The Last Boeing 777-200LR?

WestWing · Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:31 am

According to Puget Sound Test Flights, 3C-MAB, a VIP 77L, line no 1258 for Equatorial Guinea (CEIBA) was recently delivered. With this delivery, Boeing have no remaining orders for 77Ls.

I feel reluctant to think this is the end of the line for the 77L because there may still be potential VIP/BBJ orders.

For airlines, though, it seems that the prospect for (top-up) orders for new-build 77Ls is not bright.

EY just picked up a five second-hand frames from AI.
DL - no - considering their Airbus widebody fleet renewal plans.
EK/QR- if they planned new routes where only a 77L would fit, they would likely have ordered already.
ET (Ethiopian) perhaps, but they are comfortable with one-stop flights e.g. via FCO to IAD.

So what do A.netters think.? Will there be more 77Ls built ?

Boeing778X · Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:48 am

Quoting WestWing (Thread starter):
So what do A.netters think.? Will there be more 77Ls built ?

77Ls orders have been far and wide. The few airlines they are with serve them well. At this point, for the most part, the 777-200LR is done, though I won't be surprised if Boeing tries to sell a few more to fill in the gap for the 777X. The 777-8 will be its replacement next decade, so anyone who wants an ULH aircraft has that to look to. Any carrier who operates the 777-200LR and/or -300ER will find the 777-8 an ideal aircraft.

seabosdca · Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:05 am

Quoting WestWing (Thread starter):
Will there be more 77Ls built ?

Nope. Now that the 787-9 and A350-900 are in series production the 777-200LR is done. Both aircraft, with superior field performance and nominal range to the 777-200ER or -300ER, can fly literally every current 77L route except a few of those operated by the ME3. And all three of the ME3 already have the 777X on order.

Edit: The writing the wall started to be clear for the 77L when Emirates began abusing 77Ws with seats blocked off on fomer ULH 77L routes, saying the extra revenue from just a few extra Y seats made the 77W more profitable.

[Edited 2014-12-14 21:10:23]

DiamondFlyer · Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:08 am

Considering the 777F is basically a 772LR, I'd say they are hardly done building them.

-DiamondFlyer

atct · Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:18 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 3):
Considering the 777F is basically a 772LR, I'd say they are hardly done building them.

I was going to say the same thing. Lots of 77LRF's remain to be built.

TWA772LR · Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:21 am

The 77L is a hell of a plane, its a shame the economics just aren't there for more widespread use. Hopefully the 778 will be more proliferated.

Going to the 77F, since it is essentially a carbon copy of the 77L with slightly stronger landing gear, how come it only has half the range? Can we expect a 777-300F?

hannahpa · Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:22 am

777-8 is the successor to the 772LR.

Can't wait to ride a 777X (-8 or -9).... By the time it is built, I will be able to afford to fly on one..... LOL.

[Edited 2014-12-14 21:24:45]

LAX772LR · Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:50 am

Quoting WestWing (Thread starter):
EK/QR- if they planned new routes where only a 77L would fit, they would likely have ordered already.

Well, their tendency is to start a route with the 77L, then switch it to a 77W/A380 as soon as it matures... even if it means blocking out seats.

Quoting WestWing (Thread starter):
So what do A.netters think.? Will there be more 77Ls built ?

My absolute favorite aircraft, but sadly, I think the ol' gal is done being ordered as a pax carrier... save for orders from some eccentric desert sheik or somebody like that.

Unlike the 764ER, she'll probably remain on offer even with a dearth of orders... because there's still plenty of 77Fs to be built, so there's essentially nil cost to Boeing to keep the option available, at least until the aforementioned is replaced by a 778F or something of that sort.

b747400erf · Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:03 am

My understanding is Boeing has priced the 777LR and 77F too high as to try and keep the 748 production going. It has not worked, and I think it is time they price both 777's better and give up on the 748.

Boeing778X · Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:08 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 5):
The 77L is a hell of a plane, its a shame the economics just aren't there for more widespread use. Hopefully the 778 will be more proliferated.

Indeed

I expect the 778 to be. In only a year, it's nearly reach the number of 777-200LRs ordered.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 5):
Can we expect a 777-300F?

Not impossible to think -300s could be freighters. Seems like good 744BCF replacements.

hufftheweevil · Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:09 am

How many 777s (300s and Fs) are left on the backlog?

B777LRF · Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:11 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 5):
Going to the 77F, since it is essentially a carbon copy of the 77L with slightly stronger landing gear, how come it only has half the range? Can we expect a 777-300F?

