" aircraft as the B777LR.