The -200F has a stronger, and heavier floor, allowing it to carry a payload in excess of 106 tons - that's roughly double that of the -200LR. It can haul that payload for around 10.5 hours. Apart from that, the aircraft are largely identical, and an empty -200F will have the same ferry range, give or take, as the -200LR.

briguychau · Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:22 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 5):
how come it only has half the range?

For freighters, range is calculated with max payload, not max fuel. If less payload is carried, the aircraft can fly farther.

If you look at the 747-400 range numbers, you see that the 744F also has around half the range of a passenger 744.

SEPilot · Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:40 am

Considering the fact that Boeing was not even going to bother with the 77L, but was persuaded by some airlines who wanted it to build it, and that it formed the basis for the 77F, I do not think Boeing has any regrets about it. True, it did not sell very many, but I do not think that they expected it to. I do think, however, that the recent downturn in new-build freighters has surprised them, and they have been disappointed by both 77F and 748F sales.

migair54 · Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:43 am

The improvements of B77W, the B787 and A350 made the B77L a niche aircraft. Something similar happeend to the A345.

Anyway, nowadays very few routes are within the range of other planes like B787 or B77W.

What routes are these B77LR flying in airlines?? DL does JNB if I'm not mistaken, EK SEA,

Has EK ever consider flying to NZ directangular from DXB?

boefan · Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:52 am

Quoting migair54 (Reply 14):
, EK SEA,

EK flies with B77W to SEA as of March 2014

EK229 DXB0940 – 1300SEA 77W D
EK230 SEA1745 – 1900+1DXB 77W D

http://airlineroute.net/2013/12/30/ek-sea-mar14/

Quoting migair54 (Reply 14):
What routes are these B77LR flying in airlines??

you can add EY to LAX ofc

LAX772LR · Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:06 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 13):
Considering the fact that Boeing was not even going to bother with the 77L, but was persuaded by some airlines who wanted it to build it,

Sort of. Boeing was actually a lot more proactive than that recollection makes it seem though.

Boeing pushed the 77L hard, and got only BR as a taker... eventually putting the ship into an announced "hiatus" for years, until PK ordered. Boeing chose to hold the offer open.

At any point, they probably could've cancelled with little consequence had they really wanted to, as it became clear that BR wasn't going to take them. Eventually DL/AC/EK/AI bit, and that gave the model everything it needed. IIRC, 9W initially placed an MOU for some 77Ls as well, but firmed their order as 77W only.

UA444 · Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:28 am

Didn't Doug Parker express interest a few months ago?

hilram · Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:59 am

Quoting WestWing (Thread starter):
According to Puget Sound Test Flights, 3C-MAB, a VIP 77L, line no 1258 for Equatorial Guinea (CEIBA) was recently delivered. With this delivery, Boeing have no remaining orders for 77Ls.

It surprises me that the Government of Japan ordered 77W's instead of 77L's for their VIP aircraft.

sailas · Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:06 am

Quoting migair54 (Reply 14):
What routes are these B77LR flying in airlines?? DL does JNB if I'm not mistaken, EK SEA,

I remember hearing EK flew the 77L to ARN last year. It might have changed to a 77W now. I hope HEL can get EK's 77L now

SEPilot · Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:13 am

Quoting hilram (Reply 18):

It surprises me that the Government of Japan ordered 77W's instead of 77L's for their VIP aircraft.

Since the payload of a VIP plane is only a fraction of what an airliner hauls, I'm sure that the 77W's can get more than enough range; I suspect that with extra tanks they could go 12,000nm if that is what they want. But probably there are no capitals to which the Japanese PM would fly to that are that far away; they are probably all within range of the 77W as is.

hilram · Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:18 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 20):
Since the payload of a VIP plane is only a fraction of what an airliner hauls, I'm sure that the 77W's can get more than enough range; I suspect that with extra tanks they could go 12,000nm if that is what they want. But probably there are no capitals to which the Japanese PM would fly to that are that far away; they are probably all within range of the 77W as is.

But doesn't the77W burn more fuel than the 77L? And do they really need all that extra space?

b747400erf · Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:00 am

Quoting hilram (Reply 21):
And do they really need all that extra space?

They currently operate a 747, so maybe they do.

SEPilot · Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:05 am

Quoting hilram (Reply 21):

But doesn't the77W burn more fuel than the 77L? And do they really need all that extra space?

I do not think the fuel burn is all that important, as long as it can carry enough to reach its destination with appropriate reserves. But to answer your question, it is obviously yes. As to the extra space, I think they will find a use for it.

Zkpilot · Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:05 am

Whilst it would have cost a bit I'm surprised Boeing didn't offer a 77L but with 77E engines as an option. Part of the high cost of the 77L was the big GE engines. If they had perhaps offered it with the smaller engines the aircraft would have been cheaper to purchase and would have had a better range than the 77E. This could have interested several airlines that were looking for 77E improvements without have to pay or use the larger more expensive 77W or the niche 77L.

B777LRF · Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:17 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 24):
Whilst it would have cost a bit I'm surprised Boeing didn't offer a 77L but with 77E engines as an option

If it had the engines from a 77E, it would also have the MTOW of a 77E. And that would make no sense at all.

PHX787 · Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:40 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 1):
Any carrier who operates the 777-200LR and/or -300ER will find the 777-8 an ideal aircraft.

I dont think DL is replacing their 77L's with the airbus frames....but for the time being I cannot see them ordering the 778 either.

THe 77L will be with DL's fleet for at least another 10-15 years, maybe even longer. That thing is a rugged airplane with lots of cycles left on it.

capri · Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:00 pm

It will be interesting to see orders AT will place early next year and the alliance they will join from what their COO mentioned recently, they have announced a CMN-PEK from jun 15 , they http://www.aeronautique.ma/La-RAM-la...anca-Pekin-en-juin-2015_a3822.html (french article), they just received 4 E190, so the coming weeks will be interesting for AT (RAM), they have 2 787, 1 ready to be flight tested, the other is due in march, 2 options with no schedule yet

bmacleod · Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:12 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 26):
I dont think DL is replacing their 77L's with the airbus frames....but for the time being I cannot see them ordering the 778 either.

Yes. Especially with DL CEO Richard Anderson comments about "not interested in experimental aircraft like the 777X"

[Edited 2014-12-15 07:13:12]

OldAeroGuy · Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:12 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 13):
Considering the fact that Boeing was not even going to bother with the 77L, but was persuaded by some airlines who wanted it to build it, and that it formed the basis for the 77F, I do not think Boeing has any regrets about it.

The 772LR was always in Boeing's plans as it was the basis for the 777F. At one time, Boeing marketing thought the 772LR would outsell the 773ER, based on the sales history of the 772ER vs the 773. What changed the story was the 773ER performance improvements that came out of detail design and flight test. These made the 773ER a clear winner.

seabosdca · Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:51 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 26):
I dont think DL is replacing their 77L's with the airbus frames....but for the time being I cannot see them ordering the 778 either.

I think it will be hard for DL not to replace the 77Ls with A350-900s. The A350-900 can fly every mission DL currently flies with the 77L (yes, including JNB-ATL) and should have something like 15%-20% lower fuel burn. The 77Ls won't be the first planes to leave when the A350s start showing up, but the A350's economics are compelling.

pnwtraveler · Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:14 pm

The LR was always going to be a niche aircraft and helped fund the F version. When those advances were fitted into the 77W it became such a successful version it encroached on the LR's terrain. Was the LR a mistake. No way. Will it be somewhat replaced? Yes by larger more capable aircraft. However. Don't rule out the LR/F aircraft as a basis for a tanker to replace the US Air Force fleet of KC10. As the tight budgets continue to work down the military thinking, such revolutionary things like limiting the number of sailors on ships to reduce costs will reach the Air Force as well. IF the KC10 Fleet is scrapped as has been considered, will a smaller fleet of KC777 or and increase in the number of the 767 version, fill the bill? Quite likely one of the two makes more sense. Totally foreign thinking for the military has been saving 25% of the labor costs for a tanker by eliminating the Engineer position with a new aircraft.

Boeing778X · Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:11 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 26):
I dont think DL is replacing their 77L's with the airbus frames....but for the time being I cannot see them ordering the 778 either.

Yeah, that's true. Let me rephrase that: MOST carriers who operate the 777-200LR and/or -300ER may find the 777-8 ideal.

LH707330 · Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:32 pm

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 31):
The LR was always going to be a niche aircraft and helped fund the F version. When those advances were fitted into the 77W it became such a successful version it encroached on the LR's terrain. Was the LR a mistake. No way. Will it be somewhat replaced? Yes by larger more capable aircraft. However. Don't rule out the LR/F aircraft as a basis for a tanker to replace the US Air Force fleet of KC10. As the tight budgets continue to work down the military thinking, such revolutionary things like limiting the number of sailors on ships to reduce costs will reach the Air Force as well. IF the KC10 Fleet is scrapped as has been considered, will a smaller fleet of KC777 or and increase in the number of the 767 version, fill the bill? Quite likely one of the two makes more sense. Totally foreign thinking for the military has been saving 25% of the labor costs for a tanker by eliminating the Engineer position with a new aircraft.

That would be penny wise, pound foolish. A sailor costs them ~40k a year with fringe, so eliminating 1000 from a 6000-person ship saves you 40M. An FE costs them on the order of 100k per annum, so axing a couple hundred saves them tens of millions. The cost of a new fleet type would far exceed that. One of the reasons they said they didn't want the A330-based tanker was the capex and fuel burn, so a 777 would only make that worse.

Back to the 77L, it's seen it's day in the sun, and was one of the many victims of its larger sister. Had the payload range not been as good on the 77W, the A346 and the 77L would have sold in greater numbers.

AF1565 · Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:14 pm

AC purchased 6 77L. They were originally used on the YYZ-YVR-SYD, YYZ-HKG and YYZ-LHR routes. The 77L on the YYZ-LHR has been replaced with a 788 and the 77L on the YYZ-HKG has been replaced with the 77W. They are struggling to find route for the 77L.

PW100 · Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:08 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 32):
Yeah, that's true. Let me rephrase that: MOST carriers who operate the 777-200LR and/or -300ER may find the 777-8 ideal.

I may be way off, but I do not see why a 778 would be much more popular than the 777-200LR. The 778 will be pretty much in the same boat as the -200LR: Too much airplane for the amount of pax carried. One probably is better of (mis)using a 779 and blocking off seats, as EK is doing on the 77W. Allows for much more flexible fleet planning, than having a smallish subfleet.

Also, the 779 will have around 250+ nm range advantage compared to the 77W (according to Wiki . . . ), so the 778 would probably offer less relative range advantage than a -200LR vs 77W.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 9):
I expect the 778 to be. In only a year, it's nearly reach the number of 777-200LRs ordered

I expect those orders to be fairly flexible, especially since the final configuration and performance specs have not been finalized. Those deposits should be easily transferred to the 779 model (just as many 788 orders ended/will end up as 789).

Not saying Boeing should not be doing the 778. It will be a fantastic performing airplane, but I'm afraid that it won't make much sense economically for most operators. The competition (A350-900/1000 (R?), 779) will not be standing still.
The 778 though will form a great launching pad for the 77XF. Any additional 778 sale will be icing on the cake. Pretty much like the -200LR

Rgds,
PW100

United_fan · Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:33 pm

Quoting AF1565 (Reply 34):
AC purchased 6 77L. They were originally used on the YYZ-YVR-SYD, YYZ-HKG and YYZ-LHR routes. The 77L on the YYZ-LHR has been replaced with a 788 and the 77L on the YYZ-HKG has been replaced with the 77W. They are struggling to find route for the 77L.

They could put it on YYZ-DXB when they start it. But they're going to use the 788,I think.

mjoelnir · Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:13 pm

IMO no further B777-200LR will be sold. Airlines having a use for it, already have it and the other do not need it. If somebody needs a VIP one there are used frames on the market.
IMO the B777-8 will also see only a few more orders, it can easily be, that all frames that will be produced are already on order. Not the first frame produced only for a few airlines.
There is competition from the B777-9, increased range compared to the B777-300ER, the B787-9 and the A350-900, all able to do 99% of what the B777-8 is needed for more economically.

seabosdca · Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:35 pm

Quoting PW100 (Reply 35):
I expect those orders to be fairly flexible, especially since the final configuration and performance specs have not been finalized. Those deposits should be easily transferred to the 779 model (just as many 788 orders ended/will end up as 789).

I think the 777-8s ordered so far will be delivered, because the orders are for the ME3 and the ME3 can use the aircraft for the sort of mission it's designed for, but there will be few other orders. The 787-9, A350-900 or -1000, or 777-9 can fly any likely 777-8 mission for other operators and each one has a cost per seat advantage over the 777-8.

ThReaTeN · Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:43 pm

I'm curious: What improvements/features that were first implemented on the 77L were then carried over to the 77W? And what kind of effect (Ii'm assuming on payload/range) did these changes have on the performance of newer 77W frames?

TWA772LR · Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:55 pm

Quoting AF1565 (Reply 34):
They are struggling to find route for the 77L.

How about YYZ/YUL-JHB/CPT? Or even YVR-BKK/SIN?

delta88 · Tue Dec 16, 2014 12:37 am

I think it may be the end of the 777LR Pax Version, but most likely not the end of the Frieghter. If the Cargo market picks up and cargo operators phase out the MD-11 and MD-10, as well as other older models, then maybe buisness will pick up for the Freighter, but if or unless that happens, production may be slow and far between for the immidiate time.

Viscount724 · Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:59 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 40):
Quoting AF1565 (Reply 34):
They are struggling to find route for the 77L.

How about YYZ/YUL-JNB/CPT? Or even YVR-BKK/SIN?

Not enough premium traffic on those routes. Nonstops that long need significant high yield traffic to cover the high operating costs. And JNB/CPT and especially BKK/SIN are small markets with mostly price-sensitive leisure traffic and no shortage of connecting options. Few of those passengers will pay a premium for nonstop service.

Viscount724 · Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:08 am

Quoting AF1565 (Reply 34):
AC purchased 6 77L. They were originally used on the YYZ-YVR-SYD, YYZ-HKG and YYZ-LHR routes. The 77L on the YYZ-LHR has been replaced with a 788 and the 77L on the YYZ-HKG has been replaced with the 77W. They are struggling to find route for the 77L.

The primary original AC 77L routes were YYZ-YVR-SYD, YYZ-HKG and YYZ-PEK. On the latter two routes they replaced AC's 2 A345s.

LAX772LR · Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:19 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 24):
Whilst it would have cost a bit I'm surprised Boeing didn't offer a 77L but with 77E engines as an option. Part of the high cost of the 77L was the big GE engines.

They couldn't do that without lowering the MTOW quite a bit, which would then reduce the aircraft to a piece of flying-deadweight, a la A345.

Their exclusivity agreement with GE at the time meant that any 777 above 700K would have to wear the GE90-11x... or so the lore goes.

LAX772LR · Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:20 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 30):
The A350-900 can fly every mission DL currently flies with the 77L (yes, including JNB-ATL)

Not to be confrontational... but you keep posting that, with seemingly nothing to corroborate it.

PHX787 · Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:46 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 28):
Yes. Especially with DL CEO Richard Anderson comments about "not interested in experimental aircraft like the 777X"

I take Mr. Anderson's words very lightly. He's been known to surprise people.

It wasn't too long ago that people were thinking of DL to be a boeing stronghold, even after merging with NW.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 30):
I think it will be hard for DL not to replace the 77Ls with A350-900s. The A350-900 can fly every mission DL currently flies with the 77L

True but DL does not need to replace the 77L yet. The 77L was the most recent fleet addition before the 737-900 and 717s were delivered (and remember the 717s are used) so there's really not much of a necessity for them to be replaced with their recent A359 order.

And referring to above, I can probably see DL ordering the 778 or 9 somewhere down the line, after the airframe has its EIS.

OldAeroGuy · Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:10 pm

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 39):
I'm curious: What improvements/features that were first implemented on the 77L were then carried over to the 77W?

Recall that the 773ER EIS was prior to the 772LR EIS. That being the case, the improvement flow went in the opposite direction, from the 773ER to the 772LR.

Boeing778X · Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:18 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 46):
I take Mr. Anderson's words very lightly.

I do too. The 777X may not work for DL, but he is certainly hypocritical for ordering the A330NEO, which is in the same phase as the 777X.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 35):
I may be way off, but I do not see why a 778 would be much more popular than the 777-200LR.

I think the fact that it will be slightly larger than the 777-200LR helps.
But I get where you're coming from. The 777-8 will certainly not be more popular than the 777-9.

But in ten years, that's going to be the sole ULH aircraft. Airlines will have disposed of A340-500s and older 777-200LRs will be retired, not to mention the fact that the 777-8 is most likely the next freighter. It will certainly sell better than the 777-200LR and could nicely replace 747-400F's.

In reality, it could sell just fine.

Stitch · Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:49 pm

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 39):
I'm curious: What improvements/features that were first implemented on the 77L were then carried over to the 77W? And what kind of effect (Ii'm assuming on payload/range) did these changes have on the performance of newer 77W frames?

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 47):
Recall that the 773ER EIS was prior to the 772LR EIS. That being the case, the improvement flow went in the opposite direction, from the 773ER to the 772LR.

The 777-200LR and 777-300ER were designed in parallel. Interest in the 777-300ER was much stronger, so Boeing for a time stopped active development on the 777-200LR (about a year, as I recall, from company newsletters) and continued with the 777-300ER alone. Once interest in the 777-200LR picked up again, Boeing resumed active development.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net